The 2016 Iowa Caucuses
February 1, 2016 2:30 PM Subscribe
Amidst an increasingly unpredictable political season, tonight the Iowa caucuses will finally cast the first votes of the 2016 presidential campaign.
It's an outsider vs. establishment war in both parties, as Republican leaders struggle to dislodge Donald Trump and Ted Cruz from the top while Hillary Clinton marshalls her endorsements and long résumé against the populist zeal of democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.
The best guesses of FiveThirtyEight, BetFair, and Ann Selzer's gold-standard Des Moines Register poll all favor Trump and Clinton, but the race remains very close, and turnout in the demanding and complicated caucus events will be key. Vox provides a helpful video explainer on the process [previously]. Pass the time with FiveThirtyEight's 40-minute elections podcast, and keep an eye on the New York Times live blog of the caucuses for real-time updates once voting starts at 8:00 PM Eastern -- and don't forget to leave your two cents in the MeFi election prediction contest!
Quadrennial reminder that the Iowa Caucus is a undemocratic discriminatory electoral process that's basically a poll tax on people's time that shouldn't be a bellwether for anything, let alone something this important.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [138 favorites]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [138 favorites]
Feel the Bern, Iowa.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 2:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think Trump could still be stopped, but you're probably right on Sanders. Clinton is going to win SC and probably NC and Florida too, if Sanders doesn't win Iowa he'll just have New Hampshire (which is probably in the bag for him at this point).
Trump's danger will be if enough other candidates drop out to let some opposition rally around, say, Rubio (who did pretty well at the last debate and seems to be the obvious not-Trump at this point). But the Democratic side is a 2 horse race (sorry O'Malley) and Sanders has a huge weakness in the South right now, he needs a really strong start to chip away at that.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump's danger will be if enough other candidates drop out to let some opposition rally around, say, Rubio (who did pretty well at the last debate and seems to be the obvious not-Trump at this point). But the Democratic side is a 2 horse race (sorry O'Malley) and Sanders has a huge weakness in the South right now, he needs a really strong start to chip away at that.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
If Trump and Clinton win, two of the late and great Spy magazine's favourite targets get the last laugh...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 2:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 2:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
To get caught up in this early election fever is just what cable outfits want..ad money and pundits babbling. Worse, a long long day by day excitement well before elections means that if you plan to run, you better have heavy money behind you...and that means wealth will control who gets in and who does not. And so we add to this dumb game rather than demanding that elections take far shorter time, as is done in many democratic nations.
posted by Postroad at 2:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 2:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]
Past Republican winners have been Santorum (2012) and Huckabee (2008). I'm feeling better about not worrying about these results, no matter how the press my try to spin them.
posted by benito.strauss at 2:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 2:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
So, how do you think people are going to do in the 2018 midterms?
posted by eriko at 2:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by eriko at 2:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [36 favorites]
I agree, Postroad. All primaries/caucuses should occur on the same day. It should be a Sunday. It should be one month before the general.
posted by Justinian at 2:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
So how bad will the snowstorm be tonight?
Related: do they always have a snowstorm on caucus night, or does it just seem that way?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Related: do they always have a snowstorm on caucus night, or does it just seem that way?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
you better have heavy money behind you...and that means wealth will control who gets in and who does not
There is some truth to that, but that's actually one of Bernie Sanders' many selling points. His campaign has been funded entirely by small donors, raising over $20 million in January alone, and has been able to keep up with Clinton's, er, "less-grassroots-based" fundraising. Maybe the truism that nobody can even hope to compete without corporate/big-money donations is not quite as true as people think.
posted by dialetheia at 2:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
There is some truth to that, but that's actually one of Bernie Sanders' many selling points. His campaign has been funded entirely by small donors, raising over $20 million in January alone, and has been able to keep up with Clinton's, er, "less-grassroots-based" fundraising. Maybe the truism that nobody can even hope to compete without corporate/big-money donations is not quite as true as people think.
posted by dialetheia at 2:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, I'll be caucusing for Bernie here in Iowa City, followed by burgers and beers at Short's. Snow be damned.
posted by Lutoslawski at 2:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [46 favorites]
posted by Lutoslawski at 2:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [46 favorites]
May the farce be with you.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
On that -- Trump Debates Trump (The Late Show with Stephen Colbert), which is pretty thin, compared to Ellen's 11-Trump Debate Panel.
Back to Iowa:
Why Iowa Matters For Trump And Sanders (five theories from Nate Silver, 538)
Why do the Iowa caucuses matter? Because everyone thinks they do. ( Andrew Prokop, Vox)
Why do the Iowa caucuses matter? (Because it's the first step in nominating a candidate) (Dalia Hatuqa, Al Jazeera)
posted by filthy light thief at 2:46 PM on February 1, 2016
Back to Iowa:
Why Iowa Matters For Trump And Sanders (five theories from Nate Silver, 538)
Why do the Iowa caucuses matter? Because everyone thinks they do. ( Andrew Prokop, Vox)
Why do the Iowa caucuses matter? (Because it's the first step in nominating a candidate) (Dalia Hatuqa, Al Jazeera)
posted by filthy light thief at 2:46 PM on February 1, 2016
So how bad will the snowstorm be tonight?I don't think it's going to be a factor. It sounds like it's not going to hit until the wee hours of the morning, and it's not clear that it's going to amount to much anyway.
I will probably be posting from the caucus out of sheer boredom.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
As a non American, I'm completely transfixed by the craziness of the whole thing. Caucuses, superdelegates, faithless electors, brokered conventions, midnight voting in Dixville Notch. It's amazing threatre.
As someone who lived in America for a year and has a lot of friends there, fingers crossed the right person gets the job and they get some good done.
posted by kersplunk at 2:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
As someone who lived in America for a year and has a lot of friends there, fingers crossed the right person gets the job and they get some good done.
posted by kersplunk at 2:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Warned in advance that tomato-wielding protesters might be in the crowd, Mr. Trump told his fans to be ready.
“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them,” Mr. Trump said, promising to pay any legal fees they might incur.
Stay classy, the Donald.
posted by dersins at 2:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them,” Mr. Trump said, promising to pay any legal fees they might incur.
Stay classy, the Donald.
posted by dersins at 2:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Meanwhile. The. Daily. Fucking. Kos. And. The. New. York. Fucking. Times. Are. Publising. Articles. Totally. Damning. Of. Hillary. And Bill.
And their hundreds of millions of dirty money. And their naked quid pro quos.
Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus? What is it about Hillary that people steadfastly refuse to get it? Hypnotism? Black magic? Where's the cognitive dissonance? Where's the outrage?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
And their hundreds of millions of dirty money. And their naked quid pro quos.
Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus? What is it about Hillary that people steadfastly refuse to get it? Hypnotism? Black magic? Where's the cognitive dissonance? Where's the outrage?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
So, how do you think people are going to do in the 2018 midterms?
The Trump Imperium will have no need for midterms.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
The Trump Imperium will have no need for midterms.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Thats the New York Review of Books, not the NYT. The New York Times endorsed Hillary.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
Donald Trump with a London Cockney accent.
Not sure that it's particularly relevant, but I wanted to get rid of it, so I'm leaving it here.
posted by Kabanos at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Not sure that it's particularly relevant, but I wanted to get rid of it, so I'm leaving it here.
posted by Kabanos at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
fingers crossed the right person gets the job and they get some good done.
Nah, Elizabeth Warren has stuck to her guns about not running for the office this cycle, which is a damned shame because what I really want is a gender-swapped Bernie Sanders, maybe 20 years younger.
The Trump Imperium will have no need for midterms.
You laugh, but if Bernie makes a good showing and Bloomberg makes good on his threat...
posted by Ryvar at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nah, Elizabeth Warren has stuck to her guns about not running for the office this cycle, which is a damned shame because what I really want is a gender-swapped Bernie Sanders, maybe 20 years younger.
The Trump Imperium will have no need for midterms.
You laugh, but if Bernie makes a good showing and Bloomberg makes good on his threat...
posted by Ryvar at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
So, how do you think people are going to do in the 2018 midterms?
As badly as people do every election.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
As badly as people do every election.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
i support Clinton for the same reason I'm not just ready to take up arms and revolt. Clinton represents a status quo that hurts a lot of people but could be far worse.
If I was in Flint, I might feel differently.
posted by angrycat at 2:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
If I was in Flint, I might feel differently.
posted by angrycat at 2:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus?
Because people believe she can beat Trump, and that's the overriding concern. Sanders is great but if he doesn't win the general who cares?
posted by Justinian at 2:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
Because people believe she can beat Trump, and that's the overriding concern. Sanders is great but if he doesn't win the general who cares?
posted by Justinian at 2:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
All right, fellow Republicans. Now is the time for you to stop trolling, and just vote for fucking Rubio already. Donald Trump is just what you're using to scare me. I understand. It's OK. As long as you don't actually fucking vote for him.
posted by corb at 2:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by corb at 2:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
DON'T YOU WANT TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, CORB?
posted by Justinian at 2:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]
I actually think the big open question of this caucus is whether any of the Trump people actually turn out. Hillary vs. Bernie is interesting, but that's much more interesting.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, as much as the Bernbots have convinced themselves otherwise, there is a sizable contingent of people who actually like and support "$Hillary". Clinton is, in fact, an extremely accomplished and competent person and a strong candidate.
ZenMasterThis, if those weren't just rhetorical questions and you actually wonder at Clinton's likely win or her support, you're too far inside the Bern bubble to engage in useful discussion.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [30 favorites]
ZenMasterThis, if those weren't just rhetorical questions and you actually wonder at Clinton's likely win or her support, you're too far inside the Bern bubble to engage in useful discussion.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [30 favorites]
Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus?
Because people believe she can beat Trump, and that's the overriding concern. Sanders is great but if he doesn't win the general who cares?
John Kerry supporters called from 2004 and boy do they have a surprise for us on how that thinking turns out.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [62 favorites]
Because people believe she can beat Trump, and that's the overriding concern. Sanders is great but if he doesn't win the general who cares?
John Kerry supporters called from 2004 and boy do they have a surprise for us on how that thinking turns out.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 2:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [62 favorites]
As a lefty dude Sanders strikes me as a great big "It's really all about class you guys" lefty who is thiiiiiis close to busting out "identity politics are a bourgeois distraction", which is super-bad in an electoral environment increasingly influenced by POC voters. Clinton polls much better with members of racial and gender minorities, and that's a big deal for me, both in the sense that those are groups we should be paying lots of attention to and in the sense of who can actually win the general.
(Also, leaving aside policies, the Sanders rhetoric has me afraid that he'll be 1st Term Obama as fuck, while Clinton has no delusions about the GOP being amenable to working with her. Given the increasing psychosis of the Congressional GOP, I'd rather have a Democratic President with wide-open eyes.)
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [74 favorites]
(Also, leaving aside policies, the Sanders rhetoric has me afraid that he'll be 1st Term Obama as fuck, while Clinton has no delusions about the GOP being amenable to working with her. Given the increasing psychosis of the Congressional GOP, I'd rather have a Democratic President with wide-open eyes.)
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [74 favorites]
John Kerry supporters called from 2004 and boy do they have a surprise for us on how that thinking turns out.
But... that Kerry lost doesn't imply that Dean wouldn't have done worse?
posted by Justinian at 2:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
But... that Kerry lost doesn't imply that Dean wouldn't have done worse?
posted by Justinian at 2:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?
posted by Capt. Renault at 3:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 3:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
Meanwhile. The. Daily. Fucking. Kos. And. The. New. York. Fucking. Times. Are. Publising. Articles. Totally. Damning. Of. Hillary. And Bill.
The same NYT that endorsed her? And yeah, sorry but the wreck list of DailyKos has been shit for a long time.
Which is the answer to your question. There are more accusations than proof and accusations by people with an agenda. Why ask such a silly question?
posted by bgal81 at 3:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
The same NYT that endorsed her? And yeah, sorry but the wreck list of DailyKos has been shit for a long time.
Which is the answer to your question. There are more accusations than proof and accusations by people with an agenda. Why ask such a silly question?
posted by bgal81 at 3:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ted Cruz tries, fails to get a hug from his daughter on campaign trail.
posted by peeedro at 3:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 3:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]
John Kerry supporters called from 2004 and boy do they have a surprise for us on how that thinking turns out.
But... that Kerry lost doesn't imply that Dean wouldn't have done worse?
Yeah, as I soon as I posted I realize that it's a totally bad analogy about something I apparently still have VERY raw feelings about, ripped opened every 4 years by the Iowa caucus.
And I apologize to Secretary Clinton for comparing her as a candidate to Kerry, which isn't really fair.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
But... that Kerry lost doesn't imply that Dean wouldn't have done worse?
Yeah, as I soon as I posted I realize that it's a totally bad analogy about something I apparently still have VERY raw feelings about, ripped opened every 4 years by the Iowa caucus.
And I apologize to Secretary Clinton for comparing her as a candidate to Kerry, which isn't really fair.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
To make a strained analogy, Daily Kos reminds me of westeros.org with the anti-Clinton contingent playing the part of Elio and Clinton playing the part of the TV show. And me laughing at all of them.
I told you it was strained.
posted by Justinian at 3:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I told you it was strained.
posted by Justinian at 3:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly, 2016!Kerry shouldn't even be compared to 2004!Kerry.
posted by bgal81 at 3:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bgal81 at 3:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
What I think about when I think about caucuses.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I would go with Linda, myself, Justinian.
posted by bgal81 at 3:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bgal81 at 3:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus? What is it about Hillary that people steadfastly refuse to get it? Hypnotism? Black magic? Where's the cognitive dissonance? Where's the outrage?
And people wonder why some hardcore Sanders supporters have a bit of a reputation for being condescending and arrogant.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [48 favorites]
And people wonder why some hardcore Sanders supporters have a bit of a reputation for being condescending and arrogant.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [48 favorites]
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but what would make America great again, from Republican standpoint, is nominating Rubio, and reclaiming the party without the bigotry. Make America great again, by preaching that it is a country of hard-working immigrants, who come for the opportunity and stay for the values.
(Lafayette, Hamilton: "Immigrants! We get the job done!)
posted by corb at 3:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
(Lafayette, Hamilton: "Immigrants! We get the job done!)
posted by corb at 3:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
There are more accusations than proof and accusations by people with an agenda.
So what's Simon Head's agenda? (Asking sincerely; don't know a lot about him.)
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:04 PM on February 1, 2016
So what's Simon Head's agenda? (Asking sincerely; don't know a lot about him.)
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:04 PM on February 1, 2016
(Shrieking noises intensify)
posted by boo_radley at 3:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by boo_radley at 3:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
So basically, some Bernie people think that Hillary is beholden to Wall Street, etc.,etc., etc., and some Hillary people think that Bernie supporters are over-privileged white dudes who like feeling awesome and pure and don't really have to worry about whether he's viable, because they're not the ones who are going to be screwed if the Republicans win. But to be honest, most people I know don't fall into either camp: they're supporting one or the other, but they don't hate the other one or their supporters. But I have to say that some of Bernie's supporters aren't doing him a lot of favors.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [34 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [34 favorites]
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but what would make America great again, from Republican standpoint, is nominating Rubio, and reclaiming the party without the bigotry. Make America great again, by preaching that it is a country of hard-working immigrants, who come for the opportunity and stay for the values.
I think that misses the core problem, which is that the entire worldview rests on the faulty idea that America isn't great now, that "making America great" has any actual meaning, or that it's a worthwhile aim.
It's like people going on about "taking America back". Back from whom? Why isn't America great now?
Well, we all know what the Republicans mean when they say those things, even if they strenuously deny it. It's the reason why guys like Trump or Cruz are winning.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
I think that misses the core problem, which is that the entire worldview rests on the faulty idea that America isn't great now, that "making America great" has any actual meaning, or that it's a worthwhile aim.
It's like people going on about "taking America back". Back from whom? Why isn't America great now?
Well, we all know what the Republicans mean when they say those things, even if they strenuously deny it. It's the reason why guys like Trump or Cruz are winning.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
Yes, well, the same could be said for some of Hillary's supporters.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 3:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
"As a lefty dude Sanders strikes me as a great big "It's really all about class you guys" lefty who is thiiiiiis close to busting out "identity politics are a bourgeois distraction", which is super-bad in an electoral environment increasingly influenced by POC voters. Clinton polls much better with members of racial and gender minorities, and that's a big deal for me, both in the sense that those are groups we should be paying lots of attention to and in the sense of who can actually win the general."
Socialism is racist, let's elect the woman who supported mass incarceration, welfare reform, and multiple horrific wars against brown people!
Maybe identity politics really are a bourgeois distraction.
posted by zipadee at 3:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [36 favorites]
Socialism is racist, let's elect the woman who supported mass incarceration, welfare reform, and multiple horrific wars against brown people!
Maybe identity politics really are a bourgeois distraction.
posted by zipadee at 3:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [36 favorites]
Donald Trump with a London Cockney accent.
...is basically just that racist guy down the pub who keeps trying to insinuate that he's "well 'ard."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
...is basically just that racist guy down the pub who keeps trying to insinuate that he's "well 'ard."
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
So what's Simon Head's agenda?
Don't know about him specifically, but the New York Review of Books is a fairly left-wing journal as such things go. Supporting Bernie is unsurprising. If the New York Times supported Sanders that would be a much bigger story, since they're in the generally center-left (for America) field that Clinton occupies.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Don't know about him specifically, but the New York Review of Books is a fairly left-wing journal as such things go. Supporting Bernie is unsurprising. If the New York Times supported Sanders that would be a much bigger story, since they're in the generally center-left (for America) field that Clinton occupies.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ted Cruz tries, fails to get a hug from his daughter on campaign trail.
I like how she tries to flick him away with her fingers.
posted by Kabanos at 3:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
I like how she tries to flick him away with her fingers.
posted by Kabanos at 3:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's like people going on about "taking America back". Back from whom?
Women, blacks, hispanics and gays.
posted by eriko at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [54 favorites]
Women, blacks, hispanics and gays.
posted by eriko at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [54 favorites]
All right, fellow Republicans. Now is the time for you to stop trolling, and just vote for fucking Rubio already. Donald Trump is just what you're using to scare me. I understand. It's OK. As long as you don't actually fucking vote for him.
posted by corb at 5:55 PM
My Facebook feed is 50% evangelical paleo-conservatives (everyone back home, basically). After Ben Carson's campaign imploded a couple of them toyed with the notion of Ted Cruz for a week and now they've all gone radio silent in the middle of one of the biggest political circuses this country (and I guess the world, by extension?) has ever seen. Not a single mention of Rubio except by me as a "well, here's the least-worst guy you've got."
At the moment I'm not sure the non-idiot, non-Tea Party Republicans really have a candidate they're interested in claiming as their own (yourself and about 15% of the party excepted).
posted by Ryvar at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by corb at 5:55 PM
My Facebook feed is 50% evangelical paleo-conservatives (everyone back home, basically). After Ben Carson's campaign imploded a couple of them toyed with the notion of Ted Cruz for a week and now they've all gone radio silent in the middle of one of the biggest political circuses this country (and I guess the world, by extension?) has ever seen. Not a single mention of Rubio except by me as a "well, here's the least-worst guy you've got."
At the moment I'm not sure the non-idiot, non-Tea Party Republicans really have a candidate they're interested in claiming as their own (yourself and about 15% of the party excepted).
posted by Ryvar at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yes, well, the same could be said for some of Hillary's supporters.
No, not really.
That's kind of the problem with fanaticism. Fanatics assume the other side is equally and oppositely fanatical, but that's generally not the case, and it's not really the case with the Clinton-Sanders split. Sanders has inspired a small but very vocal group of very committed supporters in the Ron Paul vein.
Not that all or even most Sanders fans are like this, just that it's false that this is a case of "both sides do it".
posted by Sangermaine at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
No, not really.
That's kind of the problem with fanaticism. Fanatics assume the other side is equally and oppositely fanatical, but that's generally not the case, and it's not really the case with the Clinton-Sanders split. Sanders has inspired a small but very vocal group of very committed supporters in the Ron Paul vein.
Not that all or even most Sanders fans are like this, just that it's false that this is a case of "both sides do it".
posted by Sangermaine at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Maybe identity politics really are a bourgeois distraction.And maybe that kind of statement is why Bernie is struggling so much with women and people of color.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
Can't Obama just run again?
posted by bgal81 at 3:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by bgal81 at 3:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
I tend to think Trump doesn't need to win Iowa. In fact, I think he would probably be better off coming in a close 2nd to Cruz.
If Cruz loses to Trump in Iowa, particularly with any significant margin, he may be mortally wounded. Given that the field will likely shrink dramatically after NH, that could lead to an effective Trump vs Rubio fight, and I think that would finally get support to coalesce around Rubio, while Trump would hit his ceiling.
On the other hand, if Cruz wins, we could see a three man race going all the way to the convention.
As crazy as Trump is, I'd rather face him in the general, since I think Rubio could actually be electable.
posted by tau_ceti at 3:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
If Cruz loses to Trump in Iowa, particularly with any significant margin, he may be mortally wounded. Given that the field will likely shrink dramatically after NH, that could lead to an effective Trump vs Rubio fight, and I think that would finally get support to coalesce around Rubio, while Trump would hit his ceiling.
On the other hand, if Cruz wins, we could see a three man race going all the way to the convention.
As crazy as Trump is, I'd rather face him in the general, since I think Rubio could actually be electable.
posted by tau_ceti at 3:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, but Michelle Obama probably can.
posted by corb at 3:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by corb at 3:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]
what would make America great again, from Republican standpoint, is nominating Rubio
Ew, no. I can't fathom why anyone with a uterus would support a politician whose platform is built on defunding Planned Parenthood and fully outlawing abortion, including exceptions for saving the life of the mother.
posted by palomar at 3:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
Ew, no. I can't fathom why anyone with a uterus would support a politician whose platform is built on defunding Planned Parenthood and fully outlawing abortion, including exceptions for saving the life of the mother.
posted by palomar at 3:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
The Clintons as portrayed in that DailyKos article almost sound like villains from The Blacklist.
Not that that's going to stop me from voting for her when Sanders can't overcome her inertia, because the alternative is a country controlled by religious fundamentalists :^(
posted by Small Dollar at 3:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not that that's going to stop me from voting for her when Sanders can't overcome her inertia, because the alternative is a country controlled by religious fundamentalists :^(
posted by Small Dollar at 3:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Apparently somebody at Clinton HQ must have found a dusty old copy of their 2008 playbook recently, because a whole lot of the Clinton supporters on my FB feed this week have gotten unapologetically nasty this week, mostly resorting to ad-hominem attacks on Sanders supporters, and nonspecific praise for her "pragmatism" and "growth." (This is mostly among gay men in DC for whatever that is worth)
It's really disquieting, because both of Democrats were running really nice campaigns that if anything strengthened both candidates' positions, and assuredly strengthened their party as a whole (Sanders forced Clinton to step up her game on economic issues, and Clinton forced Sanders to reach out to minority communities. The process actually works when everybody engages in civil debate!)
Really, the whole tone of smug contempt that many of Clinton's supporters have is just painfully insufferable, and could backfire if it continues much longer, just like it did for Kerry.
Personally, I see little in Clinton that inspires anything more than tepid support. Her support for the Iraq war really should have been an automatic disqualifier (and could become a huge liability in our diplomatic affairs), while Bill's legacy of "pragmatism" is looking awfully tarnished over time. Hillary is not Bill, but I see little to believe that their political philosophy is much different. Bill spent an enormous amount of political capital to appease congress (throwing my civil rights under the bus in the process), and was thanked with an impeachment.
posted by schmod at 3:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [51 favorites]
It's really disquieting, because both of Democrats were running really nice campaigns that if anything strengthened both candidates' positions, and assuredly strengthened their party as a whole (Sanders forced Clinton to step up her game on economic issues, and Clinton forced Sanders to reach out to minority communities. The process actually works when everybody engages in civil debate!)
Really, the whole tone of smug contempt that many of Clinton's supporters have is just painfully insufferable, and could backfire if it continues much longer, just like it did for Kerry.
Personally, I see little in Clinton that inspires anything more than tepid support. Her support for the Iraq war really should have been an automatic disqualifier (and could become a huge liability in our diplomatic affairs), while Bill's legacy of "pragmatism" is looking awfully tarnished over time. Hillary is not Bill, but I see little to believe that their political philosophy is much different. Bill spent an enormous amount of political capital to appease congress (throwing my civil rights under the bus in the process), and was thanked with an impeachment.
posted by schmod at 3:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [51 favorites]
I am of two minds on the whole caucus thing. From an idealistic standpoint, the parties are not part of the government, and I don't like the idea of putting on a big public election to determine who the party will endorse.
From a realistic perspective, with our stupid two-party system, so many elections are determined by who the party is supporting and therefore party endorsement should be as open as possible.
posted by ckape at 3:16 PM on February 1, 2016
From a realistic perspective, with our stupid two-party system, so many elections are determined by who the party is supporting and therefore party endorsement should be as open as possible.
posted by ckape at 3:16 PM on February 1, 2016
And maybe that kind of statement is why Bernie is struggling so much with women and people of color.
---
let's elect the woman who supported mass incarceration, welfare reform, and multiple horrific wars against brown people!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
---
let's elect the woman who supported mass incarceration, welfare reform, and multiple horrific wars against brown people!
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus?
She's the business-as-usual, don't-rock-the-boat candidate. The safe bet. She represents stability and the centre right democrat idea of electability.
I'm sure she'd be a competent if boring president who would deal with anything that comes her way well while not advancing any particular cause. She has the advantage over the republicans of not being fucking crazy and seeming like an adult. For America it's really not a bad outcome.
Her campaign is going to be HORRIBLE though. The moment any far right position of her opposition seems like it's gaining ground she's going to tack to a position that's 10% less awful than in them give speeches about it being the only practical way. Not looking forwards to that at all.
posted by Artw at 3:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
She's the business-as-usual, don't-rock-the-boat candidate. The safe bet. She represents stability and the centre right democrat idea of electability.
I'm sure she'd be a competent if boring president who would deal with anything that comes her way well while not advancing any particular cause. She has the advantage over the republicans of not being fucking crazy and seeming like an adult. For America it's really not a bad outcome.
Her campaign is going to be HORRIBLE though. The moment any far right position of her opposition seems like it's gaining ground she's going to tack to a position that's 10% less awful than in them give speeches about it being the only practical way. Not looking forwards to that at all.
posted by Artw at 3:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
I am pretty sure this is what most Kossacks picture when they think of Hillary Clinton, tbh.
posted by bgal81 at 3:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bgal81 at 3:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, not really.
Yes, it can, because every time somebody like you makes condescending and arrogant assertions with zero support it makes me want to vote for Clinton even less than I already do.
Sanders has inspired a small but very vocal group of very committed supporters in the Ron Paul vein.
Of course, which is why Sanders and Clinton are polling more or less at the same level.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yes, it can, because every time somebody like you makes condescending and arrogant assertions with zero support it makes me want to vote for Clinton even less than I already do.
Sanders has inspired a small but very vocal group of very committed supporters in the Ron Paul vein.
Of course, which is why Sanders and Clinton are polling more or less at the same level.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
This is mostly among gay men in DC for whatever that is worth
Is Hillary popular in the gay male community? I've had a few discussions with my best friend (who is a gay Seattleite) and he is a Hillary supporter and likes to use the word "unelectable" with regard to Bernie.
posted by Fleebnork at 3:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is Hillary popular in the gay male community? I've had a few discussions with my best friend (who is a gay Seattleite) and he is a Hillary supporter and likes to use the word "unelectable" with regard to Bernie.
posted by Fleebnork at 3:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why is Hillary even close / winning in this caucus? What is it about Hillary that people steadfastly refuse to get it? Hypnotism? Black magic? Where's the cognitive dissonance? Where's the outrage?
People do get it. But there is a real fear that a Benie nomination would result in a Republican victory in the general and the eventual appointment of even more conservative Supreme Court justices than Alito, Thomas and Scalia.
posted by notreally at 3:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
People do get it. But there is a real fear that a Benie nomination would result in a Republican victory in the general and the eventual appointment of even more conservative Supreme Court justices than Alito, Thomas and Scalia.
posted by notreally at 3:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I wonder how much American electoral politics and it's advertising contribute to cord cutting?
I'm pretty glad I can just Netflix the commercials away in 2016 and I'll probably spring for commercial free Hulu as soon as it gets annoying there.
posted by srboisvert at 3:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty glad I can just Netflix the commercials away in 2016 and I'll probably spring for commercial free Hulu as soon as it gets annoying there.
posted by srboisvert at 3:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of course, which is why Sanders and Clinton are polling more or less at the same level.
You completely missed my point, which is that among the Sanders supporters is a very dedicated group of near-fanatical supporters, hence the Paul comparison. That's one of Sanders's strengths, the devotion he inspires in some. It's not really present in the Clinton camp, they're not identical.
Vote for who you like, but be honest about the ways things are.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
You completely missed my point, which is that among the Sanders supporters is a very dedicated group of near-fanatical supporters, hence the Paul comparison. That's one of Sanders's strengths, the devotion he inspires in some. It's not really present in the Clinton camp, they're not identical.
Vote for who you like, but be honest about the ways things are.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, it can, because every time somebody like you makes condescending and arrogant assertions with zero support it makes me want to vote for Clinton even less than I already do.
Time to spend less time on the interwebs then.
Seriously, Clinton's camp was horrid in 2008, Sanders camp is horrid now (ask BLM, PP, and Ta-Nehisi Coates). This isn't a zero-sum game - both sides can be shitty.
posted by bgal81 at 3:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Time to spend less time on the interwebs then.
Seriously, Clinton's camp was horrid in 2008, Sanders camp is horrid now (ask BLM, PP, and Ta-Nehisi Coates). This isn't a zero-sum game - both sides can be shitty.
posted by bgal81 at 3:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Really, the whole tone of smug contempt that many of Clinton's supporters have is just painfully insufferable, and could backfire if it continues much longer, just like it did for Kerry.
Yes. Apparently, everyone has forgotten the 2008 race, because Clinton and Obama supporters never said anything nasty about anyone, until, oh, about January 15th.
Really, what I'm going to do is count shitty comments from either side and support the other one. If I wanted to go with the side assholes are supporting, the GOP has a much wider selection.
posted by eriko at 3:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes. Apparently, everyone has forgotten the 2008 race, because Clinton and Obama supporters never said anything nasty about anyone, until, oh, about January 15th.
Really, what I'm going to do is count shitty comments from either side and support the other one. If I wanted to go with the side assholes are supporting, the GOP has a much wider selection.
posted by eriko at 3:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Socialism is racist, let's elect the woman who supported mass incarceration, welfare reform, and multiple horrific wars against brown people!
As a white dude it wouldn't occur to me to tell women and POC that I know what's in their interest better than they do.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]
As a white dude it wouldn't occur to me to tell women and POC that I know what's in their interest better than they do.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]
and reclaiming the party without the bigotry
Crack the Party! Overturn FPTP! I want a house of Reps with Libertarians, Constitutionalist, Republicans, Democrats, Social Democrats, Greens ....
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Crack the Party! Overturn FPTP! I want a house of Reps with Libertarians, Constitutionalist, Republicans, Democrats, Social Democrats, Greens ....
posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, not really.
I'll vote for whichever Democratic candidate ends up in the general, but her recent comments on single payer should be really, really problematic to anyone who is left-of-right-wing. She's taken millions and millions of dollars from big pharma and insurance companies over the years. She's in the pocket of big business, particularly that of their lobbyists, and if any of her team and her supporters will one day ever be honest about this, that will be a truly welcome change, because that will let us maybe begin to address the truly toxic influence of money on legislation and public policy.
Vote for who you like, but be honest about the ways things are.
That goes both ways.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]
I'll vote for whichever Democratic candidate ends up in the general, but her recent comments on single payer should be really, really problematic to anyone who is left-of-right-wing. She's taken millions and millions of dollars from big pharma and insurance companies over the years. She's in the pocket of big business, particularly that of their lobbyists, and if any of her team and her supporters will one day ever be honest about this, that will be a truly welcome change, because that will let us maybe begin to address the truly toxic influence of money on legislation and public policy.
Vote for who you like, but be honest about the ways things are.
That goes both ways.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]
I sense some lingering bitterness over the short-lived Lessig run.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Sangermaine at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
the whole tone of smug contempt that many of Clinton's supporters have is just painfully insufferable
It's so weird to see this charge, because as someone currently undecided, holy shit are the Bernie supporters a huge turn-off... typically because they're pulling things like this, or shitting all over anyone who isn't 10000000% in the tank for Bernie.
posted by palomar at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
It's so weird to see this charge, because as someone currently undecided, holy shit are the Bernie supporters a huge turn-off... typically because they're pulling things like this, or shitting all over anyone who isn't 10000000% in the tank for Bernie.
posted by palomar at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
i just want bernie to stand up straight, is that so much to ask?
posted by poffin boffin at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
And maybe that kind of statement is why Bernie is struggling so much with women and people of color.
"Struggling so much with women" that among women 45 and younger Sanders outpolls Clinton 48%-33%.
posted by junco at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [37 favorites]
"Struggling so much with women" that among women 45 and younger Sanders outpolls Clinton 48%-33%.
posted by junco at 3:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [37 favorites]
Maybe identity politics really are a bourgeois distraction.
So the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is... no, wait. okay, the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is that it is inherently patriarchal and white supremacist when deployed in a patriarchal, white supremacist country like the United States. That's the thing that gets me particularly annoyed by it; it's dumb and it's wrong and it's politically useless; a group that describes "identity politics" as a bourgeois distraction is by its nature not left in any meaningful way.
But what I was going to say particularly annoys me about it is that it's antique terminology that no one actually uses anymore, aside from people who use it as a term of abuse (sort of like how other conservatives, conservatives who actually realize that they're conservatives, use the term "race card" as a term of abuse).
The other, other thing that annoys me is that people who use "identity politics" as a term of abuse and then describe "identity politics" as a "bourgeois distraction" clearly haven't ever read Marx particularly well. If you read like the Bolsheviks and Peter Taaffe, but not Marx, you might walk away with the idea that the types of hyperexploitation that happen based on gendered and raced lines don't matter, or with the idea that the way we are gendered and raced under kyriarchical systems is a distraction from the "real" class based oppression we experience under capitalism. But if you sit down with a copy of Capital and actually read the thing, you quickly discover that Marx's interpretive framework isn't nearly as simplistic and cartoonish as most people who claim to be Marxists say it is.
tl;dr: feel free to say all the dumb regressive shit you want, but don't blame Marx for your own bad ideas, and don't pretend like being left requires having bad ideas about how raced, gendered oppression works.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [46 favorites]
So the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is... no, wait. okay, the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is that it is inherently patriarchal and white supremacist when deployed in a patriarchal, white supremacist country like the United States. That's the thing that gets me particularly annoyed by it; it's dumb and it's wrong and it's politically useless; a group that describes "identity politics" as a bourgeois distraction is by its nature not left in any meaningful way.
But what I was going to say particularly annoys me about it is that it's antique terminology that no one actually uses anymore, aside from people who use it as a term of abuse (sort of like how other conservatives, conservatives who actually realize that they're conservatives, use the term "race card" as a term of abuse).
The other, other thing that annoys me is that people who use "identity politics" as a term of abuse and then describe "identity politics" as a "bourgeois distraction" clearly haven't ever read Marx particularly well. If you read like the Bolsheviks and Peter Taaffe, but not Marx, you might walk away with the idea that the types of hyperexploitation that happen based on gendered and raced lines don't matter, or with the idea that the way we are gendered and raced under kyriarchical systems is a distraction from the "real" class based oppression we experience under capitalism. But if you sit down with a copy of Capital and actually read the thing, you quickly discover that Marx's interpretive framework isn't nearly as simplistic and cartoonish as most people who claim to be Marxists say it is.
tl;dr: feel free to say all the dumb regressive shit you want, but don't blame Marx for your own bad ideas, and don't pretend like being left requires having bad ideas about how raced, gendered oppression works.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [46 favorites]
I see little in Clinton that inspires anything more than tepid support. Her support for the Iraq war really should have been an automatic disqualifier
You are aware that Clinton was Secretary of State for quite a while, much more recently, and widely appreciated as one of the most effective in that arena, yes?
posted by Dashy at 3:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
You are aware that Clinton was Secretary of State for quite a while, much more recently, and widely appreciated as one of the most effective in that arena, yes?
posted by Dashy at 3:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
Crack the Party! Overturn FPTP! I want a house of Reps with Libertarians, Constitutionalist, Republicans, Democrats, Social Democrats, Greens ....
It's a nice thought. Unless you get something like Italy, where coalition governments tend to fall and go to early elections, or, even worse, the Israeli Knesset, where a bunch of hardline religious minority parties set a big chunk of the agenda, ruling out compromises. (And one can imagine, say, neo-Confederate parties couched in the language of Calvinist theology or similar acting as kingmakers, for a price, when neither the mainstream right nor the mainstream left can muster enough votes to form a government.)
posted by acb at 3:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's a nice thought. Unless you get something like Italy, where coalition governments tend to fall and go to early elections, or, even worse, the Israeli Knesset, where a bunch of hardline religious minority parties set a big chunk of the agenda, ruling out compromises. (And one can imagine, say, neo-Confederate parties couched in the language of Calvinist theology or similar acting as kingmakers, for a price, when neither the mainstream right nor the mainstream left can muster enough votes to form a government.)
posted by acb at 3:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Field Guide to Ted Cruz
That brings us to the final rule. Cruz is not running for vice-president. He’s not angling for a cabinet position. He’s not positioning himself for a gubernatorial campaign, trying to promote his book, or auditioning for a gig on Fox News. Cruz is running for president because he wants to be president, and because, having surveyed the 2016 political landscape with his dauntingly intelligent and highly strategic mind, he concluded that he can win. The day he announced his campaign, I learned two things. Cruz sees a path to the presidency. And the path exists.posted by the man of twists and turns at 3:29 PM on February 1, 2016
Really, the whole tone of smug contempt that many of Clinton's supporters have is just painfully insufferable, and could backfire if it continues much longer, just like it did for Kerry.
As a very undecided Democrat who likes both Clinton and Bernie, and is generally pained by reservations about both of them and their supporters, there's plenty of smugness coming from both sides of this.
Contempt, I see more coming from Bernie supporters aimed towards Clinton than vice-versa... at least at this point. I think it's mostly from the tone-deaf group of enthusiastic white dudes who don't realize how deeply unappealing their whole "dank Bernie Sanders memes against Hillary" thing is to people outside their group. Clinton was seeming out-of-touch with a lot of her social media appeal-to-the-snake people stuff at first, but now she looks like the more classy candidate in comparison to a lot of the bro-y stuff Bernie supporters are throwing around. Which is honestly pretty ridiculous, given Bernie's wonderful record of principle, but it's true. His supporters are gonna be a big problem going forward, I think.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [31 favorites]
As a very undecided Democrat who likes both Clinton and Bernie, and is generally pained by reservations about both of them and their supporters, there's plenty of smugness coming from both sides of this.
Contempt, I see more coming from Bernie supporters aimed towards Clinton than vice-versa... at least at this point. I think it's mostly from the tone-deaf group of enthusiastic white dudes who don't realize how deeply unappealing their whole "dank Bernie Sanders memes against Hillary" thing is to people outside their group. Clinton was seeming out-of-touch with a lot of her social media appeal-to-the-snake people stuff at first, but now she looks like the more classy candidate in comparison to a lot of the bro-y stuff Bernie supporters are throwing around. Which is honestly pretty ridiculous, given Bernie's wonderful record of principle, but it's true. His supporters are gonna be a big problem going forward, I think.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [31 favorites]
Marx's interpretive framework isn't nearly as simplistic and cartoonish as most people who claim to be Marxists say it is.
Well, Marxists who pay attention to theory are like Christians who have read the philosophy of religion extensively, i.e., a minority (and one likely to be regarded with suspicion by their more dogmatically-sound fellow believers). Marxism-by-creed is a thing.
posted by acb at 3:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, Marxists who pay attention to theory are like Christians who have read the philosophy of religion extensively, i.e., a minority (and one likely to be regarded with suspicion by their more dogmatically-sound fellow believers). Marxism-by-creed is a thing.
posted by acb at 3:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'll vote for whichever Democratic candidate ends up in the general, but her recent comments on single payer should be really, really problematic to anyone who is left-of-right-wing
As someone who is left-of-right-wing and for universal health care, I am also against single payer. There are a lot of ways to achieve universal coverage, and many countries have done this without single payer, so I agree with Clinton on this. Obamacare was missing some key elements (especially on the regulation side, one key difference between say Germany and the US) but single-payer is not the right path to universal coverage, IMO.
There are a lot of people on the "left" who are for universal health care but against single payer. I think Sanders' plan is both the wrong approach and impractical (in terms of getting it passed ever).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
As someone who is left-of-right-wing and for universal health care, I am also against single payer. There are a lot of ways to achieve universal coverage, and many countries have done this without single payer, so I agree with Clinton on this. Obamacare was missing some key elements (especially on the regulation side, one key difference between say Germany and the US) but single-payer is not the right path to universal coverage, IMO.
There are a lot of people on the "left" who are for universal health care but against single payer. I think Sanders' plan is both the wrong approach and impractical (in terms of getting it passed ever).
posted by thefoxgod at 3:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
The 'tone' argument is so tired. Please let it rest in peace.
posted by Dashy at 3:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Dashy at 3:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Team Bernie here. If Secretary Clinton wins, this election becomes a lot less interesting, and I'll probably vote third party.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:32 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:32 PM on February 1, 2016
All right, fellow Republicans. Now is the time for you to stop trolling, and just vote for fucking Rubio already.
Jonathan Chait: Being Less Crazy Than Donald Trump Does Not Make Marco Rubio ‘Moderate’
Jonathan Chait: Being Less Crazy Than Donald Trump Does Not Make Marco Rubio ‘Moderate’
Rubio burst onto the national scene in 2010 as a self-described “movement conservative” who managed to draw backing from important Establishment Republicans, like the Bush family, and tea party groups. On foreign policy, he has embraced full-scale neoconservatism, winning enthusiastic plaudits from figures in the right-wing intelligentsia, like William Kristol. While much of the Republican Party has recoiled from the excesses of the Bush administration’s wild-eyed response to the 9/11 attacks, Rubio has not. He was one of 32 senators to oppose the USA Freedom Act, which restrained the federal government’s ability to conduct surveillance. He was one of just 21 senators opposing a prohibition on torture, insisting, “I do not support telegraphing to the enemy what interrogation techniques we will or won't use.” Indeed, Rubio now delights his audiences by promising to torture suspected terrorists, who will “get a one-way ticket to Guantánamo, where we’re going to find out everything they know.”Charlie Pierce: Here's What's Really Happening with Marco Rubio in Iowa (emphasis in original)
On social issues, Rubio has endorsed a complete ban on abortions, even in cases of rape and incest (a stance locating Rubio to the right of George W. Bush). He has promised to reverse executive orders protecting LGBT citizens from discrimination and to appoint justices who would reverse same-sex marriage. The centerpiece of Rubio’s domestic policy is a massive tax cut — more than three times the size of the Bush tax cut, and nearly half of which would go to the highest-earning 5 percent of taxpayers. By reducing federal revenue by more than a quarter, Rubio’s plan would dominate all facets of his domestic program, which is otherwise a mix of conventional Republican proposals to eliminate Obamacare, jack up defense spending, and protect retirement benefits for everybody 55 and up. Rubio has voted for the Paul Ryan budget (“by and large, it's exactly the direction we should be headed”). He has proposed to deregulate the financial system, thrilling Wall Street. (Richard Bove, author of Guardians of Prosperity: Why America Needs Big Banks, wrote a grateful op-ed headlined, “Thank you, Marco Rubio.”)
It's The Marco Rubio Fck The Planet Benghazi, Benghazi, BENGHAZI! Tour '16.posted by zombieflanders at 3:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [50 favorites]
And, anyway, Young Marco Rubio has gone full wingnut on the single most wingnutty issue there is: He is the great youthful champion of neoconservative fantasyland."When I am commander-in-chief," said Rubio, "the best intelligence services in the world will find the terrorists, and the best military in the world will destroy the terrorists, and if we capture them, they're not going to get a lawyer, they're not going to get the right to remain silent, they're not going to a courtroom in Manhattan. They're getting a one-way ticket to Guantanamo Bay and we're going to find out everything they know."He leaves it there, having placed the image of gleaming waterboards in the eager minds of his audience. But he does not say "torture." Oh, no. He does not do that because Marco Rubio, surging or not, remains a towering political lightweight and as complete a political coward as politics has seen in many a year. We should have been tipped by the way he turtled on his own immigration bill. Or by the way he describes his surrender on what was supposed to be his signature issue as a sacrifice he has made to the war on terror, that he changed on the issue because of Daesh, and not because it wouldn't sell out here in the heartland. Or by the way he talks about the president, now at every stop on the campaign:"When did the American Dream begin to erode? I can point to one moment in particular. It came in the year 2008 when we elected a president who didn't want to fix the problems in America. He wanted to change America…A president who summarily and regularly undermines the Constitution…We can't elect Hillary Clinton president. We can't elect Bernie Sanders president. We can't elect one of them to succeed a president who sees violating the Constitution as part of his job description…When I take the oath of office, I will put my left hand on the Bible and my right hand up to heaven and I will swear to protect and to defend the Constitution of the United States and, unlike Barack Obama, I'll mean it."This is quite something for a sitting United States Senator to say. If he believes it, then he is bound by the oath he took as a senator to propose the president's impeachment and to work as hard with like-minded members of the House Of Representatives to bring it about. He has no choice. That is his sworn duty under the Constitution. But he never says "impeachment." Oh no, he does not do that, because Young Marco Rubio—who is surging!—doesn't have the guts to do it, or the dedication to his job as a senator even to try. All he has is the perception of momentum, and the good fortune to have been born neither a Trump nor a Cruz. For the rest of us, the words of Mr. S. Spade of San Francisco will have to suffice: the cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter.
And by the way, here's what Clinton said about single payer:
In the current political situation, single payer will never, ever happen. The Republicans will likely still control Congress no matter who wins, and they will never, ever agree to that. Obama, who also took pharma and insurance money, had to fight tooth and nail to pull the country even a few inches towards universal healthcare.
The idea that the next President will be able to achieve full single payer with the current political is just delusional. It just is. The proposal above to amend the Constitution to change our electoral system is more likely.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the possibility of losing what little we've gained is very, very real. President Trump or Cruz or Rubio will definitely, without a doubt, do everything in their power to gut the ACA and everything else Obama has done.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [38 favorites]
"I want you to understand why I am fighting so hard for the Affordable Care Act," she said at Grand View University after hearing from a woman who spoke about her daughter receiving cancer treatment thanks to the health care law. "I don't want it repealed, I don't want us to be thrown back into a terrible, terrible national debate. I don't want us to end up in gridlock. People can't wait!"And she's right. The only people who would find that "really, really problematic" are living in fantasy land.
She added, "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."
In the current political situation, single payer will never, ever happen. The Republicans will likely still control Congress no matter who wins, and they will never, ever agree to that. Obama, who also took pharma and insurance money, had to fight tooth and nail to pull the country even a few inches towards universal healthcare.
The idea that the next President will be able to achieve full single payer with the current political is just delusional. It just is. The proposal above to amend the Constitution to change our electoral system is more likely.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the possibility of losing what little we've gained is very, very real. President Trump or Cruz or Rubio will definitely, without a doubt, do everything in their power to gut the ACA and everything else Obama has done.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [38 favorites]
To add positively: I really admire and appreciate that the Clinton - Sanders fight has remained so issue- and policy-focused.
posted by Dashy at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Dashy at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
“It’s [same-sex marriage] sinful. They want us to swallow it, you say. We have to run this bunch out of Washington, D.C. We have to rid the earth of them. Get them out of there. Ted Cruz loves God.”-- Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson campaigning for Cruz.
Team Bernie here. If Secretary Clinton wins, this election becomes a lot less interesting, and I'll probably vote third party.
Team Bernie here. I'll vote for O'Malley in the general if I have to just to keep any one of the people Republicans presented out of reach of the presidency.
posted by Talez at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [51 favorites]
i just want bernie to stand up straight, is that so much to ask?
If Bernie stood up straight, he wouldn't look nearly as much like a wild-eyed, fire-breathing, Apocalyptic preacher riding from town to town. That's seriously half of his brand differentiation. I think his campaign manager may be trying to convince him to start wearing a wide-brimmed hat.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
If Bernie stood up straight, he wouldn't look nearly as much like a wild-eyed, fire-breathing, Apocalyptic preacher riding from town to town. That's seriously half of his brand differentiation. I think his campaign manager may be trying to convince him to start wearing a wide-brimmed hat.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 3:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
Quoth Glenn Greenwald...
The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic — and a journalistic disgrace. It’s intended to imply two equally false claims:
1) A refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are “bros”); and
2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [45 favorites]
The concoction of the “Bernie Bro” narrative by pro-Clinton journalists has been a potent political tactic — and a journalistic disgrace. It’s intended to imply two equally false claims:
1) A refusal to march enthusiastically behind the Wall Street-enriched, multiple-war-advocating, despot-embracing Hillary Clinton is explainable not by ideology or political conviction, but largely if not exclusively by sexism: demonstrated by the fact that men, not women, support Sanders (his supporters are “bros”); and
2) Sanders supporters are uniquely abusive and misogynistic in their online behavior. Needless to say, a crucial tactical prong of this innuendo is that any attempt to refute it is itself proof of insensitivity to sexism if not sexism itself (as the accusatory reactions to this article will instantly illustrate).
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [45 favorites]
You are aware that Clinton was Secretary of State for quite a while, much more recently, and widely appreciated as one of the most effective in that arena, yes?
Her role in the Libyan war shows she didn't learn the lessons she should have from her Iraq vote. Gaddafi may be gone, but NATO's military adventure there has left the country a ruin which presents a greater danger to the U.S. than it did before.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
Her role in the Libyan war shows she didn't learn the lessons she should have from her Iraq vote. Gaddafi may be gone, but NATO's military adventure there has left the country a ruin which presents a greater danger to the U.S. than it did before.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
Yes, this method of caucusing is undemocratic and classist and silly but if this is how our current media-reliant system works, so be it.
I'll be there tonight rocking my post-surgery eyepatch!
posted by nicodine at 3:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'll be there tonight rocking my post-surgery eyepatch!
posted by nicodine at 3:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, I don't think that saying "Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn't like Bernie Sanders" is a good point in Hillary's favor. Hillary is more popular with people of color, but there's no logical or good reason for that. And Sanders isn't a bad candidate because he doesn't support reparations.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also, I don't think that saying "Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn't like Bernie Sanders" is a good point in Hillary's favor.
He doesn't like Hillary either, as he pointed out in his follow-up article that didn't get any attention:
He doesn't like Hillary either, as he pointed out in his follow-up article that didn't get any attention:
Hillary Clinton has no interest in being labeled radical, left-wing, or even liberal. Thus announcing that Clinton doesn’t support reparations is akin to announcing that Ted Cruz doesn’t support a woman’s right to choose. The position is certainly wrong. But it is hardly a surprise, and doesn't run counter to the candidate’s chosen name. What candidates name themselves is generally believed to be important. Many Sanders supporters, for instance, correctly point out that Clinton handprints are all over America’s sprawling carceral state. I agree with them and have said so at length. Voters, and black voters particularly, should never forget that Bill Clinton passed arguably the most immoral “anti-crime” bill in American history, and that Hillary Clinton aided its passage through her invocation of the super-predator myth. A defense of Clinton rooted in the claim that “Jeb Bush held the same position” would not be exculpatory. (“Law and order conservative embraces law and order” would surprise no one.) That is because the anger over the Clintons’ actions isn’t simply based on their having been wrong, but on their craven embrace of law and order Republicanism in the Democratic Party’s name.posted by junco at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
Team Bernie here. If Secretary Clinton wins, this election becomes a lot less interesting, and I'll probably vote third party.
If my preferred left-lefist doesn't win I will refuse to vote for the center-leftist and do my part in assuring the victory of the frothing racist, misogynist, islamophobic, crazypants Trump!
posted by Justinian at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [45 favorites]
If my preferred left-lefist doesn't win I will refuse to vote for the center-leftist and do my part in assuring the victory of the frothing racist, misogynist, islamophobic, crazypants Trump!
posted by Justinian at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [45 favorites]
The repubs will STILL control the House, a majority of state legislatures and potential the Senate.
Who will be able to do anything perchance a Dem takes the office?
4 more years just like the last. With Hillary, it will be Vince Foster on up to Benghazi! with the added bonus of the email "scandal." With Bernie, who knows, probably lame duck from the get go.
Dems should be seriously looking at down ballot races. The Kochs, who pledged to spend 900 million sure aren't putting a lot into the presidential, where do you think they ARE putting it?
posted by Max Power at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Who will be able to do anything perchance a Dem takes the office?
4 more years just like the last. With Hillary, it will be Vince Foster on up to Benghazi! with the added bonus of the email "scandal." With Bernie, who knows, probably lame duck from the get go.
Dems should be seriously looking at down ballot races. The Kochs, who pledged to spend 900 million sure aren't putting a lot into the presidential, where do you think they ARE putting it?
posted by Max Power at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm fine with either Clinton or Sanders but there really isn't a more bro-ish campaign slogan than #FEELTHEBERN. Somehow I always hear it in my head in Jeff Spicoli's voice.
posted by octothorpe at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 3:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
You can be radical and not support reparations.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Every four years a bunch of people start to whine about how Iowa is a terrible place to have such focused political attention, as though the alternatives are so much better.
The caucus system takes time for a reason. Those that show up actually know what they hell they are voting for and care about their position. We all mope about decrying how such-and-such a percentage of the population doesn't even know there are three branches of government and yet they get an equal vote to blah, blah, blah... but then in comes the caucus, an event that lazy people just won't attend, but anyone can attend. If you are going to nominate a candidate for a major party, this is a pretty good way to do it. Moreover, these people are not just involved, they've been saturation bombed by these candidates. They've seen them, heard them, met them - how many of us can say that, sitting at home, avoiding stump speeches, and waiting to cast a primary vote that we decided on x many months ago? How many of you are ready to see your candidate lose in a first round vote, then listen to debates about who to support in the next round because you have to choose among the top candidates? (GOP, I'm looking at your sorry asses)
Then comes the criticism of Iowa itself. A rather boring and ignorant bunch of arguments comes about with snide comments about farms and pigs. However, rarely do you hear comments about how it has one of, if not the best, public education system in the country and how only about 10% of the economy, and 2% or so of the jobs, are related to agriculture.
Next of course comes the slam that Iowa is just a bunch of bible belt white folks. Yes, Iowa is less diverse than the country as a whole. Of course, that hasn't stopped it from going Democratic at least as often for the GOP in recent national elections (including for Obama), being one of the first states to legalize gay marriage, and having progressive stances on issues that would make most of the nation feel bad about itself for, oh, the last 150 years.
So, yeah, go ahead and make fun of Iowa, and then realize that it has done pretty damn well by the nation over the last several decades.
posted by Muddler at 3:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]
The caucus system takes time for a reason. Those that show up actually know what they hell they are voting for and care about their position. We all mope about decrying how such-and-such a percentage of the population doesn't even know there are three branches of government and yet they get an equal vote to blah, blah, blah... but then in comes the caucus, an event that lazy people just won't attend, but anyone can attend. If you are going to nominate a candidate for a major party, this is a pretty good way to do it. Moreover, these people are not just involved, they've been saturation bombed by these candidates. They've seen them, heard them, met them - how many of us can say that, sitting at home, avoiding stump speeches, and waiting to cast a primary vote that we decided on x many months ago? How many of you are ready to see your candidate lose in a first round vote, then listen to debates about who to support in the next round because you have to choose among the top candidates? (GOP, I'm looking at your sorry asses)
Then comes the criticism of Iowa itself. A rather boring and ignorant bunch of arguments comes about with snide comments about farms and pigs. However, rarely do you hear comments about how it has one of, if not the best, public education system in the country and how only about 10% of the economy, and 2% or so of the jobs, are related to agriculture.
Next of course comes the slam that Iowa is just a bunch of bible belt white folks. Yes, Iowa is less diverse than the country as a whole. Of course, that hasn't stopped it from going Democratic at least as often for the GOP in recent national elections (including for Obama), being one of the first states to legalize gay marriage, and having progressive stances on issues that would make most of the nation feel bad about itself for, oh, the last 150 years.
So, yeah, go ahead and make fun of Iowa, and then realize that it has done pretty damn well by the nation over the last several decades.
posted by Muddler at 3:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]
"no logical or good reason" - I think I see what you're saying, but that's a pretty unfortunate phrasing.
I do have a question on the TNH criticism of Sanders, having not read the article* - is this a standalone criticism or in comparison to Clinton?
*to my shame.
posted by The Gaffer at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016
I do have a question on the TNH criticism of Sanders, having not read the article* - is this a standalone criticism or in comparison to Clinton?
*to my shame.
posted by The Gaffer at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016
If my preferred left-lefist doesn't win I will refuse to vote for the center-leftist and do my part in assuring the victory of the frothing racist, misogynist, islamophobic, crazypants Trump!
I don't think we have to be mean in this thread. I think it would be better if we respected that everyone who is over 18 and American has the right to make up their own mind.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't think we have to be mean in this thread. I think it would be better if we respected that everyone who is over 18 and American has the right to make up their own mind.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'll probably vote third party.
It's been 16 years and the great Miss Ivins is no longer with us, but her wise words still ring true: "When you are barely making it in this society, hanging on by your fingernails, with every unexpected expense a crisis, it matters which is the lesser of two evils."
posted by zarq at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [82 favorites]
It's been 16 years and the great Miss Ivins is no longer with us, but her wise words still ring true: "When you are barely making it in this society, hanging on by your fingernails, with every unexpected expense a crisis, it matters which is the lesser of two evils."
posted by zarq at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [82 favorites]
Sanders has inspired a small but very vocal group of very committed supporters in the Ron Paul vein.
I'm pretty convinced that many of the "Berniebros" I encounter online are actually former Ron Paul supporters (see, for example, the Libertarians for Bernie subreddit) or if they're too young to have supported him 4 years ago, they would support a similar candidate today. And this whole narrative (cf Glenn Greenwald) that they don't exist is just strange (considering Sander's campaign has stated that they are displeased with the behavior of some of his supporters). Greenwald's essay seems very out-of-touch with the kind of grassroots online campaign pioneered by Obama, which Sanders himself claims to be emulating.
I'm probably going to vote for Clinton in the primary, because while I don't agree with many of her political positions, I agree with enough and I think she is the most qualified candidate on the whole slate, especially facing an obstructionist Republican Congress. I'd probably vote for her even if she was the conniving, Macchiavellian, murderous medusa that Republican operatives have successfully convinced us that she is.
posted by muddgirl at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm pretty convinced that many of the "Berniebros" I encounter online are actually former Ron Paul supporters (see, for example, the Libertarians for Bernie subreddit) or if they're too young to have supported him 4 years ago, they would support a similar candidate today. And this whole narrative (cf Glenn Greenwald) that they don't exist is just strange (considering Sander's campaign has stated that they are displeased with the behavior of some of his supporters). Greenwald's essay seems very out-of-touch with the kind of grassroots online campaign pioneered by Obama, which Sanders himself claims to be emulating.
I'm probably going to vote for Clinton in the primary, because while I don't agree with many of her political positions, I agree with enough and I think she is the most qualified candidate on the whole slate, especially facing an obstructionist Republican Congress. I'd probably vote for her even if she was the conniving, Macchiavellian, murderous medusa that Republican operatives have successfully convinced us that she is.
posted by muddgirl at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Welp, I was too slow on that last comment.
posted by The Gaffer at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by The Gaffer at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016
The thing that irritates me about Clinton's single-payer criticism is that it assumes the ACA must be repealed before a more universal plan can be negotiated and passed. I'm no parliamentary expert, but couldn't repeal of the existing law be included in the bill implementing the replacement? Then if a proposed Medicare-for-all plan failed, we'd just return to the current status quo, not the more awful state of things pre-Obamacare. It's disingenuous attacks like that which are getting people riled up.
re: misogynistic Bernie Bros, I find that argument hard to swallow -- wouldn't everybody #feelingthebern right now be supporting Elizabeth Warren just as enthusiastically, if not more so, if she had decided to run after all? Clinton is a decent candidate, but there is plenty of room to criticize her record from a progressive viewpoint.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
re: misogynistic Bernie Bros, I find that argument hard to swallow -- wouldn't everybody #feelingthebern right now be supporting Elizabeth Warren just as enthusiastically, if not more so, if she had decided to run after all? Clinton is a decent candidate, but there is plenty of room to criticize her record from a progressive viewpoint.
posted by Rhaomi at 3:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
I like Bernie and all, but Greenwald is kind of full of it - Bernie supporters being shitty are visible all over the place, and I wish they'd stop it.
Charitably you could argue that he's correct in that the Clinton camp seems to want to sweep them in with anyone mildly critical of her, but really that's just how things work when you've picked up asshold supporters.
posted by Artw at 3:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Charitably you could argue that he's correct in that the Clinton camp seems to want to sweep them in with anyone mildly critical of her, but really that's just how things work when you've picked up asshold supporters.
posted by Artw at 3:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
"identity politics are a bourgeois distraction"
So the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is... no, wait. okay, the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is that it is inherently patriarchal and white supremacist when deployed in a patriarchal, white supremacist country like the United States.
You do realize that this first entered the thread as a bad-faith interpretation of Sander's position...a bad-faith interpretation proffered by a...wait for it... Hillary supporter.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
So the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is... no, wait. okay, the thing that makes me particularly annoyed with this line is that it is inherently patriarchal and white supremacist when deployed in a patriarchal, white supremacist country like the United States.
You do realize that this first entered the thread as a bad-faith interpretation of Sander's position...a bad-faith interpretation proffered by a...wait for it... Hillary supporter.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Most of the people posting Bernie memes and pro-Bernie stuff on my social media feeds are queer women and queer men and it's kind of offensive and invalidating to generalize anyone's supporters just because some of them are annoying. I went to a Bernie rally in Reno and a guy yelled out "legalize weed!!!" and a few people laughed, but more people made noise when he made points advocating for issues that benefit queer individuals, transgendered people, and POC. The bro Bernie supporters are that guy that everyone laughs at, but there are more memorable, personal things that the rest of us take to our hearts.
posted by gucci mane at 3:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [56 favorites]
posted by gucci mane at 3:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [56 favorites]
The idea that the next President will be able to achieve full single payer with the current political is just delusional. It just is.
I'm not sure Hillary's well-funded opposition to healthcare reform suggests she is necessarily more competent than Bernie. If whichever presumably left-wing President is elected can't do their job — which is to be a left-wing President that gets left-wing legislation like healthcare reform enacted — then that doesn't really inspire a whole lot of confidence in them being able to do the rest of their job.
Her campaigning is even less confidence-inspiring, given that she was for healthcare reform twenty-odd years ago. If she couldn't do it then, why should we be able to trust her with that task now, especially when her campaign has been paid off by the same companies she would be expected to regulate?
Being President is a serious job, with serious consequences for the public when the job can't — or, worse, won't — be done, because of ties to industry. If she isn't capable or willing to do what we elected President Obama to do back in 2008(!), then maybe she should step aside and let someone in her party with less baggage and more energy step in and get the job done.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure Hillary's well-funded opposition to healthcare reform suggests she is necessarily more competent than Bernie. If whichever presumably left-wing President is elected can't do their job — which is to be a left-wing President that gets left-wing legislation like healthcare reform enacted — then that doesn't really inspire a whole lot of confidence in them being able to do the rest of their job.
Her campaigning is even less confidence-inspiring, given that she was for healthcare reform twenty-odd years ago. If she couldn't do it then, why should we be able to trust her with that task now, especially when her campaign has been paid off by the same companies she would be expected to regulate?
Being President is a serious job, with serious consequences for the public when the job can't — or, worse, won't — be done, because of ties to industry. If she isn't capable or willing to do what we elected President Obama to do back in 2008(!), then maybe she should step aside and let someone in her party with less baggage and more energy step in and get the job done.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
gucci mane, I think there are also many of us who are LGBTQ who, if Sanders isn't the nominee, are very hesitant to support Clinton because I honestly don't think she gets us. Or cares all that much.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's worth noting that not every state is a swing state. If you don't live in a swing state, you can feel free to vote for a third-party without worrying too much about the general.
posted by corb at 3:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by corb at 3:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Question, as a democrat. If I lived in Iowa, I would have to show up to one of these caucuses, publicly declare my choice, then have to put up with people trying to convince me one way or the other, then I could vote? There's no way I could just show up, write down a name, put it in a box (or digital equivalent) and go home?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
The point isn't that Hillary could achieve single payer, it's that neither of them can and neither should pretend they can. The current crop of Republicans, who will surely still control Congress after the election, have voted 40+ times to repeal the ACA. They have built their entire modern platform on destroying it. The idea that they would consider even speaking about maybe considering healthcare reform is crazy.
Bismarck, for all his faults, was right when he said that politics is the art of the possible. I think it's dishonest to promise supporters things you cannot achieve. I think single payer is a goal to work towards, and that the Democrats should do this by developing a strategy to take back Congress, but it's not a goal that can be achieved solely by whoever is the next President.
It's sort of the mirror of the Tea Party's rise, where they promised their supporters that they were going to repeal the ACA when they never had the power or ability to achieve that.
Being President is a serious job, with serious consequences for the public
Yes, so be serious about what can and can't be achieved. Don't mislead your supporters, even if that means telling them things they don't want to hear. I'm tired of everyone promising the Moon. Create a plan that you can realistically implement.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
Bismarck, for all his faults, was right when he said that politics is the art of the possible. I think it's dishonest to promise supporters things you cannot achieve. I think single payer is a goal to work towards, and that the Democrats should do this by developing a strategy to take back Congress, but it's not a goal that can be achieved solely by whoever is the next President.
It's sort of the mirror of the Tea Party's rise, where they promised their supporters that they were going to repeal the ACA when they never had the power or ability to achieve that.
Being President is a serious job, with serious consequences for the public
Yes, so be serious about what can and can't be achieved. Don't mislead your supporters, even if that means telling them things they don't want to hear. I'm tired of everyone promising the Moon. Create a plan that you can realistically implement.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
"I want you to understand why I am fighting so hard for the Affordable Care Act," she said at Grand View University after hearing from a woman who spoke about her daughter receiving cancer treatment thanks to the health care law. "I don't want it repealed, I don't want us to be thrown back into a terrible, terrible national debate. I don't want us to end up in gridlock. People can't wait!"Clinton's argument makes no sense to me. People who have health emergencies can receive cover under the Affordable Care Act so long as it exists. Moreover, fighting for single-payer or otherwise socialized medicine doesn't require suspending the Affordable Care Act while the government considers the merits of a better law, nor has Sanders advocated doing any such thing.
She added, "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."
It's true that Sanders wouldn't be able to get single-payer healthcare passed in the current legislature, but I think it would be better to have someone powerful advocate for that policy rather than concede to the Right that it can never, ever be done, simply because the Right currently controls Congress. Finally, I think going on the offense with respect to the government's involvement in healthcare would make for a stronger defense of the Affordable Care Act.
That's why this statement bothers me.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [42 favorites]
Brandon Blatcher, that's correct.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:52 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:52 PM on February 1, 2016
GOP voters looking for a strong man.
Someone please fucking shoot me.
posted by Talez at 3:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
George LambertThe cognitive dissonance. The cognitive fucking dissonance of calling yourself anything "liberty" while simultaneously supporting a candidate who has yelled to the fucking hills that he will wield executive power with an iron fist.
From: Litchfield, NH
Age: 47
Occupation: Computer-software executive
Supporting: Trump
I call myself a liberty Republican
Someone please fucking shoot me.
posted by Talez at 3:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
This is the first election since 1996 I plan to skip entirely. This circus is only going to get dumber and meaner. I don't find any of these yahoos viable, and I can't bring myself to hold my nose, once again, and pull a lever. That's how I feel.
posted by echocollate at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by echocollate at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry, but the caucus system is anti-democratic (especially the Democratic side, which forgets why we have the anonymous ballot) institution.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
To clarify my statement way up top, I'd be against the Illinois Caucus or New York Caucus or New Hampshire Caucus or any other kind of caucus kicking off the presidential election season too. It's not about Iowa, a state I actually love; it's the process that demands folks have the luxury of participating in it, which I think is asking too much.
But you can also bet your sweet ass that I'd be there if I was an Iowan and I'm happy those from there are doing the same.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
But you can also bet your sweet ass that I'd be there if I was an Iowan and I'm happy those from there are doing the same.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's sort of the mirror of the Tea Party's rise, where they promised their supporters that they were going to repeal the ACA when they never had the power or ability to achieve that.
And now,
The current crop of Republicans, who will surely still control Congress after the election, have voted 40+ times to repeal the ACA. They have built their entire modern platform on destroying it. The idea that they would consider even speaking about maybe considering healthcare reform is crazy.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
And now,
The current crop of Republicans, who will surely still control Congress after the election, have voted 40+ times to repeal the ACA. They have built their entire modern platform on destroying it. The idea that they would consider even speaking about maybe considering healthcare reform is crazy.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Democratic caucuses and Republican caucuses work differently, Brandon Blatcher. If you're a Republican, you show up, listen to some speeches, write down your choice on a piece of paper, and go home. If you're a Democrat, you listen to speeches, go to the side of the room where your people are congregating, try to convince Martin O'Malley's supporters to come to your side, and then you can go home. But you can also stay and vote on platform resolutions if you don't have anything better to do.
It's a stupid, stupid, stupid system. I'm going to leave to go do it in ten minutes, and I don't understand how anyone can support it.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's a stupid, stupid, stupid system. I'm going to leave to go do it in ten minutes, and I don't understand how anyone can support it.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
*makes note never to lose to Iowa, because I would completely lose my shit in that situation*
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
If Clinton doesn't win Florida I will sincerely regret all the time I spent in cemeteries.
posted by Splunge at 3:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Splunge at 3:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Question, as a democrat. If I lived in Iowa, I would have to show up to one of these caucuses, publicly declare my choice, then have to put up with people trying to convince me one way or the other, then I could vote? There's no way I could just show up, write down a name, put it in a box (or digital equivalent) and go home?
I had in laws living in Iowa, they could not get to caucus. You have to be "in the know" or get invited. They tried for months to no avail.
posted by Max Power at 3:55 PM on February 1, 2016
I had in laws living in Iowa, they could not get to caucus. You have to be "in the know" or get invited. They tried for months to no avail.
posted by Max Power at 3:55 PM on February 1, 2016
With regard to that Greenwald piece:
I've been a fan of Greenwald since like back when he was writing for salon.com, and I'm a supporter of Sanders even though I think he's without a doubt too far to the right. That aside, though, while I agree with Greenwald that it's not useful to dismiss Sanders supporters as all being Bernie Bros or whatever, it is also deeply wrong to dismiss the testimony of Clinton supporters (prominent writers like Sady Doyle and Amanda Marcotte, and also just average Clinton supporters) who talk about the violent, stupid, gendered abuse (gendered slurs, targeted, specific rape threats, and threats to make public their home addresses) that they receive for being public supporters of Clinton.
As a dude for Sanders, I believe that dudes for Sanders have a responsibility to acknowledge the antidemocratic, misogynist behavior of other dudes for Sanders, and to make clear to other Sanders supporters that abusive, misogynistic, antidemocratic behavior — the stuff that's all over Sanders subreddit, for example — is simply not to be tolerated no matter which candidate you support. The use of threats of gendered violence, explicit threats or implied threats, to silence women, or to scare women away from public political participation, is not valid behavior for anyone who purports to be on the left, regardless of whatever politics the woman being threatened holds.
As such I'm much more than a little disappointed in that Greenwald piece. It is absolutely true that the Sanders base is gender-diverse; this makes it even more crucial that as Sanders supporters we acknowledge that some Sanders supporters are misguided and misogynistic, and to do everything we can to make clear that misogynistic threats against Clinton supporters issued by some Sanders supporters:
I've been a fan of Greenwald since like back when he was writing for salon.com, and I'm a supporter of Sanders even though I think he's without a doubt too far to the right. That aside, though, while I agree with Greenwald that it's not useful to dismiss Sanders supporters as all being Bernie Bros or whatever, it is also deeply wrong to dismiss the testimony of Clinton supporters (prominent writers like Sady Doyle and Amanda Marcotte, and also just average Clinton supporters) who talk about the violent, stupid, gendered abuse (gendered slurs, targeted, specific rape threats, and threats to make public their home addresses) that they receive for being public supporters of Clinton.
As a dude for Sanders, I believe that dudes for Sanders have a responsibility to acknowledge the antidemocratic, misogynist behavior of other dudes for Sanders, and to make clear to other Sanders supporters that abusive, misogynistic, antidemocratic behavior — the stuff that's all over Sanders subreddit, for example — is simply not to be tolerated no matter which candidate you support. The use of threats of gendered violence, explicit threats or implied threats, to silence women, or to scare women away from public political participation, is not valid behavior for anyone who purports to be on the left, regardless of whatever politics the woman being threatened holds.
As such I'm much more than a little disappointed in that Greenwald piece. It is absolutely true that the Sanders base is gender-diverse; this makes it even more crucial that as Sanders supporters we acknowledge that some Sanders supporters are misguided and misogynistic, and to do everything we can to make clear that misogynistic threats against Clinton supporters issued by some Sanders supporters:
- actually exist
- are genuine problems, and
- must be addressed rather than ignored.
It's a stupid, stupid, stupid system. I'm going to leave to go do it in ten minutes, and I don't understand how anyone can support it.
Because it sounds democratic, while being profoundly anti-democratic.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:55 PM on February 1, 2016
Because it sounds democratic, while being profoundly anti-democratic.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:55 PM on February 1, 2016
You can be radical and not support reparations.
Yes, but he answer to why he didn't support reparations was that they were infeasible:
First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive.
Coates' response is well so is single payer . It seems like a hypocritical act to be arguing for the infeasible single payer health care, and not wanting to argue for "divisive" reparations.
posted by zabuni at 3:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yes, but he answer to why he didn't support reparations was that they were infeasible:
First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive.
Coates' response is well so is single payer . It seems like a hypocritical act to be arguing for the infeasible single payer health care, and not wanting to argue for "divisive" reparations.
posted by zabuni at 3:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Maybe identity politics really are a bourgeois distraction.
Identity politics are not a "bourgeois distraction," they're a daily reality of life, but cynical, manipulative appeals to people's sense of their own identity do a lot to help prop up white supremacy and patriarchy. So for me the question is, of Sanders and Clinton, which candidate uses identity manipulatively to court votes? I've had my hands full watching my life go down the tubes this election cycle, so I really haven't been able to pay enough attention to tell which candidate seems to be most prone to manipulatively appealing to people's sense of identity to rally support to their side, but whoever's doing that the most is probably going to be most invested, politically, in perpetuating the status quo because they know how to work the levers of people's identities, Southern Strategy style, and why would any politician want to give up that kind of power for making people fall in line? Politicians manipulate people for a living. Whatever tools they bring to the job, you can bet they won't stop relying on them after the election's over.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Identity politics are not a "bourgeois distraction," they're a daily reality of life, but cynical, manipulative appeals to people's sense of their own identity do a lot to help prop up white supremacy and patriarchy. So for me the question is, of Sanders and Clinton, which candidate uses identity manipulatively to court votes? I've had my hands full watching my life go down the tubes this election cycle, so I really haven't been able to pay enough attention to tell which candidate seems to be most prone to manipulatively appealing to people's sense of identity to rally support to their side, but whoever's doing that the most is probably going to be most invested, politically, in perpetuating the status quo because they know how to work the levers of people's identities, Southern Strategy style, and why would any politician want to give up that kind of power for making people fall in line? Politicians manipulate people for a living. Whatever tools they bring to the job, you can bet they won't stop relying on them after the election's over.
posted by saulgoodman at 3:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Most of the people posting Bernie memes and pro-Bernie stuff on my social media feeds are queer women and queer men and it's kind of offensive and invalidating to generalize anyone's supporters just because some of them are annoying.
It's almost entirely brogressive white dudes, some gay and some straight, sharing "Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash" on my feed, so that informs my reaction. I don't feel that saying "he has some problematic, vocal supporters who are doing him more harm than good" is the same as saying "all his supporters are problematic." I'm a legitimately undecided voter who likes both candidates and I still see his Reddit hype as something that I find offputting.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's almost entirely brogressive white dudes, some gay and some straight, sharing "Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash" on my feed, so that informs my reaction. I don't feel that saying "he has some problematic, vocal supporters who are doing him more harm than good" is the same as saying "all his supporters are problematic." I'm a legitimately undecided voter who likes both candidates and I still see his Reddit hype as something that I find offputting.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I had in laws living in Iowa, they could not get to caucus. You have to be "in the know" or get invited.Wait, what, no. No. It sucks, but it doesn't suck that much. The caucuses are open to everyone. It's not hard to find out where they are. It's just a pain in the ass, and you're out of luck if you can't find a babysitter or have to work tonight.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
The idea that the next President will be able to achieve full single payer with the current political is just delusional. It just is.
The idea that a Democrat President could achieve anything with a majority GOP congress is delusional. If we're not going to accomplish anything, I at least want progressive ideas being spoken from the office of the president. For so many decades dems have been negotiating against themselves in the hopes that it will convince the GOP to get on board. All it does is move us farther to the right. Nothing is going to happen with a GOP congress -- with either Bernie or Clinton. With Bernie, we have a chance to actually change political engagement in this country, which means changing the House/Senate races in the midterms and in 2020. Bernie might not do it, but his election might set up the political climate that would allow for progress.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [44 favorites]
The idea that a Democrat President could achieve anything with a majority GOP congress is delusional. If we're not going to accomplish anything, I at least want progressive ideas being spoken from the office of the president. For so many decades dems have been negotiating against themselves in the hopes that it will convince the GOP to get on board. All it does is move us farther to the right. Nothing is going to happen with a GOP congress -- with either Bernie or Clinton. With Bernie, we have a chance to actually change political engagement in this country, which means changing the House/Senate races in the midterms and in 2020. Bernie might not do it, but his election might set up the political climate that would allow for progress.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [44 favorites]
Rustic Etruscan,
The Tea Party was wrong about what it could do when it came to power. But they did do what the Democrats need: lay the groundwork in Congress. The Presidency is powerful but the President isn't a god, no matter who it is.
If the Bernie phenomenon were instead a Tea Party-like takeover of Congress, I'd be much more supportive.
I really wish the Democrats would display some kind of plan for trying to win back Congress and the states. It feels like they've given up on anything but the Presidency, and that's not enough.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
The Tea Party was wrong about what it could do when it came to power. But they did do what the Democrats need: lay the groundwork in Congress. The Presidency is powerful but the President isn't a god, no matter who it is.
If the Bernie phenomenon were instead a Tea Party-like takeover of Congress, I'd be much more supportive.
I really wish the Democrats would display some kind of plan for trying to win back Congress and the states. It feels like they've given up on anything but the Presidency, and that's not enough.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
I had in laws living in Iowa, they could not get to caucus. You have to be "in the know" or get invited. They tried for months to no avail.
What the fuck? So if a Democrat can't get into or find a caucus, they don't get to vote? And the caucus locations aren't publically available?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:59 PM on February 1, 2016
What the fuck? So if a Democrat can't get into or find a caucus, they don't get to vote? And the caucus locations aren't publically available?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:59 PM on February 1, 2016
People do get it. But there is a real fear that a Benie nomination would result in a Republican victory in the general and the eventual appointment of even more conservative Supreme Court justices than Alito, Thomas and Scalia.
Umm, you forget that Hilary Clinton is the SINGLE MOST HATED PERSON IN THE GOP WORLD? EVEN MORE THAN OBAMA?
Seriously NEVER take into account what they might do. What they will do is go all in to destroy is whomever the Dems nominate. Period. So, what they might do isn't a factor -- we already know what they will do. Lie, threaten, scream, and repeat. The question is which one will get out enough *of our vote* to stop them? Kerry didn't. Gore did, but didn't have enough safety margin and lost anyway. Obama did, twice. That's the key. Our vote. Get our vote out, we win.
The point is to find the candidate that will get the most *democratic* votes. Period. Everything else is noise.
Indeed, the one reason I have for going for Sanders is that people like Bloomberg are so scared of him that they're considering running themselves. They got no problem with Clinton, but Sanders? Scares the fuck out of them. And voting for the person *who scares them* is always tempting. The question is "does that translate into getting democratic votes out?" And the answer is "Probably not." So, we toss that factor into the bin, because it's not useful.
And you are a fool if you are looking at either Iowa or New Hampshire to figure out which Democrat can win states like Ohio. This caucus and that primary are literally meaningless. Let me show you.
Clinton supporter, Clinton wins: It's a lock, give up and let's get ready for the general.
Clinton supporter, Sanders wins: Iowa isn't important. It's only 45 total delegates. It's not a blue state. This has barely started.
Sanders supporter, Sanders wins: See, Clinton can't even get support in a conservative state. Give up, and let's get ready for the general.
Sanders supporter, Clinton wins: Iowa isn't important. It's only 45 total delegates. It's not a blue state. This has barely started.
The winner will declare victory. The loser will tell you exactly why it wasn't important. THEY WILL BOTH BE RIGHT.
So, seriously. This is meaningless. Until we get about 10 in, you won't know. In 2008, Obama won the first four, and then Clinton won the next two and it was basically a dead tie. After Super Tuesday? It was...still a dead tie. We didn't know the actual numbers until the end, but they turned out to be 1063 Obama, 1052 Clinton. It wasn't until the February 9th primaries/caucus, numbers 28-31, that Obama established a real lead.
So this? This is that stupid pair of games the NCAA plays now to decide who the 60-64th teams will be in the big tournament. This isn't even the first round.
News stations will blather. People will blather.
It's not important.
Really. It's not. Not in one bit. If it's anywhere near close enough that the Iowa caucus could be a tiebreaker, it'll come down to an actual brokered convention, because the "pledged" super delegates will go "Oh, shit..." and start looking for somebody else.
posted by eriko at 3:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [21 favorites]
Umm, you forget that Hilary Clinton is the SINGLE MOST HATED PERSON IN THE GOP WORLD? EVEN MORE THAN OBAMA?
Seriously NEVER take into account what they might do. What they will do is go all in to destroy is whomever the Dems nominate. Period. So, what they might do isn't a factor -- we already know what they will do. Lie, threaten, scream, and repeat. The question is which one will get out enough *of our vote* to stop them? Kerry didn't. Gore did, but didn't have enough safety margin and lost anyway. Obama did, twice. That's the key. Our vote. Get our vote out, we win.
The point is to find the candidate that will get the most *democratic* votes. Period. Everything else is noise.
Indeed, the one reason I have for going for Sanders is that people like Bloomberg are so scared of him that they're considering running themselves. They got no problem with Clinton, but Sanders? Scares the fuck out of them. And voting for the person *who scares them* is always tempting. The question is "does that translate into getting democratic votes out?" And the answer is "Probably not." So, we toss that factor into the bin, because it's not useful.
And you are a fool if you are looking at either Iowa or New Hampshire to figure out which Democrat can win states like Ohio. This caucus and that primary are literally meaningless. Let me show you.
Clinton supporter, Clinton wins: It's a lock, give up and let's get ready for the general.
Clinton supporter, Sanders wins: Iowa isn't important. It's only 45 total delegates. It's not a blue state. This has barely started.
Sanders supporter, Sanders wins: See, Clinton can't even get support in a conservative state. Give up, and let's get ready for the general.
Sanders supporter, Clinton wins: Iowa isn't important. It's only 45 total delegates. It's not a blue state. This has barely started.
The winner will declare victory. The loser will tell you exactly why it wasn't important. THEY WILL BOTH BE RIGHT.
So, seriously. This is meaningless. Until we get about 10 in, you won't know. In 2008, Obama won the first four, and then Clinton won the next two and it was basically a dead tie. After Super Tuesday? It was...still a dead tie. We didn't know the actual numbers until the end, but they turned out to be 1063 Obama, 1052 Clinton. It wasn't until the February 9th primaries/caucus, numbers 28-31, that Obama established a real lead.
So this? This is that stupid pair of games the NCAA plays now to decide who the 60-64th teams will be in the big tournament. This isn't even the first round.
News stations will blather. People will blather.
It's not important.
Really. It's not. Not in one bit. If it's anywhere near close enough that the Iowa caucus could be a tiebreaker, it'll come down to an actual brokered convention, because the "pledged" super delegates will go "Oh, shit..." and start looking for somebody else.
posted by eriko at 3:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [21 favorites]
brogressive white dudes
Can people call you femservative, then? Or are you the only one allow to use cute insulting nicknames.
posted by eriko at 3:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [28 favorites]
Can people call you femservative, then? Or are you the only one allow to use cute insulting nicknames.
posted by eriko at 3:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [28 favorites]
From that article that entropicamericana posted about Iowa and New Hampshire GOP voters:
Largely, the reason why I’m a conservative is because I’ve been on public assistance my whole life, and I have always felt ashamed of it. I have two major health conditions — cerebral palsy and an injury to my left hemidiaphragm. The whole idea of welfare and entitlements is to create a permanent underclass. They’ll give you plenty of handouts, but they won’t give you any hand-ups.
I... what? This reminds me of an acquaintance of mine with several severe health conditions who lives on SSDI and whose father made a good living working a union job at Chrysler consistently voting GOP.
posted by dhens at 4:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
Largely, the reason why I’m a conservative is because I’ve been on public assistance my whole life, and I have always felt ashamed of it. I have two major health conditions — cerebral palsy and an injury to my left hemidiaphragm. The whole idea of welfare and entitlements is to create a permanent underclass. They’ll give you plenty of handouts, but they won’t give you any hand-ups.
I... what? This reminds me of an acquaintance of mine with several severe health conditions who lives on SSDI and whose father made a good living working a union job at Chrysler consistently voting GOP.
posted by dhens at 4:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
Bernie might not do it, but his election might set up the political climate that would allow for progress.
How? This strikes me as the "brass ring" mentality that I see so often - get the right guy at the top, and that will cause change across the board. But it doesn't work like that - fundamental change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
How? This strikes me as the "brass ring" mentality that I see so often - get the right guy at the top, and that will cause change across the board. But it doesn't work like that - fundamental change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
At this point I have to pray that the same country that's spent the last 8+ years bogged down in idiotic arguments about the Muslim Nazi Socialist from Kenya is going to elect a self-described socialist who looks and sounds like the host of a Pacifica radio show, or Hillary Clinton. I was pissed at Al Gore when he conceded way too soon in 2000, and I'm kind of pissed at him now. He could win this damn thing without breaking a sweat, and we really need this thing won. The alternative is a reality show novelty candidate fascist and a blobfish creep who almost makes W look reasonable.
If we end up with a Trump/Cruz administration and the Republicans in charge of the house and the senate, the whole world's screwed. Lucky for me I'll probably be dead before things get really bad, because I'm one of those sickly people depending on Obamacare to keep me alive and the conservatives will be repealing that shit, 8 o'clock day one. But hey, good luck in Waterworld, folks!
posted by Ursula Hitler at 4:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
If we end up with a Trump/Cruz administration and the Republicans in charge of the house and the senate, the whole world's screwed. Lucky for me I'll probably be dead before things get really bad, because I'm one of those sickly people depending on Obamacare to keep me alive and the conservatives will be repealing that shit, 8 o'clock day one. But hey, good luck in Waterworld, folks!
posted by Ursula Hitler at 4:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
How? This strikes me as the "brass ring" mentality that I see so often - get the right guy at the top, and that will cause change across the board. But it doesn't work like that - fundamental change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
I agree with you. But for Bernie to get elected, there will necessarily be a large grassroots movement of people and causes that haven't traditionally participated in the electoral process. That movement, with Bernie's election, will continue and will create the necessary change.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I agree with you. But for Bernie to get elected, there will necessarily be a large grassroots movement of people and causes that haven't traditionally participated in the electoral process. That movement, with Bernie's election, will continue and will create the necessary change.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
So if a Democrat can't get into or find a caucus, they don't get to vote? And the caucus locations aren't publically available?No, this isn't right. It might have been harder pre-internet, and it might be harder for people who don't have the internet. (There are tons of online caucus-site-finder tools this year, and they're working for me even though my address is wonky in several ways.) Your caucus site is decided by voting precinct, and it's typically not at the same place where you usually vote, which is confusing. But the caucus sites are listed in the newspaper. You can call the local party and they'll tell you.
What is true is that a lot of people find out because they commit to a candidate and then that candidate sends them a mailer or calls them to tell them where to go. So if you're uncommitted, you're probably going to have to go out of your way to find out where you caucus. And if you're committed to a candidate with no ground game (ie Trump), then you might be on your own, although we'll see how that plays out.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
But for Bernie to get elected, there will necessarily be a large grassroots movement of people and causes that haven't traditionally participated in the electoral process. That movement, with Bernie's election, will continue and will create the necessary change.
We tried that theory in 2008. Turns out, it doesn't work so well.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
We tried that theory in 2008. Turns out, it doesn't work so well.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Honestly, I know this is a fringe position from the other party, but Sanders is capable of siphoning off way more Republican votes than Clinton is. He has a better gun record than Trump, and even though he's a socialist, he's not a big-city socialist - he's a small-state, rural-friendly socialist. People see Clinton coming and they start reflexively looking for accident victims.
posted by corb at 4:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by corb at 4:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
Bernie might not do it, but his election might set up the political climate that would allow for progress.
How? This strikes me as the "brass ring" mentality that I see so often - get the right guy at the top, and that will cause change across the board. But it doesn't work like that - fundamental change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
Not sure I believe this, but there are plenty of folks with good reason to think that with Clinton as the person at the top, the fundamental change from the bottom will be the same DLC/triangulation strategy that hurt so many progressive causes 20 years ago.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 4:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
How? This strikes me as the "brass ring" mentality that I see so often - get the right guy at the top, and that will cause change across the board. But it doesn't work like that - fundamental change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
Not sure I believe this, but there are plenty of folks with good reason to think that with Clinton as the person at the top, the fundamental change from the bottom will be the same DLC/triangulation strategy that hurt so many progressive causes 20 years ago.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 4:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hey, that Ta-Nehisi Coates article linked above is excellent and well worth a read.
A Democratic candidate who offers class-based remedies to address racist plunder because that is what is imminently doable, because all we have are bandages, is doing the best he can. A Democratic candidate who claims that such remedies are sufficient, who makes a virtue of bandaging, has forgotten the world that should, and must, be. Effectively he answers the trenchant problem of white supremacy by claiming “something something socialism, and then a miracle occurs.”
No. Fifteen years ago we watched a candidate elevate class above all. And now we see that same candidate invoking class to deliver another blow to affirmative action. And that is only the latest instance of populism failing black people.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
A Democratic candidate who offers class-based remedies to address racist plunder because that is what is imminently doable, because all we have are bandages, is doing the best he can. A Democratic candidate who claims that such remedies are sufficient, who makes a virtue of bandaging, has forgotten the world that should, and must, be. Effectively he answers the trenchant problem of white supremacy by claiming “something something socialism, and then a miracle occurs.”
No. Fifteen years ago we watched a candidate elevate class above all. And now we see that same candidate invoking class to deliver another blow to affirmative action. And that is only the latest instance of populism failing black people.
posted by triggerfinger at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
We tried that theory in 2008. Turns out, it doesn't work so well.
That's not a reason to stop trying.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's not a reason to stop trying.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the idea that conservatives are going to work with ANY Delocratic pretty silly, TBH. It'll be the same aggressive shitbaggery no matter what. Hell, it's hard to say they'd work with a Republican president.
posted by Artw at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
The idea that a Democrat President could achieve anything with a majority GOP congress is delusional.
Do Clinton supporters honestly believe that she has any better of a chance at working with a Republican Congress than Sanders? The idea that she can magically undo the several decades of hate for her by the GOP establishment to get things done is absolutely fantasyland. If she even manages to get elected, she would be fighting a steep, uphill climb from day one. A vote for her is a vote for someone who would, in all truth, have a harder time getting the job done than Sanders or anyone else whose last name isn't Clinton.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]
Do Clinton supporters honestly believe that she has any better of a chance at working with a Republican Congress than Sanders? The idea that she can magically undo the several decades of hate for her by the GOP establishment to get things done is absolutely fantasyland. If she even manages to get elected, she would be fighting a steep, uphill climb from day one. A vote for her is a vote for someone who would, in all truth, have a harder time getting the job done than Sanders or anyone else whose last name isn't Clinton.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]
And maybe that kind of statement is why Bernie is struggling so much with women and people of color.
But he isn't really. He's leading among young women, and Hilary's lead among blacks is likely due to some combination of name recognition and political favors handed out over several decades -- she's one of the most famous and best connected people on the planet. It's very early in the process to be deciding that poll results are based on a careful examination of candidate's positions.
posted by zipadee at 4:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
But he isn't really. He's leading among young women, and Hilary's lead among blacks is likely due to some combination of name recognition and political favors handed out over several decades -- she's one of the most famous and best connected people on the planet. It's very early in the process to be deciding that poll results are based on a careful examination of candidate's positions.
posted by zipadee at 4:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
How? This strikes me as the "brass ring" mentality that I see so often - get the right guy at the top, and that will cause change across the board. But it doesn't work like that - fundamental change has to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
Well, for starters, he could appoint an AG who would investigate funding of recent federal election campaigns, and the political favors thereby bought and sold. He's the only candidate, to my knowledge, even talking about corruption in campaign finance.
Light is the best disinfectant, etc.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
Well, for starters, he could appoint an AG who would investigate funding of recent federal election campaigns, and the political favors thereby bought and sold. He's the only candidate, to my knowledge, even talking about corruption in campaign finance.
Light is the best disinfectant, etc.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
I just can't fathom the mindset that would enable a person to throw all their support behind a candidate because they truly believe this election matters... but if their candidate doesn't make it to the general election, they're not going to vote at all. Guess the belief in the importance of the election is just lip service?
posted by palomar at 4:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by palomar at 4:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]
The most fun election scenario would be:
-Trump and Cruz/Rubio are neck-and-neck, the RNC pulls some rules bullshit to give it to Cruz/Rubio, Trump goes 3rd Party
-Same on the Dem side for Clinton, Sanders goes 3rd Party
-Bloomberg runs due to the splits
Then we'd get a 5-way Cruz/Rubio, Trump, Sanders, Clinton, Bloomberg race.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
-Trump and Cruz/Rubio are neck-and-neck, the RNC pulls some rules bullshit to give it to Cruz/Rubio, Trump goes 3rd Party
-Same on the Dem side for Clinton, Sanders goes 3rd Party
-Bloomberg runs due to the splits
Then we'd get a 5-way Cruz/Rubio, Trump, Sanders, Clinton, Bloomberg race.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
He's leading among young women, and Hilary's lead among blacks is likely due to some combination of name recognition and political favors handed out over several decades
Is political favors handed out over several decades just a way to say they feel she has represented their interests but in a way that sounds shady?
posted by Justinian at 4:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [31 favorites]
Is political favors handed out over several decades just a way to say they feel she has represented their interests but in a way that sounds shady?
posted by Justinian at 4:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [31 favorites]
Pretty weird that people are deciding that single payer is some kind of science fiction idea when the largest and most popular health care program in the U.S. (Medicare) is single payer.
Also worth noting that Bernie got over $10 billion in additional funding for a single payer program -- community health centers -- into the Affordable Care Act so I think he knows a little bit about how to do things politically.
posted by zipadee at 4:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [31 favorites]
Also worth noting that Bernie got over $10 billion in additional funding for a single payer program -- community health centers -- into the Affordable Care Act so I think he knows a little bit about how to do things politically.
posted by zipadee at 4:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [31 favorites]
I had in laws living in Iowa, they could not get to caucus. You have to be "in the know" or get invited. They tried for months to no avail.
To be fair it was a smallish town, they had only lived there 3 or 4 years, all the caucuses were in, at the time, peoples houses or like Elk clubs. When my M in Law asked for information uncomfortable silences would ensue.
posted by Max Power at 4:11 PM on February 1, 2016
and Hilary's lead among blacks is likely due to some combination of name recognition and political favors handed out over several decadesI think it might be due partly to the fact that Sanders supporters keep saying shit like this.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [27 favorites]
Clinton will almost certainly be like Obama 2nd term. Ignore Congress, do what you can as President (executive orders, judicial nominations, vetos).
Sanders I'm less clear. The stuff he talks about can only be done through Congress. Does he have a 1st-term Obama like view that he can somehow work with them? Or is it just him saying what he wishes, even though he knows its impossible? I have no idea.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders I'm less clear. The stuff he talks about can only be done through Congress. Does he have a 1st-term Obama like view that he can somehow work with them? Or is it just him saying what he wishes, even though he knows its impossible? I have no idea.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump pays lip service to campaign finance, at least. There does exist a group of people undecided between Trump and Sanders.
posted by Small Dollar at 4:13 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Small Dollar at 4:13 PM on February 1, 2016
corb: It's worth noting that not every state is a swing state. If you don't live in a swing state, you can feel free to vote for a third-party without worrying too much about the general.
Yes, but if you live in any of the following 14 states, your vote (and especially your lack of vote) most certainly counts in the primary:
All 14 have open primaries. Which means that everyone can vote for one party's nominee.
I said this in metatalk earlier today, but in 2008, John McCain won no Republican primaries through Super Tuesday. But he became the GOP nominee thanks in part to those 14 states up above with open primaries, which allow moderates and independent voters to cast their ballots for a party's nominee, without being one of its registered members. Before he chose Palin to be his running mate, McCain was a far more palatable choice to folks on the fence than Romney or Huckabee.
Open primaries provide an opportunity and possible point of voter manipulation for candidates. In Mississippi in 2014, Senator Thad Cochran won the Republican primary runoff against Republican state Senator Chris McDaniel. Before the runoff, Cochran begged African American Mississippians (who traditionally overwhelmingly vote Democrat) to cross party lines and vote for him in the state primary. Voter turnout in majority-African American districts exploded.
Back in '08, activists on both sides asked their own bases to vote in the other party's primary, and choose the candidate they thought their party's candidate was more likely to defeat. The most well-known is Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos," which asked his dittoheads to vote for candidate Clinton (who was in the middle of losing eleven straight primary contests to Barack Obama,) in the hope that they could prevent Obama from clinching the nomination early and wooing Clinton's funders and superdelegates. At the time Limbaugh -- predictably -- declared that it had worked. Clinton won the Texas and Indiana primaries thanks to support from traditionally Republican districts.
Limbaugh's already raising the specter of "Operation Chaos 2" on his show: Voting for Sanders to either help him win, help knock Clinton out of the running or just delay her from clinching the nomination early. What effect his influence could have on primary elections is unclear.
posted by zarq at 4:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes, but if you live in any of the following 14 states, your vote (and especially your lack of vote) most certainly counts in the primary:
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- South Carolina
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Wisconsin
All 14 have open primaries. Which means that everyone can vote for one party's nominee.
I said this in metatalk earlier today, but in 2008, John McCain won no Republican primaries through Super Tuesday. But he became the GOP nominee thanks in part to those 14 states up above with open primaries, which allow moderates and independent voters to cast their ballots for a party's nominee, without being one of its registered members. Before he chose Palin to be his running mate, McCain was a far more palatable choice to folks on the fence than Romney or Huckabee.
Open primaries provide an opportunity and possible point of voter manipulation for candidates. In Mississippi in 2014, Senator Thad Cochran won the Republican primary runoff against Republican state Senator Chris McDaniel. Before the runoff, Cochran begged African American Mississippians (who traditionally overwhelmingly vote Democrat) to cross party lines and vote for him in the state primary. Voter turnout in majority-African American districts exploded.
Back in '08, activists on both sides asked their own bases to vote in the other party's primary, and choose the candidate they thought their party's candidate was more likely to defeat. The most well-known is Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos," which asked his dittoheads to vote for candidate Clinton (who was in the middle of losing eleven straight primary contests to Barack Obama,) in the hope that they could prevent Obama from clinching the nomination early and wooing Clinton's funders and superdelegates. At the time Limbaugh -- predictably -- declared that it had worked. Clinton won the Texas and Indiana primaries thanks to support from traditionally Republican districts.
Limbaugh's already raising the specter of "Operation Chaos 2" on his show: Voting for Sanders to either help him win, help knock Clinton out of the running or just delay her from clinching the nomination early. What effect his influence could have on primary elections is unclear.
posted by zarq at 4:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Clinton is a warhawk. A Clinton presidency would not look like Obama's.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
Can people call you femservative, then? Or are you the only one allow to use cute insulting nicknames.
People can call me whatever they like. I find it useful to have a term for men who are progressive insofar as they support legalizing weed and gay marriage, but don't care much for things like abortion rights or affordable housing. I don't do it because it's "cute", I do it because I think those people are toxic.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]
People can call me whatever they like. I find it useful to have a term for men who are progressive insofar as they support legalizing weed and gay marriage, but don't care much for things like abortion rights or affordable housing. I don't do it because it's "cute", I do it because I think those people are toxic.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]
Clinton is a warhawk. A Clinton presidency would not look like Obama's.
You mean Obama, the drone President? I don't think there is any significant difference between them on national security and foreign policy.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
You mean Obama, the drone President? I don't think there is any significant difference between them on national security and foreign policy.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Clinton faces losing Iowa to Sanders thanks to young women: Polls showing that Vermont's socialist senator winning powerful support among young women voters
One national survey suggests that Mr Sanders enjoys a 19 point lead over Mrs Clinton among women aged 18 to 34. In Iowa his favourability rating with women is 81 per cent, well ahead of Mrs Clinton's 69 per cent.
Overall, the rival campaigns are almost neck-and-neck in statewide polls, but the Sanders' campaign believes these young female voters in Iowa could be crucial.
posted by futz at 4:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
One national survey suggests that Mr Sanders enjoys a 19 point lead over Mrs Clinton among women aged 18 to 34. In Iowa his favourability rating with women is 81 per cent, well ahead of Mrs Clinton's 69 per cent.
Overall, the rival campaigns are almost neck-and-neck in statewide polls, but the Sanders' campaign believes these young female voters in Iowa could be crucial.
posted by futz at 4:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, the thing that scares me most about Clinton is the warmonger thing. Libya and what she has said about Syria and Russia seem to show someone who has learned little or nothing from her vote on Iran.
Obama has hardly been a pacifist but he's been shrewd enough to keep a lid on the worst impulses of the militarist establishment. The Iran deal is a major landmark and Hilary is already threatening to pull it back.
posted by zipadee at 4:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
Obama has hardly been a pacifist but he's been shrewd enough to keep a lid on the worst impulses of the militarist establishment. The Iran deal is a major landmark and Hilary is already threatening to pull it back.
posted by zipadee at 4:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
Geh yer corn dogs, pantaloons, earplugs and extra ammunition!
posted by clavdivs at 4:16 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 4:16 PM on February 1, 2016
corb's right about Sanders' pull with independents and independent-leaning Republicans. He's more electable than I think some Clinton partisans want to admit with potential crossover voters. But a lot of people don't feel comfortable with those kinds of political coalitions that may include some ugly bedfellows in the current climate, so Sander's might lose some of the Democratic puritans. Me, I'd gladly vote alongside people I don't agree with to see anybody but Trump win (or the other Rs, for that matter). The Republicans still haven't stopped chugging that limited government Kool-Aid, even though their real goals are usually more specific giveaways to various industries and wealthy interests.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 4:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
As with past election cycles, I am so very weary of Democratic intra-party machinations (I've encountered more than enough contemptuous supporters of both Clinton and Sanders).
However, I do appreciate the criticisms of the caucus system, which I, regrettably, haven't heeded until now. I never paid much attention to caucuses having lived in primary voting states for most my life, but three years ago I moved to Colorado, which has a caucus.
I participated in the midterm caucus year before last. Turnout was pitiful. I was one of two people from my precinct who showed up. Even then, I didn't realize how undemocratic the process was, but the critiques I've read in recent threads have opened my eyes.
Hopefully my wife and I can find childcare to caucus for Senator Sanders in a month; otherwise, she'll get to attend since I was the only one who could go last time.
posted by audi alteram partem at 4:19 PM on February 1, 2016
However, I do appreciate the criticisms of the caucus system, which I, regrettably, haven't heeded until now. I never paid much attention to caucuses having lived in primary voting states for most my life, but three years ago I moved to Colorado, which has a caucus.
I participated in the midterm caucus year before last. Turnout was pitiful. I was one of two people from my precinct who showed up. Even then, I didn't realize how undemocratic the process was, but the critiques I've read in recent threads have opened my eyes.
Hopefully my wife and I can find childcare to caucus for Senator Sanders in a month; otherwise, she'll get to attend since I was the only one who could go last time.
posted by audi alteram partem at 4:19 PM on February 1, 2016
No one doubted Bernie Bros™ were an issue until a white man wrote a think piece claiming he doesn't believe they exist.
This isn't actually so.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
This isn't actually so.
When faced with policy issues their critics are often told that Clinton is “problematic”, that she “has some issues”, or something similar. They refuse to engage with material concerns, reject internationalism almost outright, and rummage through a laundry list of accusations against “Berniebros” even when vocal detractors are women. Setting up the Berniebro straw-man has become their knee-jerk response to any critique, no matter how tempered and thorough—if they can’t formulate any kind of refutation they fall back on a ritual: ignore critics and tweet something against “bros” to thousands of followers who will laugh and throw forward some support.And here's the often-unpleasant Amber Frost with the more acerbic version.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
We tried that theory in 2008. Turns out, it doesn't work so well.
That's not a reason to stop trying.
When the theory itself is flawed, well...yeah, that is a reason to change tack. Change isn't going to come from the top down, and the promised "political revolution" is a bit light on the details of how the grass roots will be built.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's not a reason to stop trying.
When the theory itself is flawed, well...yeah, that is a reason to change tack. Change isn't going to come from the top down, and the promised "political revolution" is a bit light on the details of how the grass roots will be built.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder what Libyans or Malians think about Clinton?
Ah yes I forgot that Clinton was Commander in Chief in 2011. Oh wait...
posted by thefoxgod at 4:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ah yes I forgot that Clinton was Commander in Chief in 2011. Oh wait...
posted by thefoxgod at 4:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, seriously. This is meaningless. Until we get about 10 in, you won't know. In 2008, Obama won the first four
Obama won the first one, then Clinton won New Hampshire.
posted by Justinian at 4:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obama won the first one, then Clinton won New Hampshire.
posted by Justinian at 4:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
i struggle with hrc in a way a never did with bho...i used to think it'd be such a huge deal for women to get any viable potus candidate.
what i think now is: corporate execs are largely indifferent to the gender of whoever's on the other side of the glory hole.
this probably says more about me than anyone else, but i'll own it.
posted by j_curiouser at 4:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
what i think now is: corporate execs are largely indifferent to the gender of whoever's on the other side of the glory hole.
this probably says more about me than anyone else, but i'll own it.
posted by j_curiouser at 4:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
It would be hard for her to be worse than a Republican wrt bombing non-white people, but also hard to be much better. Bombing people is profitable. Again, it comes down to her campaign contributions:
Hillary Clinton has received more money from arms and military service companies than any other candidate during the 2016 presidential campaign, data from Open Secrets shows.
All but one of the world’s 10 biggest arms producers have contributed to Clinton’s previous campaigns, giving her — along with the top Republican receiver Ted Cruz — a significant margin over the other candidates.
To be fair, Sanders is only a little better on this score, and would probably not stand up to the gun nut lobby, either:
The numbers, collected by the Federal Election Commission and compiled by Open Secrets, also reveal that Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders make the list of top 20 senators and top six presidential candidates to receive money from arms and defense companies.
Again, it's all that fucking money. Gotta get the money out of politics. The rest feels like quibbling while Rome burns.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hillary Clinton has received more money from arms and military service companies than any other candidate during the 2016 presidential campaign, data from Open Secrets shows.
All but one of the world’s 10 biggest arms producers have contributed to Clinton’s previous campaigns, giving her — along with the top Republican receiver Ted Cruz — a significant margin over the other candidates.
To be fair, Sanders is only a little better on this score, and would probably not stand up to the gun nut lobby, either:
The numbers, collected by the Federal Election Commission and compiled by Open Secrets, also reveal that Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders make the list of top 20 senators and top six presidential candidates to receive money from arms and defense companies.
Again, it's all that fucking money. Gotta get the money out of politics. The rest feels like quibbling while Rome burns.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
One thing that Bernie himself understands about a race with Hillary Clinton, that a lot of Bernie supporters and opinion piece writers and I'd imagine a lot of the youngest voters really don't get, is that anti-Hillary stuff has been as plentiful as oxygen for two decades now and the overwhelming majority of it was total bullshit, so if you go too negative against her you run a real risk of seeming like the latest boy who cried wolf. Whether you want to or not - and whether your point is valid or not - you really really have to be careful that you don't accidentally invoke the spectre of Gingrich, Limbaugh, et al and get yourself ignored by mainstream Dems, because even the vaguest resemblance to 90's anti-Clintonism, fair or not, brings up a lot of strong feelings. Bernie gets it, he's careful about his jabs and he mostly comes at her from the angle of respectful colleague.
posted by jason_steakums at 4:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by jason_steakums at 4:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Do Clinton supporters honestly believe that she has any better of a chance at working with a Republican Congress than Sanders? The idea that she can magically undo the several decades of hate for her by the GOP establishment to get things done is absolutely fantasyland. If she even manages to get elected, she would be fighting a steep, uphill climb from day one. A vote for her is a vote for someone who would, in all truth, have a harder time getting the job done than Sanders or anyone else whose last name isn't Clinton.
I don't think the experience of the last year or so bears this out.
The Republicans clearly despise Obama. Yet, as the power of the Tea Party has waned and they were able to clamp down on some of their excesses under Ryan, the Republicans managed to do things like pass a budget with him.
It's incremental and the budget isn't ideal, but it's clear there's some movement possible again now that the ideologues demanding absolute purity and roaring to shut down the government in pursuit of politically impossible goals have quieted down a bit.
I think Clinton could work with the Republicans in this way. I don't think Sanders is capable of this approach, or at least he's run on a platform that is antithetical to that kind of compromise and pragmatism.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think the experience of the last year or so bears this out.
The Republicans clearly despise Obama. Yet, as the power of the Tea Party has waned and they were able to clamp down on some of their excesses under Ryan, the Republicans managed to do things like pass a budget with him.
It's incremental and the budget isn't ideal, but it's clear there's some movement possible again now that the ideologues demanding absolute purity and roaring to shut down the government in pursuit of politically impossible goals have quieted down a bit.
I think Clinton could work with the Republicans in this way. I don't think Sanders is capable of this approach, or at least he's run on a platform that is antithetical to that kind of compromise and pragmatism.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
femservatives or whatever you call people who support Hillary
Well, historically the term for us has been "feminazis", but one can always go in fun new directions.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]
Well, historically the term for us has been "feminazis", but one can always go in fun new directions.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]
Ah yes I forgot that Clinton was Commander in Chief in 2011. Oh wait...
Yep Obama owns Libya, but guess who was behind the scenes pushing for intervention when Obama was at first hesitant? And guess who will be more hawkish and more intervention prone? So what's your point exactly? That H-dog will not be all about "humanitarian intervention" when it suits "American interests?"
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yep Obama owns Libya, but guess who was behind the scenes pushing for intervention when Obama was at first hesitant? And guess who will be more hawkish and more intervention prone? So what's your point exactly? That H-dog will not be all about "humanitarian intervention" when it suits "American interests?"
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have been tuning out a lot of this election because oh boy, but I am increasingly mystified by Sanders let's say very enthusiastic supporters, because: Trump supporters. Not Trump, his supporters. A good portion of this country hold beliefs that I and probably a lot of folks here would consider ignorant and racist.
I mean we have to either live with these dumbasses or make another country, and I don't see some blue state independent movement gain any traction.
posted by angrycat at 4:31 PM on February 1, 2016
I mean we have to either live with these dumbasses or make another country, and I don't see some blue state independent movement gain any traction.
posted by angrycat at 4:31 PM on February 1, 2016
For what it's worth, I'd say about 70% of the radical/queer/poc people I follow across the internet have at one point or another said something along the lines of "holy fuck, I don't support either Dem but these fucking Bernie assholes are making me lean Hillary"
Obviously they're not being serious, but if Hillary supporters were "just as bad," they wouldn't be joking.
posted by easter queen at 4:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Obviously they're not being serious, but if Hillary supporters were "just as bad," they wouldn't be joking.
posted by easter queen at 4:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
But a lot of people don't feel comfortable with those kinds of political coalitions that may include some ugly bedfellows in the current climate, so Sander's might lose some of the Democratic puritans.
Yeah ... Much more palatable for a candidate to accept hundreds of millions of dollars from drug companies, defense contractors, financial institutions and foreign governments.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah ... Much more palatable for a candidate to accept hundreds of millions of dollars from drug companies, defense contractors, financial institutions and foreign governments.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie Sanders on Persian Gulf War
Bernie Sanders Opposes Iraq War
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bernie Sanders Opposes Iraq War
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
> You do realize that this first entered the thread as a bad-faith interpretation of Sander's position...a bad-faith interpretation proffered by a...wait for it... Hillary supporter.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:46 PM on February 1 [2 favorites +] [!]
It was not a bad-faith interpretation of Sanders's position. It was an accurate description of the loudly expressed stances of the self-aggrandizing, self-important little boys that you find in many Marxist formations. Many of these boys have started supporting Sanders, and through their support they have been diligently chasing anti-white-supremacist PoC, feminist women, and their white-and-male allies away from the Sanders movement.
I know that Sanders is smarter than that position; I wouldn't support him if he weren't smarter than that position. I also know that many of Sanders's supporters hold to exactly the line from that comment by Pope Guilty (a comment that I favorited so hard).
As a cis man, there are types of information about the world that I can only get second-hand. I simply do not know what it is like to expect to be street harassed every time I walk out the door, and so I don't have any firsthand knowledge of the effects of street harassment. I can expect not to be groped when I ride the subway, and so I don't know how to be vigilant against it. As a white person, I simply don't know firsthand the corrosive, pervasive effects of living as a PoC under white supremacy; if I want to know, I have to ask.
Even though deep down I'm totes self-aggrandizing and self-important (otherwise I wouldn't waste so much time blatting out little essays in the comment threads on an ancient community website), I at least have the humility to accept that there are certain types of information that I can't get firsthand, and to accept that I have to listen to the people who can get that information when they tell me. This is why I tend to write off anyone who uses the term "identity politics" at all. Just as healing the damage done by capital to the people living under it requires actually consulting the people living under it and asking us what we need, healing the damage caused by patriarchy requires listening to and believing and following actual women.
I believe the thing that dogmatic Bolsheviks (I refrain from using the term "Marxist" here, because I don't think the "identity politics is a bourgeois distraction!" position is actually Marxist in any meaningful way), anyway, I believe the thing that dogmatic Bolsheviks can't get past is that the leadership of women (or the leadership of PoC) is necessary, but not sufficient. People with the cartoonish idea that acknowledging the existence of race and gender is "identity politics," and that "identity politics" means always voting for the person with the right race or gender, don't seem to be able to realize that maybe it is necessary for women and PoC to occupy leadership positions, but not sufficient. Like, just because it is necessary that any left government must include women and PoC at top positions, because women and PoC bear the brunt of the damaged caused by white supremacist patriarchal capitalism and so have insight into the workings of that system derived from their lived experience that white men simply don't have, doesn't mean that it's sufficient for just any woman or just any PoC to be put in the top position.
It is a problem that Sanders is a white man, but it's not an insurmountable one; he just has to be publicly humble enough to listen to women and PoC when they tell him what's up, and he has to get women and PoC with good politics into his inner circle and eventually appoint them to his cabinet. I hated how badly Sanders reacted in the moment when Black Lives Matters protestors took the stage at Netroots; I love how after that moment Sanders responded to their critiques by elevating PoC in his organization, who helped him retool his message and positions. The fact that Sanders appears willing to listen and learn (despite the countervailing fact that he is a very grumpy white man) is actually the main reason why I trust him enough to identify as a supporter; the fact that so many of Sanders's supporters bleat gibberish about "identity politics" instead of showing any willingness whatsoever to listen and learn is the chief reason why I feel awkward talking Sanders himself up.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [57 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 3:46 PM on February 1 [2 favorites +] [!]
It was not a bad-faith interpretation of Sanders's position. It was an accurate description of the loudly expressed stances of the self-aggrandizing, self-important little boys that you find in many Marxist formations. Many of these boys have started supporting Sanders, and through their support they have been diligently chasing anti-white-supremacist PoC, feminist women, and their white-and-male allies away from the Sanders movement.
I know that Sanders is smarter than that position; I wouldn't support him if he weren't smarter than that position. I also know that many of Sanders's supporters hold to exactly the line from that comment by Pope Guilty (a comment that I favorited so hard).
As a cis man, there are types of information about the world that I can only get second-hand. I simply do not know what it is like to expect to be street harassed every time I walk out the door, and so I don't have any firsthand knowledge of the effects of street harassment. I can expect not to be groped when I ride the subway, and so I don't know how to be vigilant against it. As a white person, I simply don't know firsthand the corrosive, pervasive effects of living as a PoC under white supremacy; if I want to know, I have to ask.
Even though deep down I'm totes self-aggrandizing and self-important (otherwise I wouldn't waste so much time blatting out little essays in the comment threads on an ancient community website), I at least have the humility to accept that there are certain types of information that I can't get firsthand, and to accept that I have to listen to the people who can get that information when they tell me. This is why I tend to write off anyone who uses the term "identity politics" at all. Just as healing the damage done by capital to the people living under it requires actually consulting the people living under it and asking us what we need, healing the damage caused by patriarchy requires listening to and believing and following actual women.
I believe the thing that dogmatic Bolsheviks (I refrain from using the term "Marxist" here, because I don't think the "identity politics is a bourgeois distraction!" position is actually Marxist in any meaningful way), anyway, I believe the thing that dogmatic Bolsheviks can't get past is that the leadership of women (or the leadership of PoC) is necessary, but not sufficient. People with the cartoonish idea that acknowledging the existence of race and gender is "identity politics," and that "identity politics" means always voting for the person with the right race or gender, don't seem to be able to realize that maybe it is necessary for women and PoC to occupy leadership positions, but not sufficient. Like, just because it is necessary that any left government must include women and PoC at top positions, because women and PoC bear the brunt of the damaged caused by white supremacist patriarchal capitalism and so have insight into the workings of that system derived from their lived experience that white men simply don't have, doesn't mean that it's sufficient for just any woman or just any PoC to be put in the top position.
It is a problem that Sanders is a white man, but it's not an insurmountable one; he just has to be publicly humble enough to listen to women and PoC when they tell him what's up, and he has to get women and PoC with good politics into his inner circle and eventually appoint them to his cabinet. I hated how badly Sanders reacted in the moment when Black Lives Matters protestors took the stage at Netroots; I love how after that moment Sanders responded to their critiques by elevating PoC in his organization, who helped him retool his message and positions. The fact that Sanders appears willing to listen and learn (despite the countervailing fact that he is a very grumpy white man) is actually the main reason why I trust him enough to identify as a supporter; the fact that so many of Sanders's supporters bleat gibberish about "identity politics" instead of showing any willingness whatsoever to listen and learn is the chief reason why I feel awkward talking Sanders himself up.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [57 favorites]
"Me, I'd gladly vote alongside people I don't agree with to see anybody but Trump win..."
I assume you mean voting for anyone in the primary, if so, not a bad tactic but it is a nightmare in Michigan. For example:
"Eight years ago, the state violated both parties’ rules by scheduling a January primary, partly because then-Governor Granholm thought this would give her an “in” (and maybe a job) with Hillary Clinton, who she was convinced would be the nominee."
Oh wait, it's more subversive...
"She was wrong. Even though John McCain was going on to win the nomination that year, Michigan Republican voters chose a candidate who dropped out of the race in a few weeks. As for Democrats, they manged to leave one name off the primary ballot: Barack Obama.
And Americans wonder why Marcellus and Madame Mercury are the only choices.
posted by clavdivs at 4:33 PM on February 1, 2016
I assume you mean voting for anyone in the primary, if so, not a bad tactic but it is a nightmare in Michigan. For example:
"Eight years ago, the state violated both parties’ rules by scheduling a January primary, partly because then-Governor Granholm thought this would give her an “in” (and maybe a job) with Hillary Clinton, who she was convinced would be the nominee."
Oh wait, it's more subversive...
"She was wrong. Even though John McCain was going on to win the nomination that year, Michigan Republican voters chose a candidate who dropped out of the race in a few weeks. As for Democrats, they manged to leave one name off the primary ballot: Barack Obama.
And Americans wonder why Marcellus and Madame Mercury are the only choices.
posted by clavdivs at 4:33 PM on February 1, 2016
Are re really seeung a waning tea party? That seems like wishful thinking.
posted by Artw at 4:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 4:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, I'm out. Have fun folks.
posted by benito.strauss at 4:33 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by benito.strauss at 4:33 PM on February 1, 2016
Exactly, femservatives or whatever you call people who support Hillary....
Can we please make an effort to not name call? One of the most despicable things about the '08 election was how viciously and nastily Obama supporters treated Clinton supporters on Democratic websites like Daily Kos and TPM. We do not need to re-enact that here, no matter whom each of us supports. Please.
posted by zarq at 4:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [32 favorites]
Can we please make an effort to not name call? One of the most despicable things about the '08 election was how viciously and nastily Obama supporters treated Clinton supporters on Democratic websites like Daily Kos and TPM. We do not need to re-enact that here, no matter whom each of us supports. Please.
posted by zarq at 4:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [32 favorites]
I think Clinton could work with the Republicans in this way. I don't think Sanders is capable of this approach, or at least he's run on a platform that is antithetical to that kind of compromise and pragmatism.
Considering some of the horrible things that the Republican candidates are pledging to do to what remains of the social safety net, I want a candidate who's antithetical to their platform. I don't want some pragmatist that will "compromise" and only cut Social Security benefits by half of what the GOP wants. We've just had eight years of that shit.
This is about taking back the Overton Window and changing the national conversation.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [23 favorites]
Considering some of the horrible things that the Republican candidates are pledging to do to what remains of the social safety net, I want a candidate who's antithetical to their platform. I don't want some pragmatist that will "compromise" and only cut Social Security benefits by half of what the GOP wants. We've just had eight years of that shit.
This is about taking back the Overton Window and changing the national conversation.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [23 favorites]
MSNBC reporting very large turnout on both sides, especially in the college towns.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Tea party is done. It's rabbit season and I want my fucking brace of conies.
posted by clavdivs at 4:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clavdivs at 4:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, all it takes to change how the caucuses are held is to get yourself (and plenty of like-minded others) delegated up through the caucuses and conventions to the state level where they make the rules. Because clearly someone who is having problems with caucuses as they are will have time for that.
posted by ckape at 4:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ckape at 4:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I also realize maybe people here aren't familiar with the term "brogressive" and think I invented as a name to slur Bernie supporters or something, because it has caused this weird derail that I didn't intend. So, sorry for that. It's a pretty common word, though, at least among my social circles, so I'm surprised by all this.
A "brogressive" is like the folks on Reddit, who seem pretty liberal until you get to an issue of women's rights, or race, and then they just don't get it (at best). They're Paul-type libertarians who have recently begun using some language of liberalism but really... aren't progressive at all, in most ways. It's NOT another name for Bernie supporters, the vast majority of whom are actually progressive. However, some guys like that HAVE become vocal Bernie supporters, in my experience and in the experience of many people out there - for whatever misguided reasons they have.
By bringing them up I'm saying I believe they're a problem that the Bernie campaign will have to deal with more, in the future. As will other candidates who begin using the internet more and more, I think. They've spoken against them but it's doing to continue to be a difficult and interesting problem to manage.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
A "brogressive" is like the folks on Reddit, who seem pretty liberal until you get to an issue of women's rights, or race, and then they just don't get it (at best). They're Paul-type libertarians who have recently begun using some language of liberalism but really... aren't progressive at all, in most ways. It's NOT another name for Bernie supporters, the vast majority of whom are actually progressive. However, some guys like that HAVE become vocal Bernie supporters, in my experience and in the experience of many people out there - for whatever misguided reasons they have.
By bringing them up I'm saying I believe they're a problem that the Bernie campaign will have to deal with more, in the future. As will other candidates who begin using the internet more and more, I think. They've spoken against them but it's doing to continue to be a difficult and interesting problem to manage.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
some Hillary people think that Bernie supporters are over-privileged white dudes who like feeling awesome and pure and don't really have to worry about whether he's viable, because they're not the ones who are going to be screwed if the Republicans win.
The suggestion that Bernie Sanders -- a 40-year career Socialist -- doesn't have a passionate, committed, and diverse base, or is beholden to a few very-late coming bros, is a lot of political spin. I am a woman and I am 100% comfortable putting my rights, including reproductive, equal,pay, and mat/pat leave, in Bernie's hands.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [48 favorites]
The suggestion that Bernie Sanders -- a 40-year career Socialist -- doesn't have a passionate, committed, and diverse base, or is beholden to a few very-late coming bros, is a lot of political spin. I am a woman and I am 100% comfortable putting my rights, including reproductive, equal,pay, and mat/pat leave, in Bernie's hands.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [48 favorites]
The most fascinating thing about all of this to me is how Bernie vs. Hillary seems to be a proxy for the class vs. identity schools of progressivism, only there's no real debate just counter accusations of shitty behavior.
posted by echocollate at 4:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by echocollate at 4:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
Ah, Democrats. Is there no Republican candidate so vile you can't find a way to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
posted by Justinian at 4:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Even though deep down I'm totes self-aggrandizing and self-important"
Yeah, you do come off exactly that way, starting with calling people who disagree with you 'little boys', and then leading into weird references to 'dogmatic bolsheviks'.
posted by zipadee at 4:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, you do come off exactly that way, starting with calling people who disagree with you 'little boys', and then leading into weird references to 'dogmatic bolsheviks'.
posted by zipadee at 4:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thats the New York Review of Books, not the NYT. The New York Times endorsed Hillary.
...and ran an above-the-fold page 1 story yesterday prattling on about the many "striking similarities" between Trump and Sanders supporters. The NYT has been in the bag for Clinton since 2012.
posted by Lyme Drop at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
...and ran an above-the-fold page 1 story yesterday prattling on about the many "striking similarities" between Trump and Sanders supporters. The NYT has been in the bag for Clinton since 2012.
posted by Lyme Drop at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Turnout in college towns actually doesn't matter very much on Democratic side, because of the stupid way the caucuses work. But yeah, turnout in my precinct feels really high and very pro-Bernie.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's getting awfully personal in here, you guys.
posted by Fleebnork at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Fleebnork at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
(I am referring to the circular firing squad of infighting and not support for any particular candidate. I will happily vote for any of the three Democratic candidates. Even Governor Snoozefest I mean Carcetti I mean O'Malley.)
posted by Justinian at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
Is there no Republican candidate so vile you can't find a way to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
Both Clinton and Sanders will have their weaknesses. Who do you want us to vote for?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:42 PM on February 1, 2016
Both Clinton and Sanders will have their weaknesses. Who do you want us to vote for?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:42 PM on February 1, 2016
Ah, Democrats. Is there no Republican candidate so vile you can't find a way to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
Maybe if Democrats would stop offering up candidates whocrib triangulate their policies from Republicans.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Maybe if Democrats would stop offering up candidates who
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Huh.
The GOP’s ‘tea party’ Class of 2010 is heading for the exits — fast
I dunno, the lunacy they brought with them seems to be hear to stay, and it's not like they won't be replaced by fresh crazies.
posted by Artw at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016
The GOP’s ‘tea party’ Class of 2010 is heading for the exits — fast
I dunno, the lunacy they brought with them seems to be hear to stay, and it's not like they won't be replaced by fresh crazies.
posted by Artw at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016
Can we please not support candidates with track records supporting murder and wanton destruction of entire societies?
I, too, am enraged by the existence of a complicated world over which I can exert but minimal control. To combat this, I daily do my imperfect best to accomplish the good despite the lack of perfection.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I, too, am enraged by the existence of a complicated world over which I can exert but minimal control. To combat this, I daily do my imperfect best to accomplish the good despite the lack of perfection.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
There's not a Metafilter Caucus, but could you fucking imagine?!?!?
posted by MCMikeNamara at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [23 favorites]
I'm having the amusing* experience of reading this thread on one device and following a mobile game chat on another device at the same time, where I am watching Bernie supporters cheer on their candidate, post dank Hillary memes, and call her gendered slurs.
*not really
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
*not really
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: Like I said, I'm talking about Aelfwine and other's potshots and infighting, not support for Clinton or Sanders. Vote for whomever you want in the primary. And in the general we need to get behind the winner and make sure Trump isn't the next President.
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thats the New York Review of Books, not the NYT.
Well daaaayam. My bad. :P
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:45 PM on February 1, 2016
Well daaaayam. My bad. :P
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:45 PM on February 1, 2016
Ah, bro, is there anything you cannot portmanteau (brotmanteau?) it with?
posted by ckape at 4:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ckape at 4:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
ITYM portmanbro
posted by dersins at 4:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by dersins at 4:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]
MeFiBro's?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:47 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:47 PM on February 1, 2016
The reality is Clinton will be the nominee baring a wierd run by Sanders. This isn't 2008 and Clinton isn't going to be out manuevered with the ground game. Sanders needed Iowa and NH by strong enough margins to convince SC African American voters and that doesn't seem likely to happen.
On the Republican side baring a major Trump meltdown he's the nominee even though he's a disaster for the general election and the party.
Hopefully everyone in here can accept valid differences of opinion and accept the process even though its horribly dated and antique.
posted by vuron at 4:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
On the Republican side baring a major Trump meltdown he's the nominee even though he's a disaster for the general election and the party.
Hopefully everyone in here can accept valid differences of opinion and accept the process even though its horribly dated and antique.
posted by vuron at 4:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
/has profound doubts about what you can tell from a mobile game chat failing to deviate from it's usual discussion level.
posted by Artw at 4:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
MSNBC reporting very large turnout on both sides, especially in the college towns.
This should favor Bernie.
posted by zipadee at 4:49 PM on February 1, 2016
This should favor Bernie.
posted by zipadee at 4:49 PM on February 1, 2016
Terms such as "Bernie Bros", "brogressives", "femservatives", "feminazis" are helpful to derail discussion. Using such a term without clarification and then later saying, "well, I meant *this* subgroup, not all the supporters of $candidate" perhaps should be paired with an apology to the larger group.
If the only male Sanders supporters worthy of mention are also worthy of epithets, does that make people like me beneath mention? I have supported abortion rights, affordable housing, and a host of other egalitarian, uplifting ideas for decades!
edit: I had never heard the term 'brogressive' until it was used to label Sanders supporters.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 4:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
If the only male Sanders supporters worthy of mention are also worthy of epithets, does that make people like me beneath mention? I have supported abortion rights, affordable housing, and a host of other egalitarian, uplifting ideas for decades!
edit: I had never heard the term 'brogressive' until it was used to label Sanders supporters.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 4:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
Are re really seeung a waning tea party? That seems like wishful thinking.
The Tea Party has been waning since its explosion in 2010. In 2012 it lost around 20% of the seats in the House that it had gained in 2010. Except for a few notable upsets (Eric Cantor), almost every Tea Party candidate lost the 2014 primaries or elections.
The fear since their surge in 2010 was that they would "primary" any candidate who dared oppose them, but it's now clear that they don't have the power to do that any more. The remnants still exist and exert influence, but they are no longer the driving force of the Republicans.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:51 PM on February 1, 2016
The Tea Party has been waning since its explosion in 2010. In 2012 it lost around 20% of the seats in the House that it had gained in 2010. Except for a few notable upsets (Eric Cantor), almost every Tea Party candidate lost the 2014 primaries or elections.
The fear since their surge in 2010 was that they would "primary" any candidate who dared oppose them, but it's now clear that they don't have the power to do that any more. The remnants still exist and exert influence, but they are no longer the driving force of the Republicans.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:51 PM on February 1, 2016
Dank memes are super fun. I might even duck into the breeding ground for dank memes this evening but even then I will probably avoid the dreaded /pol/
posted by vuron at 4:51 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by vuron at 4:51 PM on February 1, 2016
Spread love not dank memes.
posted by Talez at 4:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Talez at 4:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Radiophonic Oddity, you're right, and that's why I said I was sorry and clarified what I meant. I'll be more clear in apologizing for any bad blood I've stirred up, as I honestly didn't mean to start a derail. It's been such a common term in my circles since well before this election, that I didn't think it would be a controversial word to use.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 4:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Republicans really don't seem to have become any saner as a result.
posted by Artw at 4:52 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Artw at 4:52 PM on February 1, 2016
College turnout really only helps bernie to a limited degree based on the crazy ass caucus algorithm. A primary has issues but holy shit caucuses are crazy awful.
posted by vuron at 4:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by vuron at 4:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can we please make an effort to not name call?
Would them darned wholier-than-yow zarkenites please stop trying to spoil all the fun. <rimshot>
posted by sammyo at 4:53 PM on February 1, 2016
Would them darned wholier-than-yow zarkenites please stop trying to spoil all the fun. <rimshot>
posted by sammyo at 4:53 PM on February 1, 2016
edit: I had never heard the term 'brogressive' until it was used to label Sanders supporters.
I've been hearing it for quite a while now, actually. Usually in reference to libertarians.
posted by palomar at 4:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've been hearing it for quite a while now, actually. Usually in reference to libertarians.
posted by palomar at 4:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Would them darned wholier-than-yow zarkenites please stop trying to spoil all the fun.
:)
posted by zarq at 4:56 PM on February 1, 2016
:)
posted by zarq at 4:56 PM on February 1, 2016
When people say that libertarians are progressive by what standard are we speaking? Because it seems like you can be pro legalization while being horribly reactionary in other areas.
posted by vuron at 4:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 4:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ohhh... pot.
posted by Artw at 4:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
Hi guys! Turnout is high! I'm taking deep cleansing breaths in an attempt not to pass out! Have I mentioned that I really hate crowds?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
wouldn't everybody #feelingthebern right now be supporting Elizabeth Warren just as enthusiastically, if not more so, if she had decided to run after all?
Obviously I can't speak for everyone everywhere, but speaking for everyone that I know personally: Hell yes.
That said, I will be very pleased if a guy who describes himself as a socialist actually makes it into the White House.
posted by IAmUnaware at 5:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Obviously I can't speak for everyone everywhere, but speaking for everyone that I know personally: Hell yes.
That said, I will be very pleased if a guy who describes himself as a socialist actually makes it into the White House.
posted by IAmUnaware at 5:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
CNN is having a grand time walking remote cameras down the lines entering a couple caucuses highlighting extremely high turnout.
**Burning Brogressives for The Bern**
posted by sammyo at 5:00 PM on February 1, 2016
**Burning Brogressives for The Bern**
posted by sammyo at 5:00 PM on February 1, 2016
wait...
posted by sammyo at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Based on entrance polling (unreliable): first wave data has Republicans too early to call, indication of a Trump lead. Dems also too early to call, indication of a Clinton lead.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016
(Not you guys. The actual fucking caucus.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think there's actually a really interesting conversation to be had (probably later, probably elsewhere) about the difference between using the ongoing useful term "brogressive" in a more niche activist circle and the use of it to describe (abusive and otherwise) "Bernie Bros" by more mainstream political operations.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
First entrance polls of the Republican caucuses show a Trump lead with Rubio and Cruz in the next two spots (in no particular order) and the Democratic caucuses show a small Clinton lead over Sanders.
posted by Justinian at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016
Pot and anti-war. I remember seeing a lot of Paulites saying something similar to what some...particularly enthusiastic...Sanders supports had been saying in this thread: if you don't support Paul you're a statist shill who supports war and violence.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sangermaine at 5:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
NBC reports Clinton also had the same early entrance lead in 2008, where she went on to come in third.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait, people are calling libertarians progressive?
No, but some libertarians are calling themselves progressive... thus why a bunch of feminists came up with the word "brogressive" a few years back. And, well, here we are today. Fun times.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 5:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
No, but some libertarians are calling themselves progressive... thus why a bunch of feminists came up with the word "brogressive" a few years back. And, well, here we are today. Fun times.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 5:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
wouldn't everybody #feelingthebern right now be supporting Elizabeth Warren just as enthusiastically, if not more so, if she had decided to run after all?
Fuck yeah ... Lessig as well.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Fuck yeah ... Lessig as well.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
edit: I had never heard the term 'brogressive' until it was used to label Sanders supporters.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 4:50 PM on February 1 [3 favorites +] [!]
The term has been current on the left for quite some time, sort of like the related term "macktivist." It's leaking out into the mainstream now because many men with bad politics on everything except for class have attached themselves to the Sanders campaign, and the (refreshing) surprise success of the Sanders campaign in the mainstream has unfortunately made those guys more visible in the mainstream as well.
I will henceforth refrain from referring to the men who use gendered slurs and threats to menace Clinton supporters as "boys," even though when I've had the misfortune to meet people who use gendered slurs against Clinton and her supporters, I have been pretty much immediately certain that the reason why they act the way they do is that they're 20 year old white men who haven't grown out of a particular type of unpleasant boyishness yet — and I say this as a 30-something white man who likewise hasn't grown out of a particular type of unpleasant boyishness yet.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 4:50 PM on February 1 [3 favorites +] [!]
The term has been current on the left for quite some time, sort of like the related term "macktivist." It's leaking out into the mainstream now because many men with bad politics on everything except for class have attached themselves to the Sanders campaign, and the (refreshing) surprise success of the Sanders campaign in the mainstream has unfortunately made those guys more visible in the mainstream as well.
I will henceforth refrain from referring to the men who use gendered slurs and threats to menace Clinton supporters as "boys," even though when I've had the misfortune to meet people who use gendered slurs against Clinton and her supporters, I have been pretty much immediately certain that the reason why they act the way they do is that they're 20 year old white men who haven't grown out of a particular type of unpleasant boyishness yet — and I say this as a 30-something white man who likewise hasn't grown out of a particular type of unpleasant boyishness yet.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
I hadn't hung out here recently, but is the prevailing feeling around here that Trump still isn't a serious threat to win the presidency even if he tops Iowa tonight and New Hampshire next? I know I felt that way a long time ago in a thread far far away when it seemed like a non-crazy option like Jeb would eventually get traction and Trump would have served as a nice hearty distraction. But now it feels like tonight's the night where we see the first signs of the light starting to dim before he eventually wins in November.
I also noted a long time ago in a post I can't find, that I thought there would be a last big spurt by the racists and bigots in America, and I think I assumed it had happened and we got past it. Then police, even under watch, just kept on shooting people. Anonymous comments turned to Facebook comments, and racists just kept on posting, now with their faces attached. And now Trump is just riding that wave. I feel like Trump would do his best to destroy the government - because a lot of people in his party have joyously wished for that for what seems like decades now. Currently, envisioning Donald Trump taking office seems like the start of a disaster movie.
On the one hand I hate to be like anti-Obama people who act like the world was ending and their lives were at stake, but on the other hand, if I'm going to do that, I seriously hope my concerns are just as unfounded as theirs were.
posted by cashman at 5:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I also noted a long time ago in a post I can't find, that I thought there would be a last big spurt by the racists and bigots in America, and I think I assumed it had happened and we got past it. Then police, even under watch, just kept on shooting people. Anonymous comments turned to Facebook comments, and racists just kept on posting, now with their faces attached. And now Trump is just riding that wave. I feel like Trump would do his best to destroy the government - because a lot of people in his party have joyously wished for that for what seems like decades now. Currently, envisioning Donald Trump taking office seems like the start of a disaster movie.
On the one hand I hate to be like anti-Obama people who act like the world was ending and their lives were at stake, but on the other hand, if I'm going to do that, I seriously hope my concerns are just as unfounded as theirs were.
posted by cashman at 5:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
On the Republican side baring a major Trump meltdown he's the nominee even though he's a disaster for the general election and the party.
Surely the people behind the Republican nomination care about the fact that a desk lamp would beat Trump in a general election, especially when there doesn't seem to be a clear mandate for the Democrats.
The desk lamp probably wouldn't even have to work.
posted by IAmUnaware at 5:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Surely the people behind the Republican nomination care about the fact that a desk lamp would beat Trump in a general election, especially when there doesn't seem to be a clear mandate for the Democrats.
The desk lamp probably wouldn't even have to work.
posted by IAmUnaware at 5:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know about his chances in the general, cashman, but I don't see how Trump is stopped from getting the nomination.
posted by Justinian at 5:04 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 5:04 PM on February 1, 2016
I hadn't hung around here recently, but is the prevailing feeling that Trump still isn't a serious threat to win the presidency even if he tops Iowa tonight and New Hampshire next?
Nobody knows. He is widely expected to be the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:05 PM on February 1, 2016
Nobody knows. He is widely expected to be the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:05 PM on February 1, 2016
Hi guys! Turnout is high! I'm taking deep cleansing breaths in an attempt not to pass out! Have I mentioned that I really hate crowds?
Yeah, I can pretend that my dislike of the caucus is solely just about the economic injustice, but there's no small part that also thinks being able to vote without having to spend time with people you don't want to be around should be guaranteed in the Constitution. Best of luck, ArbitraryAndCapricious and all other caucus goers.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, I can pretend that my dislike of the caucus is solely just about the economic injustice, but there's no small part that also thinks being able to vote without having to spend time with people you don't want to be around should be guaranteed in the Constitution. Best of luck, ArbitraryAndCapricious and all other caucus goers.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Fox entrance poll of Iowa caucus-goers: 34% are late deciders, compared to 46% four years ago.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm thinking Clinton might not get the 15% threshold in my precinct. Pretty overwhelmingly Bernie here, but this is a student precinct and not really predictive of anything.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's actually not good for Sanders if students are voting in their school precinct rather than their home precinct; it concentrates his votes in a few areas instead of spreading it out for more delegates.
I'm assuming that the Clintonites learned their painful lesson about delegate math in 2008. Obama's team made them look like not particularly talented amateurs.
posted by Justinian at 5:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm assuming that the Clintonites learned their painful lesson about delegate math in 2008. Obama's team made them look like not particularly talented amateurs.
posted by Justinian at 5:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
But there's also a bright side to all this misery: If Trump and Clinton each snag their party's nomination and go to the general election it's a "can't lose for defense stocks."* ... Buy them before everyone else catches on.
(*I am not a/your financial advisor, duh.)
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
(*I am not a/your financial advisor, duh.)
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have some ideas about how Trump is stopped in the general but I'll refrain from expressing them to avoid awkward Secret Service visits.
posted by corb at 5:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 5:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Some of these kids may be out of state, but yeah: high turnout in student precincts doesn't do much for Bernie. But it is crazy high: higher than in 2008, they're saying.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:11 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:11 PM on February 1, 2016
And now Trump is just riding that wave. I feel like Trump would do his best to destroy the government - because a lot of people in his party have joyously wished for that for what seems like decades now.
I believe there was a recent MeFi post about how Trump's views (as much as you can pin him on anything) aren't the same kind of absolutist "small government" rhetoric you hear from people like Cruz. He's expressed support for government programs.
Trump is much more nationalist, protectionist, and xenophobic than he is some kind of True Conservative ideologue.
I'd actually prefer a Trump to a Cruz if it had to be one of them. Cruz is a true believer, Trump seems at least wiling to negotiate.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I believe there was a recent MeFi post about how Trump's views (as much as you can pin him on anything) aren't the same kind of absolutist "small government" rhetoric you hear from people like Cruz. He's expressed support for government programs.
Trump is much more nationalist, protectionist, and xenophobic than he is some kind of True Conservative ideologue.
I'd actually prefer a Trump to a Cruz if it had to be one of them. Cruz is a true believer, Trump seems at least wiling to negotiate.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump Tells Crowd to ‘Knock the Crap Out’ of Protesters, Offers to Pay Legal Fees
posted by Talez at 5:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
There may be somebody with tomatoes in the audience. So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell— I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise. It won’t be so much ’cause the courts agree with us too.Next he'll have his own Sturmabteilung.
posted by Talez at 5:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
GOP side - entrance poll says 43% are first timers (vs. 38% in 2012)
# of Evangelicals according to initial data is 62%
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:12 PM on February 1, 2016
# of Evangelicals according to initial data is 62%
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:12 PM on February 1, 2016
MetaFilter: President Desk Lamp
posted by SillyShepherd at 5:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by SillyShepherd at 5:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I didn't realize that candidates were allowed in caucuses. Is Donald Trump going to yell at anyone who doesn't want to vote for him?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
CBS is showing Rubio in 2nd place ahead of Cruz right now. That would be huge.
posted by skewed at 5:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by skewed at 5:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
The SA seems liberal in comparison to Trump's batshit insane fan base.
posted by vuron at 5:17 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by vuron at 5:17 PM on February 1, 2016
'Brogressive' is a way of describing the exact asshole who will call you a 'femservative' for making women's bodily autonomy a priority.
posted by easter queen at 5:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by easter queen at 5:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
Who is the girl next to Trump? Not his wife, the even younger one.
posted by Justinian at 5:18 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 5:18 PM on February 1, 2016
(ie the one young enough to be his granddaughter not the one young enough to be his daughter.)
posted by Justinian at 5:18 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 5:18 PM on February 1, 2016
I am getting increasingly depressed by 538's coverage that Trump may have been favored by the overwhelming news coverage of him, which means both that "hey look, I'm an asshole!" is a viable strategy, and also that "hey look at this asshole" may have created the monster that is going to tromp all over our hearts.
posted by corb at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by corb at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think Ivanka is in town. Could be her?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016
(Can we not go after Trump's wife's age? Who cares?)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not the family values conservatives, clearly.
posted by Justinian at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
"hey look at this asshole" may have created the monster that is going to tromp all over our hearts.
And if it works this time, just think about what the next election cycle will look like!
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
And if it works this time, just think about what the next election cycle will look like!
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Really, the comments about her being young enough to be his daughter are gross and insulting to those of us in age gap relationships.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump = chaotic evil; Cruz = lawful evil; Clinton = lawful neutral; Sanders = chaotic good
posted by dephlogisticated at 5:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by dephlogisticated at 5:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [22 favorites]
Hmmm. Twitter seems to be registering lots of Bernie support, not just in the expected places. Interesting.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:21 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:21 PM on February 1, 2016
Look on the bright side corb. Trump will only lose the general and maybe put the senate in play. It is unlikely that even he could deliver the trifecta of making Pelosi speaker of the house
posted by vuron at 5:22 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by vuron at 5:22 PM on February 1, 2016
Can we just agree not to bring pointlessly divisive terms like "femservative" and "brogressive" into the discussion at all? It's just trading insults based in broad generalizations with strangers.
posted by saulgoodman at 5:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 5:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [23 favorites]
I enthusiastically agree, saulgoodman. One of the things that brings me to metafilter rather than any other of the myriad internet fora for political discussion is how we generally don't adopt that kind of trendy namecalling.
posted by skewed at 5:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by skewed at 5:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I picked a hell of a week to stop drinking.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 5:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 5:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
Can we still call each other ninjas in the grand Juggalo tradition?
posted by Sangermaine at 5:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Sangermaine at 5:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
I think I may be the only person on this thread who wants to geek out over the process rather than argue about the candidates.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Okay time to fucking cut it out with the #brogressive shit. Asshole fake progressive bros are not exclusive to any one group. Yes, there are frat kid Bernie supporters who probably hold some hideous bro views. There are also probably BLM "allies" who would never actually support reparations, and men who identify as feminists who are actually pieces of shit toward women. This is not news. We all know this stuff.
Like if you have to bring up "brogressives" are you seriously bringing your A-game? For real? Seriously just consider not writing another word about politics. You are embarrassing yourselves. Just let the grown ups have grown up talk, please and thanks.
posted by windbox at 5:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Like if you have to bring up "brogressives" are you seriously bringing your A-game? For real? Seriously just consider not writing another word about politics. You are embarrassing yourselves. Just let the grown ups have grown up talk, please and thanks.
posted by windbox at 5:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
I agree as well. I just couldn't believe some asshole came in here with the guts to call a bunch of women femservatives and the comment still sits there like a turd.
posted by easter queen at 5:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by easter queen at 5:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'd also like to geek out on the process, even though I feel bad about it, since it's supposed to be about issues.
posted by skewed at 5:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by skewed at 5:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I thought he was making the point that calling people who support Sanders brogressives is offensive just like calling Clinton supporters femservatives would be offensive? But the thread goes pretty fast so I coulda missed an earnest one.
posted by Justinian at 5:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd actually prefer a Trump to a Cruz if it had to be one of them.
Who is the girl next to Trump?
I was just at the Kennedy Library and one exhibit was the seating chart to a state dinner, total glamour intelligentsia crowd. If The Donald gets to have state dinners the glitz, well forget investing in Defense industries, big futures contract on rhinestone suppliers.
posted by sammyo at 5:29 PM on February 1, 2016
Who is the girl next to Trump?
I was just at the Kennedy Library and one exhibit was the seating chart to a state dinner, total glamour intelligentsia crowd. If The Donald gets to have state dinners the glitz, well forget investing in Defense industries, big futures contract on rhinestone suppliers.
posted by sammyo at 5:29 PM on February 1, 2016
Okay, what do you want to say about the process? I thought the general consensus was that the systems are needlessly arcane and shitty.
posted by Sangermaine at 5:29 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Sangermaine at 5:29 PM on February 1, 2016
The candidates get to address the caucuses before voting? That's... weird?
Because Trump is making a campaign speech right now at the caucus place.
posted by Justinian at 5:30 PM on February 1, 2016
Because Trump is making a campaign speech right now at the caucus place.
posted by Justinian at 5:30 PM on February 1, 2016
Guys, there are O'Malley people here. It's like seeing a unicorn.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [36 favorites]
It's weirder to me that the media gets to live broadcast.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:31 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:31 PM on February 1, 2016
Yes, there are frat kid Bernie supporters who probably hold some hideous bro views.
As a Sanders supporter and former fraternity member, I'm offended.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
As a Sanders supporter and former fraternity member, I'm offended.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
MSNBC reporting Democrats first time caucus goers make up 44% right now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:32 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:32 PM on February 1, 2016
I am torn between being interested in the process and wondering if I have enough alcohol for if Trump actually wins.
It's a real problem even if he loses the general, because it means that it will make his discourse acceptable discourse on a national stage, and even though I feel dirty using the word, embolden people throughout the country who previously thought those views were outdated and could not be shown publicly.
In process-related land, I had no idea that the Democrats had basically a Hugo voting process.
posted by corb at 5:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's a real problem even if he loses the general, because it means that it will make his discourse acceptable discourse on a national stage, and even though I feel dirty using the word, embolden people throughout the country who previously thought those views were outdated and could not be shown publicly.
In process-related land, I had no idea that the Democrats had basically a Hugo voting process.
posted by corb at 5:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
How many Abkhazians are even in Iowa, anyway?
posted by indubitable at 5:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by indubitable at 5:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Preliminary results are 44% first time caucus goers on the Democratic side. For context, in 2008 (Obama) it was like 56%.
posted by Justinian at 5:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Apparently roomthreeseventeen's MSNBC feed is about 10 seconds faster than mine.
posted by Justinian at 5:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton = lawful neutral
Are you even paying attention at all?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Are you even paying attention at all?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Per CBS News Twitter: Dems: 15% are under 30yo; of those, 91% are for Sanders.14% are 30-44yo; of those, 64% are for Sanders
Dems: 36% 45-64 yo; of those, 57% are for Clinton; 36% are over 65 yo; of those, 69% are for Clinton
Not sure where the younger folks are.
posted by bgal81 at 5:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dems: 36% 45-64 yo; of those, 57% are for Clinton; 36% are over 65 yo; of those, 69% are for Clinton
Not sure where the younger folks are.
posted by bgal81 at 5:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Are you even paying attention at all?
I agree. Lawful good. She's like Snape after he swore to help Dumbledore.
posted by bgal81 at 5:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I agree. Lawful good. She's like Snape after he swore to help Dumbledore.
posted by bgal81 at 5:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I hadn't hung around here recently, but is the prevailing feeling that Trump still isn't a serious threat to win the presidency even if he tops Iowa tonight and New Hampshire next?
I remember when all the serious people said Trump would certainly implode by July, or maybe August. Certainly before the leaves turn. Well, definitely before Halloween. There's no way he'll still be leading in 2016. Okay, well, he made it to 2016, but when the primaries begin, voters will get serious and finally turn to Rubio.
Now we are at "okay, maybe he'll get the nomination, but he won't win the general." I hope he doesn't, but he's defied expectations at every stage of this game so far.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
I remember when all the serious people said Trump would certainly implode by July, or maybe August. Certainly before the leaves turn. Well, definitely before Halloween. There's no way he'll still be leading in 2016. Okay, well, he made it to 2016, but when the primaries begin, voters will get serious and finally turn to Rubio.
Now we are at "okay, maybe he'll get the nomination, but he won't win the general." I hope he doesn't, but he's defied expectations at every stage of this game so far.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
Presumably, though, some of those 2008 people are coming back. Wonder who they're supporting?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, looking at these polls are fascinating - it looks like Democrats over 50 and making over 50k are showing up in numbers and picking Clinton. At least according to entrance polls, but people can change, so who knows.
posted by corb at 5:40 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by corb at 5:40 PM on February 1, 2016
Sweet moment. When 7 yr old singing National Anthem repeated lyrics, crowd joined in to help finish. Nice.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
oh hell i have been all alone on the thread on the grey.
posted by vrakatar at 5:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by vrakatar at 5:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Er... now 59% of Democrats said its a first time caucus. I'm getting the feeling the "first time caucus goer" results are shall we say highly variable and unreliable. 'Cause it shouldn't swing 15% in 5 minutes.
posted by Justinian at 5:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, the raw percentages of first time supporters doesn't tell you much, because Obama got a lot of people who had previously been eligible to vote to show up, meaning that some percentage of the pool of adults who have never voted (I mean, those who were 18+ 8 years ago) shrank.
posted by zug at 5:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zug at 5:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have no doubt whatsoever that Trunp has a serious shot at the presidency and have said so all along, but I might be a bit more cynical about Americans as an outsider than natives here would be.
posted by Artw at 5:42 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Artw at 5:42 PM on February 1, 2016
Bloom County for everything, part #1,027.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 5:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah those turnout numbers aren't great for Sanders in comparison to Obama2008. I like Sanders and alot of his policy positions but from an inside baseball perspective he needs way way better turnout in Iowa than that because he's 100% trying an insurgent strategy ala Obama. The problem is of course that Obama charted a novel strategy in 2008 that Clinton wasn't prepared for. In contrast the ground game is pretty much even between Hilary and Bernie.
Also keep in mind that Obama had a massive built-in advantage vis-a-vis the PoC population that Bernie just doesn't seem likely to match. That gave Obama a substantial advantage in some of the upcoming primaries and caucuses that is unlikely to be there for Bernie.
Still it's interesting to see how successful Bernie is going to be because at a minimum his continued success is keeping Clinton from pivoting to the center too early.
posted by vuron at 5:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also keep in mind that Obama had a massive built-in advantage vis-a-vis the PoC population that Bernie just doesn't seem likely to match. That gave Obama a substantial advantage in some of the upcoming primaries and caucuses that is unlikely to be there for Bernie.
Still it's interesting to see how successful Bernie is going to be because at a minimum his continued success is keeping Clinton from pivoting to the center too early.
posted by vuron at 5:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
With 8% reporting, Clinton 53% Sanders 46%
Holy shit. I'm speechless. We actually have a contest.
posted by Talez at 5:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Holy shit. I'm speechless. We actually have a contest.
posted by Talez at 5:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
The term has been current on the left for quite some time, sort of like the related term "macktivist." It's leaking out into the mainstream now because many men with bad politics on everything except for class have attached themselves to the Sanders campaign, and the (refreshing) surprise success of the Sanders campaign in the mainstream has unfortunately made those guys more visible in the mainstream as well.
I don't want to start up any name-calling again here, but to be serious for a moment, can people think a little about this easy reference to 'bad politics on everything except for class'? Class is not another identity category like race, gender, or whatever; in a capitalist society it is the single most significant form through which the structural disadvantages of e.g. race actually happen and are mediated. It is very much the case and growing more the case that if you have money, professional connections, and other forms of class privilege that you can protect yourself from numerous disadvantages associated with structural racism. Within races, there are huge class gaps in incarceration, exposure to police violence, access to health care, on and on. (E.g. in 1999 black men with at least a year of college, a decent class proxy, had one-eighth the risk of death or imprisonment by age 30 that black high school dropouts did, and one-half the risk of death or imprisonment of white high school dropouts...and 1999 was an economic high-water mark compared to today).
Concretely speaking, in a society like ours where class and race are tightly correlated due to historic racism, someone who has 'bad politics on everything except for class' is campaigning for a major redistribution of resources and privileges from whites to blacks. Shouldn't that lead to some desire to build coalitions with someone like that, rather than mock them and insult them? The point of politics is ideally to create a majority for goals you believe in, not to seek out ever more sources of moral superiority to the people around you.
posted by zipadee at 5:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [22 favorites]
I don't want to start up any name-calling again here, but to be serious for a moment, can people think a little about this easy reference to 'bad politics on everything except for class'? Class is not another identity category like race, gender, or whatever; in a capitalist society it is the single most significant form through which the structural disadvantages of e.g. race actually happen and are mediated. It is very much the case and growing more the case that if you have money, professional connections, and other forms of class privilege that you can protect yourself from numerous disadvantages associated with structural racism. Within races, there are huge class gaps in incarceration, exposure to police violence, access to health care, on and on. (E.g. in 1999 black men with at least a year of college, a decent class proxy, had one-eighth the risk of death or imprisonment by age 30 that black high school dropouts did, and one-half the risk of death or imprisonment of white high school dropouts...and 1999 was an economic high-water mark compared to today).
Concretely speaking, in a society like ours where class and race are tightly correlated due to historic racism, someone who has 'bad politics on everything except for class' is campaigning for a major redistribution of resources and privileges from whites to blacks. Shouldn't that lead to some desire to build coalitions with someone like that, rather than mock them and insult them? The point of politics is ideally to create a majority for goals you believe in, not to seek out ever more sources of moral superiority to the people around you.
posted by zipadee at 5:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [22 favorites]
The Kerry discussion looks to be done, but I feel it's worth pointing out that according to basically every model, he outperformed in 2004.
posted by aaronetc at 5:47 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by aaronetc at 5:47 PM on February 1, 2016
This is exciting. And its only like 275 days to election day!!!
posted by Justinian at 5:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wow, Steve Schmidt really hates Sanders.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, he usually restricts himself to horse-race type analysis (when he's on MSNBC, at least).
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:49 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:49 PM on February 1, 2016
Well the final Des Moines Register poll (the one that has been historically great at predicting Iowa) had Clinton up by 2 points on Sanders. So he's actually "underperforming" at the moment (it doesn't mean anything except small towns that finished up quickly like Clinton, which we knew)
posted by zug at 5:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zug at 5:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have no idea how to interpret the early results coming in. Are there big differences between parts of the state that report at different times, or should we take these as representative of how the whole vote will go?
posted by zipadee at 5:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zipadee at 5:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Smaller towns are probably going to come in first.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:52 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:52 PM on February 1, 2016
With like 3% reporting, it looks like Cruz is ahead of Trump by a nose, Rubio sadly trailing at 14%. I don't know how to interpret this.
posted by corb at 5:53 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by corb at 5:53 PM on February 1, 2016
Why is O'Malley still lurking out there? Running for VP?
posted by Justinian at 5:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have no idea how to interpret the early results coming in. Are there big differences between parts of the state that report at different times, or should we take these as representative of how the whole vote will go?
Smaller towns, which are demographically very different from larger towns/cities, are done first because there are simply fewer people. This is extra true for the Dem caucus, where they actually argue with each other out loud about who to support.
posted by zug at 5:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Smaller towns, which are demographically very different from larger towns/cities, are done first because there are simply fewer people. This is extra true for the Dem caucus, where they actually argue with each other out loud about who to support.
posted by zug at 5:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
That the Republican party is split between 30% fascist, 30% fundamentalist and 30% corporatist (divided among several candidates). Which we already knew.
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 5:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
The C-SPAN live coverage is fascinating. I've got the sound on for the Democratic caucus (in Des Moines), and they just finished calling names of people who didn't complete their registration forms. I picture their neighbors giving them a hard time on Facebook...
posted by booksherpa at 5:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by booksherpa at 5:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why is O'Malley still lurking out there? Running for VP?
Yeah. Seems pretty obvious to me, especially since he's been noticeably complimentary of Clinton.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah. Seems pretty obvious to me, especially since he's been noticeably complimentary of Clinton.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Keep in mind that unlike a primary a smaller town doesn't necessarily get represented with a smaller percentage of the delegates with the caucus formulas because delegate distribution is based upon historical numbers rather than current numbers.
So a ton of new voters could in theory come out for Bernie in a limited number of precincts and he wouldn't get a corresponding boost because in effect those urban and college voters are clustered in districts that have proportionately less delegates.
Yes it sucks but that's more or less the system. Which combined with the fact that Iowa and NH are hardly the most representative populations (particularly in regards to urban populations and African Americans and Latino voters) tends to make the whole process sketchy as fuck.
But gotta have that old school retail politics like shaking hands and holding babies in rural Iowa has any real probative value on how good someone will be as a President.
posted by vuron at 5:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
So a ton of new voters could in theory come out for Bernie in a limited number of precincts and he wouldn't get a corresponding boost because in effect those urban and college voters are clustered in districts that have proportionately less delegates.
Yes it sucks but that's more or less the system. Which combined with the fact that Iowa and NH are hardly the most representative populations (particularly in regards to urban populations and African Americans and Latino voters) tends to make the whole process sketchy as fuck.
But gotta have that old school retail politics like shaking hands and holding babies in rural Iowa has any real probative value on how good someone will be as a President.
posted by vuron at 5:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
kissing hands and shaking babies. Or is it the other way around?
posted by Justinian at 6:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm voting for that baby
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 6:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 6:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty sure Trump could eat a baby and still get 30% of the Republicans to vote for him.
posted by vuron at 6:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by vuron at 6:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Can someone explain the 26% in but the actual number of votes still being below 200 per candidate?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:01 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:01 PM on February 1, 2016
I think it's the number of delegates?
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yo, MSNBC, this is not interesting watching one guy read ballots.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:02 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:02 PM on February 1, 2016
Trump is the man in the grey suit. The faceless man represents the media, the GOP, and Trump's own nutjob fan base. The "overman" spoken of is the rest of the nation and the body politick.
posted by vrakatar at 6:02 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by vrakatar at 6:02 PM on February 1, 2016
Kissing babies, or as Ted Cruz interprets the tradition, terrifying children.
posted by koeselitz at 6:05 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by koeselitz at 6:05 PM on February 1, 2016
O'Malley actually is a pretty decent running mate because he has plenty of executive leadership and has a technocratic wonkishness that will appeal to some voters. Plus he's also got a bit of Biden in him which seemed like a good mix for Obama.
On the other hand both Sanders and Clinton probably need some help locking down the Latino vote so I expect that someone from the southwest will get vetted as a possibility.
posted by vuron at 6:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
On the other hand both Sanders and Clinton probably need some help locking down the Latino vote so I expect that someone from the southwest will get vetted as a possibility.
posted by vuron at 6:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Santorum won Iowa in 2012. He's currently last place.
At least Bush is ahead of someone.
posted by sammyo at 6:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
At least Bush is ahead of someone.
posted by sammyo at 6:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
O'Malley is from a state that will vote Democrat anyway, most likely, and he is horrible with people of color. I don't think they are going to ask him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Concretely speaking, in a society like ours where class and race are tightly correlated due to historic racism, someone who has 'bad politics on everything except for class' is campaigning for a major redistribution of resources and privileges from whites to blacks. Shouldn't that lead to some desire to build coalitions with someone like that, rather than mock them and insult them? The point of politics is ideally to create a majority for goals you believe in, not to seek out ever more sources of moral superiority to the people around you.
Great comment. People on the online left have a tendency to be carrying around a lot of that class privilege in their own invisible backpacks. It's a major, devastating, blindspot.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Great comment. People on the online left have a tendency to be carrying around a lot of that class privilege in their own invisible backpacks. It's a major, devastating, blindspot.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
On the other hand both Sanders and Clinton probably need some help locking down the Latino vote so I expect that someone from the southwest will get vetted as a possibility.
Bill Richardson? Latino former governor of New Mexico and energy secretary under former president Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bill Richardson? Latino former governor of New Mexico and energy secretary under former president Clinton.
posted by Justinian at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Read elsewhere that the AP is calling it for Hillary in the Dem race which seems crazy early.
Bill Richardson? Latino former governor of New Mexico and energy secretary under former president Clinton.
She already has one Bill who has trouble keeping it in his pants, she doesn't need another.
posted by bgal81 at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bill Richardson? Latino former governor of New Mexico and energy secretary under former president Clinton.
She already has one Bill who has trouble keeping it in his pants, she doesn't need another.
posted by bgal81 at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would love to be a fly on the wall in JEB! central tonight. I feel bad for the guy. He's gotta be wondering how it could all have gone so wrong.
posted by Justinian at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
MSNBC made a good decision just airing that guy counting ballots on air. Riveting television.
posted by Small Dollar at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Small Dollar at 6:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
is there somewhere you can watch this live if you don't have cable?
posted by Sangermaine at 6:08 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Sangermaine at 6:08 PM on February 1, 2016
Google's results
D 26% reporting
Clinton 51.8%
Sanders 47.6%
----------
R 12% reporting
Cruz 29.8%
Trump 27.3%
posted by nickyskye at 6:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
D 26% reporting
Clinton 51.8%
Sanders 47.6%
----------
R 12% reporting
Cruz 29.8%
Trump 27.3%
posted by nickyskye at 6:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why is O'Malley still lurking out there? Running for VP?
MSNBC's caucus ticker has a bug that makes the fonts look weird if there are only two candidates, so they convinced him to stay on.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
MSNBC's caucus ticker has a bug that makes the fonts look weird if there are only two candidates, so they convinced him to stay on.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
from Nate Silver:
Jeb Bush is currently projected to win about 2,600 votes in Iowa, or about 2 percent of the overall turnout. That would work out to one vote per $25,000 in spending by Bush’s super PAC, Right to Rise.posted by Justinian at 6:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [20 favorites]
NYT Youtube has a Livecast. It's actually kind of confusing to figure out what's going on.
posted by FJT at 6:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by FJT at 6:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would love to be a fly on the wall in JEB! central tonight. I feel bad for the guy. He's gotta be wondering how it could all have gone so wrong.
I lived under the Jeb regime in Florida or eight years. What went wrong? Don't get me started
posted by robbyrobs at 6:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I lived under the Jeb regime in Florida or eight years. What went wrong? Don't get me started
posted by robbyrobs at 6:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Results from precincts with a democratic nominating process:
Clinton: 0%
Sanders: 0%
O'Malley: 0%
Cruz: 0%
Trump: 0%
The rest of the gang of idiots: 0%
posted by tonycpsu at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton: 0%
Sanders: 0%
O'Malley: 0%
Cruz: 0%
Trump: 0%
The rest of the gang of idiots: 0%
posted by tonycpsu at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Iowa City going to be very heavy for Sanders. I have no idea if that counts.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016
I'm really wondering how O'Malley's supporters are going to end up splitting (I'm guessing he's not going to shoot drastically over 4% and thus won't have viability). It might end up making a difference.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by en forme de poire at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016
MSNBC requires a cable log-in.
posted by Sangermaine at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Sangermaine at 6:11 PM on February 1, 2016
O'Malley only has 2 state delegate equivalents so far, compared to 210 to Clinton and 194 for Sanders. So his support is a non-factor thus far.
posted by Justinian at 6:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
>MSNBC requires a cable log-in.
Weird. I don't have cable and I'm watching it now. It just loaded for me.
posted by zug at 6:13 PM on February 1, 2016
Weird. I don't have cable and I'm watching it now. It just loaded for me.
posted by zug at 6:13 PM on February 1, 2016
Lots of people have the results. C-SPAN has cameras inside a Des Moines caucus, on both the Democrat and Republican side. I'm used to walking in a booth, pulling levers, and leaving - call it 5 minutes. Watching the Democratic caucus happen feels like watching an election in another country.
posted by booksherpa at 6:14 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by booksherpa at 6:14 PM on February 1, 2016
tonycpsu: "Results from precincts with a democratic nominating process..."
Yep, let's say it again: the Iowa Caucus is an idiotic, absolutely stupid thing that should not happen.
posted by koeselitz at 6:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yep, let's say it again: the Iowa Caucus is an idiotic, absolutely stupid thing that should not happen.
posted by koeselitz at 6:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
lol wait - JEB!'s superpac is called "right to rise"?! that's...well, i mean...at least it's honest, i guess.
posted by nadawi at 6:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 6:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Keep in mind that if Clinton and Sanders split the caucus delegate count roughly 50/50 she will still win the overall count pretty handily with something like 26 delegates to 18. Because she has all 8 Iowa superdelegates in her corner. Dunno if that will matter to the narrative though.
posted by Justinian at 6:16 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:16 PM on February 1, 2016
That Rubio is on the board at all means he'll stay alive for other states.
posted by sammyo at 6:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sammyo at 6:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
"One of them is wearing a cape."
I love you, America.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I love you, America.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Update: my leg has fallen asleep. No idea what's going on: Hillary people have been banished to hall.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
That Rubio is on the board at all means he'll stay alive for other states.
He could come in nineteenth behind Ted Nugent and Cthulhu and the media would still keep fluffing him as if he was in the top two.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
He could come in nineteenth behind Ted Nugent and Cthulhu and the media would still keep fluffing him as if he was in the top two.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
MSNBC is saying that in Iowa City Hillary might not even end up with a viable 15%.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:17 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 6:17 PM on February 1, 2016
Stop it, CNN. Just... stop this.
Stop watching CNN. What value are you getting from doing so, honestly?
posted by Jimbob at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Stop watching CNN. What value are you getting from doing so, honestly?
posted by Jimbob at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Actually, I guess the Democrats have 52 delegates so a 50/50 caucus split would end up more like 30-22 in Clinton's favor.
posted by Justinian at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016
Oh my god, Republicans, count faster!
posted by corb at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not gonna lie... if JEB! handed me $25k, I'd vote for him.
posted by indubitable at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 6:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
538: With 19 percent of Iowa precincts reporting, Donald Trump has 27.1 percent of the Iowa vote. That’s not a bad result by any means: Trump trails Ted Cruz by just 3 points and could very easily win the state. Still, a case can be made that (contra the pundit conventional wisdom at the time) Trump was mistaken to have skipped last week’s debate. Trump stood at 31.1 percent in our Iowa polling average on the night of the debate, so if he finishes at 27.1 percent, he’ll have lost 4 percentage points since then.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've vote for JEB for as little as $1000. Even in the general. I live in Texas; nothing I do matters.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oh my god, Republicans, acknowledge global warming!
posted by uosuaq at 6:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 6:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. I would take a night at Sardi's or something.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
50% in on the Democratic side and its still holding at 51-38 for Clinton. O'Malley is sitting between 0 and 1% which essentially means 0% because of the process.
posted by Justinian at 6:22 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:22 PM on February 1, 2016
(That should be 51-48, FYI)
posted by Rhaomi at 6:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Rhaomi at 6:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
...what? NYT liveblog has 48% reporting - 51.2% Clinton, 48.2% Sanders
posted by flex at 6:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by flex at 6:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I didn't fix it with the typo fixer so that I dont get yelled at by Team Mod.
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
MSNBC isn't reporting anywhere near 50%.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:24 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:24 PM on February 1, 2016
But it was an actual, literal typo, right?
posted by dersins at 6:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dersins at 6:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I changed to CNN during the Guy Counting Marco Rubio's Votes fiasco.
posted by Justinian at 6:25 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:25 PM on February 1, 2016
I didn't mean to rustle anyone's jimmies! Typo! Typo!
posted by Justinian at 6:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN
posted by Justinian at 6:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Rubio is going to be propped up by the desperate beltway pundits because they know full well that Cruz and Trump would be awful for both consulting and lobbying. They are basically forcing the Rubio is a viable candidate meme out of self-preservation.
What's funny is that they aren't wrong but Trump and Cruz have shown that crazy has a strong plurality in the Republican electorate. It's a totally unelectable plurality but that's what happens when you combine economic desperation with racist appeals to nationalism.
posted by vuron at 6:26 PM on February 1, 2016
What's funny is that they aren't wrong but Trump and Cruz have shown that crazy has a strong plurality in the Republican electorate. It's a totally unelectable plurality but that's what happens when you combine economic desperation with racist appeals to nationalism.
posted by vuron at 6:26 PM on February 1, 2016
THE TYPO IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE CAUCUS.
posted by vrakatar at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by vrakatar at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
I think you mean sprinkles.
posted by bgal81 at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bgal81 at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
There are probably some Iowa City precincts where Hillary won't get 15%, but they aren't going to be high delegate count precincts.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016
Not easy to read, but this API link direct from the Iowa Democratic Party has the results updating in real-time. Look for the WinPercentage field and multiply by 100.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Rhaomi at 6:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
NPR: 53.5% OF PRECINCTS REPORTING (900 OF 1,681)
51.3% (Clinton)
48.3% (Sanders)
0.5% (O'Malley)
posted by booksherpa at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016
51.3% (Clinton)
48.3% (Sanders)
0.5% (O'Malley)
posted by booksherpa at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016
Ooo, down to 2%.
posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I like Bernie Sanders. I expect Clinton will win the nomination. If so, I will vote for her and I expect Clinton will win the presidency. But something bothers me - Clinton is very much tied to Debbie Wasserman Schultz' DNC, which has proven itself unable to win down-ballot elections. I'm afraid a Clinton win will entrench the Wasserman Schultz bunch in the DNC. That could mean Clinton, even winning handily, will show limited coattails for moving the numbers in Congress and the state houses and another failure in the next mid-term elections.
posted by tommyD at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by tommyD at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is realtime near as I can tell, and very easy indeed to read.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
But isn't Cruz secretly Canadian?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016
Results from the IA GOP: https://www.iagopcaucuses.com/#/state
Results from the IA Dems: https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/state
posted by Theiform at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016
Results from the IA Dems: https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/state
posted by Theiform at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016
Wait... I'm no genius... but 51.3+49.3+0.5 = too high
posted by Justinian at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016
It's really, really uncomfortable to watch the reports in the actual caucus. Leave the people alone.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I swear the Bernie person was just trying to bribe the O'Malley people with pizza...
posted by booksherpa at 6:30 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by booksherpa at 6:30 PM on February 1, 2016
I've gotta admit, I love Trump's "He's an anchor baby for Canada." line.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Room 641-A at 6:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
On CNN, Steve Harvey just called it for Martin O'Malley.
posted by uosuaq at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Wait... I'm no genius... but 51.3+49.3+0.5 = too high
Iowa taking a page from the Chicago playbook?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016
Iowa taking a page from the Chicago playbook?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016
ahaha they said fuck on national tv
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ka-boom! Look at Jacob Silver's face!
posted by ob1quixote at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Very, very young woman let out an f-bomb on MSNBC, claiming she's a veteran who hasn't received benefits in three months.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think bribing with pizza is kosher, although nobody here is doing it. There may be some Girl Scout cookies circulating.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:32 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:32 PM on February 1, 2016
YES A COLLEGE KID DROPPED AN F-BOMB LIVE ON MSNBC!!!!!
posted by Small Dollar at 6:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Small Dollar at 6:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
But isn't Cruz secretly Canadian?
He's hardly made a secret of it. Did you miss the whole ceremony where he swore allegiance to Her Majesty, The Queen?
posted by indubitable at 6:32 PM on February 1, 2016
He's hardly made a secret of it. Did you miss the whole ceremony where he swore allegiance to Her Majesty, The Queen?
posted by indubitable at 6:32 PM on February 1, 2016
Sorry, another typo. Fixed it within the edit window. It's still over by .1 - rounding error?
posted by booksherpa at 6:33 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by booksherpa at 6:33 PM on February 1, 2016
In alternate world, Cruz and Clinton both win the nomination. Then Cruz is derailed for citizenship and Clinton is arrested for directing people take the classifications off things to send on an unsecured fax. This leaves only their VPs, both sensible governors from swing states as each party's nominee. Everyone triumphs.
posted by corb at 6:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by corb at 6:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
If Cruz manages to hold on to his lead over Trump (30% to 27% right now), I think this is going to have to be recorded as a pretty strong upset. Every poll, including Des Moines Register (which didn't have the weekend) and Quinnipac (which did) had him trailing Trump; and the RealClearPolitics poll average had him losing ground over the past two weeks. It'll be interesting to see what the explanations for this will be.
posted by mhum at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mhum at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders appears to be closing, 48.5% to 50.9%, with 68% reporting. Not sure how the demographics of the reporting precincts look, though.
posted by zug at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zug at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
My mom supports Hillary and one of my best friends from high school supports Sanders. As for me, right now I'm supporting Hillary, but with Sanders recently getting attention I'm giving him a second look.
For me personally, one reason for my support for Hillary is her relationship with Obama. They've competed against each other, worked together, and apparently Obama sees something about Clinton and is kind of hinting towards supporting her more than Sanders. In addition, she's also pretty much accepted and embraced that part of her campaign is "Obama's 3rd term". And seeing them both grow in the last eight years is a pretty cool thing.
From Sanders, I'm getting more conflicted feelings (mostly from his supporters but a little from him as well) about how they see the last eight years. And I don't think it's intentional on his part, but when Sanders does something like roll out his single player plan, (again, personally) it does feel a little like he's rejecting President Obama and kind of saying he just didn't try hard enough. It's like "Ouch, I am feeling the Bern, and it's on my back."
posted by FJT at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
For me personally, one reason for my support for Hillary is her relationship with Obama. They've competed against each other, worked together, and apparently Obama sees something about Clinton and is kind of hinting towards supporting her more than Sanders. In addition, she's also pretty much accepted and embraced that part of her campaign is "Obama's 3rd term". And seeing them both grow in the last eight years is a pretty cool thing.
From Sanders, I'm getting more conflicted feelings (mostly from his supporters but a little from him as well) about how they see the last eight years. And I don't think it's intentional on his part, but when Sanders does something like roll out his single player plan, (again, personally) it does feel a little like he's rejecting President Obama and kind of saying he just didn't try hard enough. It's like "Ouch, I am feeling the Bern, and it's on my back."
posted by FJT at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
FUCK YEAH CAUCUSING!
posted by vrakatar at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vrakatar at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
MSNBC just put the camera on what appears to be a group of teenagers with the best fake IDs ever arguing over who read the most believable talking points on reddit.
Do you mean that young veteran upset about the shameful state of the VA?
posted by dialetheia at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Do you mean that young veteran upset about the shameful state of the VA?
posted by dialetheia at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
The DNC is typically pretty mediocre overall in regards to down ballot races but the DSCC and the Representative one is typically better. Not that 2010 redistricting din't pretty much fuck over Democrats in a whole heap of states.
But that's why the Koch's pour so much money into state races, the cost-benefit ratio is way way better than pissing away millions supporting a Presidential candidate and most billionaires have a least a limited degree of cunning so investing in the sure thing is a better return on investment than the long shot.
posted by vuron at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
But that's why the Koch's pour so much money into state races, the cost-benefit ratio is way way better than pissing away millions supporting a Presidential candidate and most billionaires have a least a limited degree of cunning so investing in the sure thing is a better return on investment than the long shot.
posted by vuron at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
It'll be interesting to see what the explanations for this will be.
I think the explanation is probably established already. Whenever Iowa polls are wrong they are wrong in the same way: an underestimation of the evangelical right's vote. Which would make sense if Cruz's vote is higher than polled as that is his base.
posted by Justinian at 6:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the explanation is probably established already. Whenever Iowa polls are wrong they are wrong in the same way: an underestimation of the evangelical right's vote. Which would make sense if Cruz's vote is higher than polled as that is his base.
posted by Justinian at 6:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Did you miss the whole ceremony where he swore allegiance to Her Majesty, The Queen?
In human or reptilian form?
posted by acb at 6:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
In human or reptilian form?
posted by acb at 6:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Le sigh. I'm not ever going to vote for Clinton, so it's going to be a long year.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
i admit that i'm not entirely pleased about framing the (potential) first woman president as being bill or barack's third term. she's not a conduit through which a man will really be leading.
posted by nadawi at 6:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 6:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
Anecdotally, my caucus is still out, and I think all our delegates are going to go to Bernie. I would guess late caucuses are ones with unexpectedly high turnout, meaning Bernie.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Hopefully, it'll be a long eight years.
posted by bgal81 at 6:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bgal81 at 6:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
A Clinton supporter was trying to get the O'Malley caucus leader and ended up in a debate with a Sanders supporter that looked like he was maybe 13. I'm not sure I'd want my primary to look like this, but it's awesome to watch.
posted by booksherpa at 6:39 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by booksherpa at 6:39 PM on February 1, 2016
So, is it an open secret that Bill and Hillary are separated now? I just realized I haven't heard him say a word with regard to her campaign, he hasn't been stumping for her, which just seems kind of weird to me.
posted by zug at 6:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zug at 6:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
In human or reptilian form?
It was a nauseatingly moist, fleshy meat puppet. I'm tentatively going with "human form".
posted by indubitable at 6:40 PM on February 1, 2016
It was a nauseatingly moist, fleshy meat puppet. I'm tentatively going with "human form".
posted by indubitable at 6:40 PM on February 1, 2016
Bill has been stumping for her. He was in NH not too long ago.
posted by bgal81 at 6:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bgal81 at 6:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Rubio is on his way to a great night. He's my new GOP NH pick. GHak wrong thread.
posted by vrakatar at 6:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by vrakatar at 6:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Justinian: "I think the explanation is probably established already. "
Maybe. Although, I could also see a "who had the better ground game" argument. I kinda wish I knew more about the primary contest for Cruz's Senate campaign where he pulled off one of the biggest upsets in recent memory. Also, that was the only election he's ever won.
posted by mhum at 6:41 PM on February 1, 2016
Maybe. Although, I could also see a "who had the better ground game" argument. I kinda wish I knew more about the primary contest for Cruz's Senate campaign where he pulled off one of the biggest upsets in recent memory. Also, that was the only election he's ever won.
posted by mhum at 6:41 PM on February 1, 2016
he hasn't been stumping for her,
I've seen him campaigning more than her the past two weeks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've seen him campaigning more than her the past two weeks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, is it an open secret that Bill and Hillary are separated now? I just realized I haven't heard him say a word with regard to her campaign, he hasn't been stumping for her, which just seems kind of weird to me.
Um, what? He's been the opening act (along with Chelsea) for a couple of her speeches this week, and has definitely been on the road for her campaign.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:43 PM on February 1, 2016
Um, what? He's been the opening act (along with Chelsea) for a couple of her speeches this week, and has definitely been on the road for her campaign.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:43 PM on February 1, 2016
Looks to me like it's going to be Cruz and Trump and Rubio very close for 2nd/3rd. Will Trump take his ball and go home a LOSER?
posted by Justinian at 6:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bill's been campaigning hard for Hillary. He's been all over Iowa and New Hampshire.
posted by lilac girl at 6:43 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by lilac girl at 6:43 PM on February 1, 2016
Although, I could also see a "who had the better ground game" argument.
I think it's the same argument. The evangelical right's vote gets underpolled because their organization is underestimated.
posted by Justinian at 6:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's the same argument. The evangelical right's vote gets underpolled because their organization is underestimated.
posted by Justinian at 6:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just realized I haven't heard him say a word with regard to her campaign
I heard on NPR that not bringing him out until the last month or so was a strategic move. That her campaign in 2008 was too shaped/overshadowed by his presence. So this time, they kept him in the background (like many candidate's spouses) until her narrative could be more established as her own voice. Then, they'd bring him out just to smaller local events.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I heard on NPR that not bringing him out until the last month or so was a strategic move. That her campaign in 2008 was too shaped/overshadowed by his presence. So this time, they kept him in the background (like many candidate's spouses) until her narrative could be more established as her own voice. Then, they'd bring him out just to smaller local events.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wasn't watching the Republican side of things (because fuck that party), but Cruz is doing way better than I expected. Which just adds a whole new level of nausea to the proceedings.
posted by uosuaq at 6:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by uosuaq at 6:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
My loathing for Cruz and Rubio is near-complete, but man, it would be so great if Trump came in 3rd here then spit the dummy in true infantile Trumpian fashion, took his ball and went home. Even better if he then turned around and ran 3rd party.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
bill has been fundraising for her in their home state and they campaigned here for the dnc together last year.
posted by nadawi at 6:46 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by nadawi at 6:46 PM on February 1, 2016
Calling it now: Sanders edges out a microscopic lead in the popular vote. Clinton retains a large lead in delegates. Both sides declare victory.
posted by fifthrider at 6:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by fifthrider at 6:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
On the republican side, it's starting to look like Cruz is going to take it. Which is probably good news for democrats - Cruz is pretty unelectable and by all accounts hated by literally everyone who meets him.
posted by zug at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zug at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
If Trump loses, the headlines should be: IOWA SEZ: YOU'RE FIRED
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Cruz and Rubio are bad news for Clinton. She'd like to run against Donald. Donald would like to run against Bernie.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's 69% in on the Democratic side and still holding at about a 2% difference. I assume it's the big counties still out, though, which seems like something that favors Sanders.
posted by Justinian at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:47 PM on February 1, 2016
Cruz v. Clinton is likely a President Cruz, right now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
First big election year in a long time that I haven't worked in news and it feels great.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by jason_steakums at 6:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
Cruz I could see being a problem for Clinton but Rubio? He's nothing but a pretty face in a nice set of heels.
posted by bgal81 at 6:49 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by bgal81 at 6:49 PM on February 1, 2016
Cruz v. Clinton is likely a President Cruz, right now.
That's like polling Sanders in a general; neither Cruz nor Sanders are well enough known among the general population to make general election polling particularly meaningful. (Also I note that the RCP average is Cruz +1 primarily because FOX NEWS has it at Cruz +7.)
posted by Justinian at 6:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's like polling Sanders in a general; neither Cruz nor Sanders are well enough known among the general population to make general election polling particularly meaningful. (Also I note that the RCP average is Cruz +1 primarily because FOX NEWS has it at Cruz +7.)
posted by Justinian at 6:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
You underestimate how much the GOP hates Clinton. They will groom anyone to look like Mr. Rogers.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:50 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:50 PM on February 1, 2016
Justinian: "I think it's the same argument."
In effect, you're probably right. There's an abstract argument to be made about how much of the turnout could have been previously predicted and how much was extra good due to better-than-expected turnout machine, but it's probably just splitting hairs at that point.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in NH where the polling gaps have been much, much bigger (like, in the +20 range). I think I'm going to stick by my previous prediction of Cruz taking IA (admittedly made while he was on top of the polls) and Trump taking NH, SC, NV. SC and NV are still kind of a crapshoot because of the sparse polling.
posted by mhum at 6:51 PM on February 1, 2016
In effect, you're probably right. There's an abstract argument to be made about how much of the turnout could have been previously predicted and how much was extra good due to better-than-expected turnout machine, but it's probably just splitting hairs at that point.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in NH where the polling gaps have been much, much bigger (like, in the +20 range). I think I'm going to stick by my previous prediction of Cruz taking IA (admittedly made while he was on top of the polls) and Trump taking NH, SC, NV. SC and NV are still kind of a crapshoot because of the sparse polling.
posted by mhum at 6:51 PM on February 1, 2016
RCP is a joke.
Sure, but they link to actual polls. I agree it's too early, but Ted Cruz has a decent shot at the White House if he and Clinton are the people running.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:51 PM on February 1, 2016
Sure, but they link to actual polls. I agree it's too early, but Ted Cruz has a decent shot at the White House if he and Clinton are the people running.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:51 PM on February 1, 2016
Better real-time Democratic results from idpcaucuses.com. 1.8% margin now...
edit: 1.6%!
posted by Rhaomi at 6:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
edit: 1.6%!
posted by Rhaomi at 6:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am really really enjoying Drew Gentsch, the Des Moines Democratic Precinct #43 Caucus Chair.
posted by booksherpa at 6:52 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by booksherpa at 6:52 PM on February 1, 2016
Well, yes, in a two person race one of the two candidates will win.
posted by bgal81 at 6:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bgal81 at 6:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
We are apparently now trying to convince individual people to come to our side, and I am glad I am not one of them.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
My first response to hearing RCP was like, what? Avakian is running polls?
posted by corb at 6:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 6:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
You underestimate how much the GOP hates Clinton. They will groom anyone to look like Mr. Rogers.
When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, "Look for the haters. You will always find people who are hating."
posted by curious nu at 6:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [43 favorites]
When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, "Look for the haters. You will always find people who are hating."
posted by curious nu at 6:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [43 favorites]
The precinct head on MSNBC can't report the totals to HQ because her battery died. That is a dumb thing.
posted by Justinian at 6:54 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:54 PM on February 1, 2016
Cruz and Rubio are bad news for Clinton. She'd like to run against Donald.
I actually disagree. I think she'd rather go against Cruz for the simple fact that he can't pull off the populist shtick Trump does, and he's so hated by his own party that they spent way more money going after him. And dumb, sociopathic shit like this will go over like a lead balloon in the general. Trump would probably also be nice (as would Rubio, who comes off as a lightweight who can't debate outside of his limited talking points), but Cruz's dickishness is a huge negative outside the GOP base.
Cruz v. Clinton is likely a President Cruz, right now.
Hahaha, no. They're giving a Fox News poll serious weight, which is a quarter of all the Cruz leads they've shown.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
I actually disagree. I think she'd rather go against Cruz for the simple fact that he can't pull off the populist shtick Trump does, and he's so hated by his own party that they spent way more money going after him. And dumb, sociopathic shit like this will go over like a lead balloon in the general. Trump would probably also be nice (as would Rubio, who comes off as a lightweight who can't debate outside of his limited talking points), but Cruz's dickishness is a huge negative outside the GOP base.
Cruz v. Clinton is likely a President Cruz, right now.
Hahaha, no. They're giving a Fox News poll serious weight, which is a quarter of all the Cruz leads they've shown.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: "Cruz v. Clinton is likely a President Cruz, right now."
National polls are pretty meaningless at this point.
posted by octothorpe at 6:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
National polls are pretty meaningless at this point.
posted by octothorpe at 6:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is going to be a nail-biter on the democratic side.
posted by zug at 6:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zug at 6:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
But the delegate count! It's gonna be 30-22 for Clinton!
posted by Justinian at 6:56 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:56 PM on February 1, 2016
Even if Bernie doesn't win, I'm really happy that we've just got a contest on the Democratic side. Compared to the scorched Earth politics being played on the R side it's a god damn tea party in the D campaign with an issues driven campaign. It's so nice. It's just so fucking nice. I wish all politics could be like this.
posted by Talez at 6:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Talez at 6:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
@EvanMcSan: NEWS
Sources close to O'Malley tell @BuzzFeedNews News he'll suspend his campaign at 9.30 tonight in an Iowa speech.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sources close to O'Malley tell @BuzzFeedNews News he'll suspend his campaign at 9.30 tonight in an Iowa speech.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Governor O'Malley is going to suspend his campaign in the next hour. He gets called "Governor O'Malley" now because he is coming back to reality.
posted by Justinian at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Exciting news for those of us who had them picked for the poll!
posted by bgal81 at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bgal81 at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
How many party members in the state voted?
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016
I think the "narrative" is going to matter a lot more than the raw delegate counts - if Sanders can pull off an upset here, I think he'll begin to be viewed as a more viable candidate, causing more people to seriously consider him.
posted by zug at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zug at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rubio is now within 3 points of Trump for 2nd. This is way closer than folks were calling, which gives me hope for the Trump-free future.
posted by corb at 6:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 6:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Still waiting to see if Hillary gets any delegates. This process is crazy.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
i'm honestly just excited that huckabee is doing so poorly.
posted by nadawi at 6:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 6:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
The delightful Drew Gentsch mentioned to his caucus that he needed to do the numbers by hand because the "app was not working properly".
I love that they are finishing the rest of the meeting after like 95% of the people left.
Also, there are very tired (I'm guessing) children fighting in the background.
posted by booksherpa at 7:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I love that they are finishing the rest of the meeting after like 95% of the people left.
Also, there are very tired (I'm guessing) children fighting in the background.
posted by booksherpa at 7:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
we are at 75% of precincts of the Democratic Iowa Caucus reporting - Clinton 50.4%, Sanders 49.0%
posted by flex at 7:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by flex at 7:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
You underestimate how much the GOP hates Clinton. They will groom anyone to look like Mr. Rogers.
You underestimate how much the GOP right now is like a swarm of rats trapped in a room and eating their own. The Trump candidacy is a big 'ol red flag about their ability to hold their message together. And Cruz is a big, sweaty, shifty-looking mountain to climb in terms of grooming.
posted by emjaybee at 7:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
You underestimate how much the GOP right now is like a swarm of rats trapped in a room and eating their own. The Trump candidacy is a big 'ol red flag about their ability to hold their message together. And Cruz is a big, sweaty, shifty-looking mountain to climb in terms of grooming.
posted by emjaybee at 7:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
she's not a conduit through which a man will really be leading.
That definitely makes sense, and I do consider both Clinton and Sanders as candidates of their own.
I do think the "third term" or "being in the shadow" is a 'thing' whenever someone runs for president and they were a major part of the outgoing administration. In 2000 Gore chose to distance himself from Bill partly because of this:
That definitely makes sense, and I do consider both Clinton and Sanders as candidates of their own.
I do think the "third term" or "being in the shadow" is a 'thing' whenever someone runs for president and they were a major part of the outgoing administration. In 2000 Gore chose to distance himself from Bill partly because of this:
Gore aides, however, see the distance as a must. ''He said at the convention, 'I am my own man, vote for me.' That's real,'' said Mark Fabiani, the deputy campaign manager. ''It's not some kind of facade where behind it he's seeking Clinton's counsel every day.''posted by FJT at 7:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
The GOP is more like 10 gallons of rats trapped in a 5 gallon bag.
posted by Justinian at 7:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
The Bernie people are forcing multiple recounts, which is shitty, because they're mostly young, and several of the Hillary people are elderly, using walkers, etc. I think we're going to lose some of our people just because they can't stand up much longer.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Brian Williams with that "And that is the saddest picture in politics today" as they showed O'Malley's darkened stage of a celebration venue, that's just cold. I cackled like that cartoon witch with the bobby pins flying while she rides side saddle.
posted by cashman at 7:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cashman at 7:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
roomthreeseventeen: "Cruz v. Clinton is likely a President Cruz, right now."
Ahaha. I know that RCP has to have a page for this because people are polling on it but have we all learned nothing about the electoral college over these past sixteen years?
posted by mhum at 7:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ahaha. I know that RCP has to have a page for this because people are polling on it but have we all learned nothing about the electoral college over these past sixteen years?
posted by mhum at 7:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I do think the "third term" or "being in the shadow" is a 'thing'
while it might show up elsewhere, the ingrained sexism that follows hillary makes that statement not the same as it would if it were being widely said about a man.
posted by nadawi at 7:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
while it might show up elsewhere, the ingrained sexism that follows hillary makes that statement not the same as it would if it were being widely said about a man.
posted by nadawi at 7:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
These live updates are really great!
Question: how are delegates awarded on a precinct basis?
posted by zug at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016
Question: how are delegates awarded on a precinct basis?
posted by zug at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016
MSNBC is now reporting 50% to 49% on the Dem side.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
^ reason 5,646 to not have a caucus
posted by en forme de poire at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
oops that was to Arbitrary etc
posted by en forme de poire at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
So has the caucus system guilt-tripped people into voting for Cruz or Rubio rather than Trump?
posted by Flashman at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Flashman at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
In 2000 Gore chose to distance himself from Bill partly because of this
I'm pretty sure that was a mistake, though.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that was a mistake, though.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Question: how are delegates awarded on a precinct basis?
Mathematical witchcraft.
posted by Justinian at 7:05 PM on February 1, 2016
Mathematical witchcraft.
posted by Justinian at 7:05 PM on February 1, 2016
This is much closer for both parties than anyone had guessed.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Sangermaine at 7:05 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't wait to take the piss out of all the idiot trump boosters I know, I called it he'd lose and I love it.
posted by vrakatar at 7:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by vrakatar at 7:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, boy,now we're going to talk about if Cruz can even run for president. These are strange times.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's the data I've collected for the last few minutes:
0.61 50.9 48.5
0.62 50.8 48.6
0.64 50.7 48.7
0.65 50.8 48.6
0.66 50.8 48.6
0.67 50.7 48.7
0.69 50.7 48.7
0.72 50.5 48.9
0.75 50.5 48.9
0.76 50.4 49.0
(Pct reporting, Clinton pct, Sanders pct).
Regressing Clinton on the pct reporting, we get about -3 as the coefficient. With 0.24 remaining, that would mean she will lose another 0.72 points, and Sanders will gain about the same. Which would give Clinton 50.4 - 0.72 = 49.7 and Sanders 49 + 0.72 = 49.7.
Fun night!
posted by chortly at 7:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
0.61 50.9 48.5
0.62 50.8 48.6
0.64 50.7 48.7
0.65 50.8 48.6
0.66 50.8 48.6
0.67 50.7 48.7
0.69 50.7 48.7
0.72 50.5 48.9
0.75 50.5 48.9
0.76 50.4 49.0
(Pct reporting, Clinton pct, Sanders pct).
Regressing Clinton on the pct reporting, we get about -3 as the coefficient. With 0.24 remaining, that would mean she will lose another 0.72 points, and Sanders will gain about the same. Which would give Clinton 50.4 - 0.72 = 49.7 and Sanders 49 + 0.72 = 49.7.
Fun night!
posted by chortly at 7:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
How fucking cool is it that Bernie Sanders of all people can go toe to toe with Clinton after the last few decades in American politics? That's really not something I thought I'd see. It's really a shame Dean's plans for the DNC got torpedoed, because if Bernie Sanders can be this serious of a contender, the iron is hot and you need to strike with a full blown 50 state strategy for downballot races.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [40 favorites]
posted by jason_steakums at 7:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [40 favorites]
The problem with any Sanders narrative is that the expectations already had her losing NH and possibly Iowa which would've been hard to counter. The current narrative is most likely going to be that neither Sanders or Clinton managed to land a knockout blow. This is unfortunate for Sanders because most analysts feel he needed to win Iowa and NH by convincing margins to negate Clinton's structural advantages. However it also showed that Sanders has more staying power than was initially expected which should help him in NH and possibly some other early states.
I don't really see how either one can really claim a strong mandate other than democrats seem to like both of them. As the establishment candidate Clinton can probably play rope a dope until Super Tuesday but they are going to have to make sure that any Bernie win in NH (and pretty much everyone expects that) is at a margin of victory that prevents any sizable shift in the polls in SC and NV.
posted by vuron at 7:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't really see how either one can really claim a strong mandate other than democrats seem to like both of them. As the establishment candidate Clinton can probably play rope a dope until Super Tuesday but they are going to have to make sure that any Bernie win in NH (and pretty much everyone expects that) is at a margin of victory that prevents any sizable shift in the polls in SC and NV.
posted by vuron at 7:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Back from my caucus about 40 minutes ago.
• Small town, total Dem. turnout 106 people
• Only two undecideds and one O'Malley to begin with. The O'Malley and one undecided went to Clinton; the other undecided to Sanders.
• Final vote 50 votes for Sanders and 56 for Hillary (2 delegates apiece)
• Nobody ever stopped talking when the person in charge started announcing things, which was super annoying (she could really have used a bullhorn, or a shrill whistle, or something).
• Maybe 5-10 of the Sanders supporters were loud and slightly assholish: encouraging vote-switching with "come to the light," once or twice, more cheering and applause. (I was a Sanders supporter and this made me grumpy.) Otherwise nothing remotely resembling conflict between the two sides.
• Not especially confusing or chaotic, everybody seemed reasonably pleased to be there.
• Both sides had roughly equal gender proportions; Clinton maybe slightly ahead on women, but it wasn't like it was divided into all-male Berniebros and all-female Clinton supporters, or even close to that. Clinton supporters also appeared to skew slightly older, but that wasn't a dramatic difference either.
• Very white, but roughly in line with overall town demographics racially. The one (one) obviously non-white person was on the Clinton side and seemed kind of awesome but I don't know because I didn't talk to her. Or anybody.
• The Clinton people had more and better food. (All Sanders had were cookies. They were home-baked, I think, but still.)
• Lots of time that was ostensibly for discussion of the candidates was actually spent just waiting for the time to be up while chit-chatting with whoever was around.
• Everybody wanted to get home quickly. All the procedural votes were unanimous in favor of whatever got us home faster.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [28 favorites]
• Small town, total Dem. turnout 106 people
• Only two undecideds and one O'Malley to begin with. The O'Malley and one undecided went to Clinton; the other undecided to Sanders.
• Final vote 50 votes for Sanders and 56 for Hillary (2 delegates apiece)
• Nobody ever stopped talking when the person in charge started announcing things, which was super annoying (she could really have used a bullhorn, or a shrill whistle, or something).
• Maybe 5-10 of the Sanders supporters were loud and slightly assholish: encouraging vote-switching with "come to the light," once or twice, more cheering and applause. (I was a Sanders supporter and this made me grumpy.) Otherwise nothing remotely resembling conflict between the two sides.
• Not especially confusing or chaotic, everybody seemed reasonably pleased to be there.
• Both sides had roughly equal gender proportions; Clinton maybe slightly ahead on women, but it wasn't like it was divided into all-male Berniebros and all-female Clinton supporters, or even close to that. Clinton supporters also appeared to skew slightly older, but that wasn't a dramatic difference either.
• Very white, but roughly in line with overall town demographics racially. The one (one) obviously non-white person was on the Clinton side and seemed kind of awesome but I don't know because I didn't talk to her. Or anybody.
• The Clinton people had more and better food. (All Sanders had were cookies. They were home-baked, I think, but still.)
• Lots of time that was ostensibly for discussion of the candidates was actually spent just waiting for the time to be up while chit-chatting with whoever was around.
• Everybody wanted to get home quickly. All the procedural votes were unanimous in favor of whatever got us home faster.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [28 favorites]
Shorter Iowa caucus-goers: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by tonycpsu at 7:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Democracy: unanimous in favor of whatever gets us home faster.
posted by Justinian at 7:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [38 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [38 favorites]
0.80 50.3 49.1
posted by andrewcooke at 7:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by andrewcooke at 7:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
NBC has both sides in as "too close to call" with 75% precincts reporting
posted by flex at 7:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by flex at 7:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Vuron - No expectations I have seen had Clinton possibly losing in Iowa. But you're right - no knock out blow.
posted by tommyD at 7:12 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by tommyD at 7:12 PM on February 1, 2016
78% of MSNBC, Clinton leading by 13 delegate people out of 1100.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Bernie people are forcing multiple recounts, which is shitty, because they're mostly young, and several of the Hillary people are elderly, using walkers, etc. I think we're going to lose some of our people just because they can't stand up much longer.
That seems like ascribing the worst possible motivation to the Sanders delegates, considering how close the vote is.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
That seems like ascribing the worst possible motivation to the Sanders delegates, considering how close the vote is.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
Thank goodness Intrade is defunct. I made out like a bandit four years ago, but I would have lost so much money on this cycle I would have needed Sander's to win to afford health care.
posted by skewed at 7:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by skewed at 7:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm watching the meltdown on reddit's r/the_donald.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
What's funny is that the straw poll nature of the Republican caucus means that the actual delegate totals could shift significantly based upon how many loonies stay til the end of the night.
posted by vuron at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by vuron at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016
I can't help but see this as a huge victory for Bernie Sanders, no matter what the expectation-massagers want me to think. Even two months ago, most "serious" political commentators in this country would have said it would be completely impossible, out of the question that he'd even split the Iowa vote with Clinton, the obvious presumptive nominee. And that's not to even mention how influential he's been in this race, both in terms of pulling Clinton to the left, making a full-throated argument for key liberal policies, and bringing democratic socialism into the mainstream.
posted by dialetheia at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [32 favorites]
The Hillary vs. Bernie fight is interesting, because this is the longest I've ever spent as an undecided voter. Like, up until recently, I thought they were fiction created by pollsters to explain away the shortcomings in their polling methods. However, I've recently come to a decision based on three major axes.
Strategic :
From a strategic standpoint, I think the only useful question is "Will Rubio win the GOP nomination?" Because if the answer is anything other than "yes", then Hillary is our best bet. The other GOP candidates are all really obvious about being dangerously insane. They can't win in a general. Rubio, however, is a Republican in the George W. Bush mold; a far-right conservative who dispenses with just the right number of platitudes such that he appears moderate. If he wins the GOP nomination, I almost wonder if we'd be better off with Bernie. A race between a "compassionate conservative" and a middle-of-the-road Democrat? I think we've seen this movie before. Oh yeah, and Rubio has an advantage in Florida. Yowch. Fortunately, I don't really see Rubio clinching the GOP nomination. He's the one all the Democrats are scared of, but if the polls are to be believed, the GOP could care less.
Qualitative :
I've tried to take a step back and see the Presidential election as a hiring decision. If I were a hiring manager looking to fill the position of President, who would I hire? Well, I think I have a pretty good idea of how Hillary would perform; she'd discharge her duties with competence and professionalism. She may not support all the things I support, but I know she's not going to do a bad job. How would Bernie perform? It's hard to say. He's certainly not as qualified. Furthermore, his campaign promises shed doubt on whether he really understands what can and cannot be accomplished with executive power. Hillary has spent enough time around executive power that I believe she knows what to do with it. Point to Hillary.
Gut Check :
This one is a bit harder to justify, because it's based on me sorta sticking my nose up and sniffing the wind. And I just don't see this as the best year to take a risk on a leftist candidate. You know what would have been a good year for that? 2008. The whole country was in a "throw the bums out" mood, and we swept nearly every election -- gubernatorial, congressional, and presidential. Don't get me wrong, Obama was a great candidate and ran a great campaign, and he was definitely our strongest candidate. But you'd need to have a year like that if you wanted to elect a leftist president, and I'm just not seeing it this year. Nobody's even talking about congressional elections.
... and as for the meta-narrative of Clinton supporters vs. Bernie supporters :
I think the "Berniebro" meme is reprehensible and people need to quit it NOW. It's like, good job, way to antagonize a bunch of well-meaning people whom we're going to need to win over a few months from now.
Finally, I'll note that among my friends (left-leaning, mid-30s, Brooklyn-dwelling) it's trés unfashionable to support Clinton. Like, plenty of us support her, but we don't talk about it unless we know we're among our own. It's kind of hilarious. So I'd say don't look to your FB feed as any indication of who's gonna win this thing. Bernie supporters are very vocal and have somehow captured the moral high ground, but I don't think that's necessarily going to translate to votes.
posted by panama joe at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
Strategic :
From a strategic standpoint, I think the only useful question is "Will Rubio win the GOP nomination?" Because if the answer is anything other than "yes", then Hillary is our best bet. The other GOP candidates are all really obvious about being dangerously insane. They can't win in a general. Rubio, however, is a Republican in the George W. Bush mold; a far-right conservative who dispenses with just the right number of platitudes such that he appears moderate. If he wins the GOP nomination, I almost wonder if we'd be better off with Bernie. A race between a "compassionate conservative" and a middle-of-the-road Democrat? I think we've seen this movie before. Oh yeah, and Rubio has an advantage in Florida. Yowch. Fortunately, I don't really see Rubio clinching the GOP nomination. He's the one all the Democrats are scared of, but if the polls are to be believed, the GOP could care less.
Qualitative :
I've tried to take a step back and see the Presidential election as a hiring decision. If I were a hiring manager looking to fill the position of President, who would I hire? Well, I think I have a pretty good idea of how Hillary would perform; she'd discharge her duties with competence and professionalism. She may not support all the things I support, but I know she's not going to do a bad job. How would Bernie perform? It's hard to say. He's certainly not as qualified. Furthermore, his campaign promises shed doubt on whether he really understands what can and cannot be accomplished with executive power. Hillary has spent enough time around executive power that I believe she knows what to do with it. Point to Hillary.
Gut Check :
This one is a bit harder to justify, because it's based on me sorta sticking my nose up and sniffing the wind. And I just don't see this as the best year to take a risk on a leftist candidate. You know what would have been a good year for that? 2008. The whole country was in a "throw the bums out" mood, and we swept nearly every election -- gubernatorial, congressional, and presidential. Don't get me wrong, Obama was a great candidate and ran a great campaign, and he was definitely our strongest candidate. But you'd need to have a year like that if you wanted to elect a leftist president, and I'm just not seeing it this year. Nobody's even talking about congressional elections.
... and as for the meta-narrative of Clinton supporters vs. Bernie supporters :
I think the "Berniebro" meme is reprehensible and people need to quit it NOW. It's like, good job, way to antagonize a bunch of well-meaning people whom we're going to need to win over a few months from now.
Finally, I'll note that among my friends (left-leaning, mid-30s, Brooklyn-dwelling) it's trés unfashionable to support Clinton. Like, plenty of us support her, but we don't talk about it unless we know we're among our own. It's kind of hilarious. So I'd say don't look to your FB feed as any indication of who's gonna win this thing. Bernie supporters are very vocal and have somehow captured the moral high ground, but I don't think that's necessarily going to translate to votes.
posted by panama joe at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
Interesting that Trump is tweet silent.
posted by nickyskye at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nickyskye at 7:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't follow the pundits closely enough to know what the exceptions for Sanders actually were, but it seems to me that a near-tie with Clinton in Iowa followed by a clear win in New Hampshire is good news for Team Bernie. Not that long ago he was expected to be a gadfly at best; now he's a real contender.
I imagine this is causing some heartburn for Clinton, who is now having to fight a second time for a nomination that seemed like it should have easily been hers.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I imagine this is causing some heartburn for Clinton, who is now having to fight a second time for a nomination that seemed like it should have easily been hers.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
In other words, what dialetheia said just earlier.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:17 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:17 PM on February 1, 2016
Clinton's firewall has always been South Carolina. Pulling off a razor-thin victory or draw in Iowa is probably good enough to maintain that even if she would prefer to be anywhere but in this position.
posted by Justinian at 7:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
down to 1%!
posted by zug at 7:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zug at 7:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anything short of winning is a setback for Sanders.
Based on what?
posted by en forme de poire at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016
Based on what?
posted by en forme de poire at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016
"I cackled like that cartoon witch with the bobby pins flying while she rides side saddle."
About Brian Williams or Marty.
If Bernie is calling for recount, that old fart is more deluded then I thought.
I promise you, trump will be back getting exegetical about his hair and bloated bank figures. It's human nature, he's the one with nothing to lose, at all.
And that's his weakness.
posted by clavdivs at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
About Brian Williams or Marty.
If Bernie is calling for recount, that old fart is more deluded then I thought.
I promise you, trump will be back getting exegetical about his hair and bloated bank figures. It's human nature, he's the one with nothing to lose, at all.
And that's his weakness.
posted by clavdivs at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, Sanders needs to win. If he can't pull out a win in a mostly white, rural state with large college towns, he is in trouble.
posted by bgal81 at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by bgal81 at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Less than 1%!
posted by ian1977 at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ian1977 at 7:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
MSNBC has it down to 11 delegate people out of 1100+.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016
Question: how are delegates awarded on a precinct basis?
I'm watching a Des Moines caucus, and it looks like the award on the basis of math. There were 232 people for Clinton and 224 for Sanders, and Drew Gentsch referred to some sort of manual that explained rounding, basically, to award 5 to Clinton and 4 to Sanders.
"Drew, do we need to put back the chairs?"
"C-SPAN would like it if we helped them put back the chairs appropriately. I, uh, am not sure what that looks like..."
"Hold on, we just have one more vote!" (as people put away chairs and the jackets and children are gathered)
"We have another vote?"
There's maybe 2 dozen people there now.
"Do you think they want us to sweep this before we put the chairs back?"
"I have no idea"
The secretary is getting testy with the chair (Drew) as he suggests that a particular person might know how the chairs were set up. She asks him to get their daughter's coat. Yep, they're husband and wife.
Drew just plaintively asked if they could do the final vote. "We just have one more vote... if I could just get you guys for a second?"
Ah, they needed to ratify the slate of delegates and alternates. But no motion to adjourn? My Roberts Rules sense is offended.
It's the Clinton lead pushing about the chairs. She asked again about putting them away or sweeping first.
I kinda love that C-SPAN is still broadcasting from there...
posted by booksherpa at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm watching a Des Moines caucus, and it looks like the award on the basis of math. There were 232 people for Clinton and 224 for Sanders, and Drew Gentsch referred to some sort of manual that explained rounding, basically, to award 5 to Clinton and 4 to Sanders.
"Drew, do we need to put back the chairs?"
"C-SPAN would like it if we helped them put back the chairs appropriately. I, uh, am not sure what that looks like..."
"Hold on, we just have one more vote!" (as people put away chairs and the jackets and children are gathered)
"We have another vote?"
There's maybe 2 dozen people there now.
"Do you think they want us to sweep this before we put the chairs back?"
"I have no idea"
The secretary is getting testy with the chair (Drew) as he suggests that a particular person might know how the chairs were set up. She asks him to get their daughter's coat. Yep, they're husband and wife.
Drew just plaintively asked if they could do the final vote. "We just have one more vote... if I could just get you guys for a second?"
Ah, they needed to ratify the slate of delegates and alternates. But no motion to adjourn? My Roberts Rules sense is offended.
It's the Clinton lead pushing about the chairs. She asked again about putting them away or sweeping first.
I kinda love that C-SPAN is still broadcasting from there...
posted by booksherpa at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
By "unanimous in favor of whatever got us home faster," I mean we had stuff like,
"So I've got this letter here from the State Democratic Party that I'm supposed to read but I don't really have to read it, so: all those who want me to read the letter say 'aye.'"
[crickets]
[laughter]
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
"So I've got this letter here from the State Democratic Party that I'm supposed to read but I don't really have to read it, so: all those who want me to read the letter say 'aye.'"
[crickets]
[laughter]
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
In other news, 99% of the GOP vote is in:
Cruz 28%
Trump 24%
Rubio 23%
posted by Rhaomi at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Cruz 28%
Trump 24%
Rubio 23%
posted by Rhaomi at 7:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
If an independent socialist who most people hadn't heard of nine months ago can wrestle one of the most well-known politicians of our era to a tie in the first primary contest, I'd say that's bad news for Clinton.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [36 favorites]
Rhaomi, where are you getting those numbers?
posted by Sangermaine at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Sangermaine at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016
Big bad Donald almost can't beat babyface Rubio...oh, sweet sweet revenge....
posted by vrakatar at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vrakatar at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anything short of winning is a setback for Sanders.
I've heard a lot of TV pundits say that and I don't understand it. When the underdog comes that close, it is not a setback.
posted by tommyD at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
I've heard a lot of TV pundits say that and I don't understand it. When the underdog comes that close, it is not a setback.
posted by tommyD at 7:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
NBC has called this for Cruz now. On to New Hampshire for him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
NBC and others calling Iowa for Cruz!
posted by Justinian at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow, Ted Cruz has a much larger lead over Trump than I would have expected. MSNBC just called it for Cruz.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by triggerfinger at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Worse than 2008? Does anyone remember 2008? I swear, sometimes I feel like I am the only one that does.
posted by bgal81 at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by bgal81 at 7:22 PM on February 1, 2016
No, you see, it's bad news for Bernie, y'see because [goalposts slide downfield 20 yards].
posted by entropicamericana at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [29 favorites]
No offence, but I'm skeptical of common-sense ideas about things like firewalls...common sense had this as a Bush vs. Clinton election, and yet no matter how many times we're reminded we know nothing, we still say things like "no one has become president in the past five elections without winning both Tennessee and North Dakota!" or some random shit, like five elections constitutes actual data. Vaguely convincing generalizations only count as "good judgment" if you're a high-level manager.
posted by uosuaq at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
lol, just lol at sixth place for Jeb. Sixth place! He got walloped, absolutely slaughtered by Rand Paul and Ben Carson!
posted by skewed at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by skewed at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sangermaine: "Rhaomi, where are you getting those numbers?"
CNN
posted by Rhaomi at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016
CNN
posted by Rhaomi at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016
Of course, I'm still rooting for Jeb! on the GOP side so what do I know.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by triggerfinger at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016
Okay, now we see if Trump can be a gracious loser and keep his eye on NH or if any loss at all just pops his bubble and everybody who supports him suddenly regains their sanity. So far I got one right in the prediction contest!
posted by Drinky Die at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016
MSNBC calls it for Cruz.
Iowa listened!
posted by tonycpsu at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Iowa listened!
posted by tonycpsu at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
NYT has it down to 0.9% between Clinton and Sanders now. I honestly, as a Bernie supporter, never thought he'd get this close when the race started. I figured he'd get 30-35% in Iowa max. To see it neck and neck like this after all these months is frankly amazing.
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 7:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
It's not common sense, it's the fact that Clinton had something like a 35 or 40 point lead in the latest polls in South Carolina. That there is math.
posted by Justinian at 7:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
interesting map + comment (-ve ads)
posted by andrewcooke at 7:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by andrewcooke at 7:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder if this means the wheels falling off the Trump juggernaut, especially how his public identity is tied up, recursively, in being a winner. I'm guessing he is probably sufficiently delusional to gloss over some losses, but beyond that, will deflate rapidly and implode to a point.
posted by acb at 7:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by acb at 7:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Question: why are the Republican & Democratic votes on such different magnitudes? I assume they're measuring different things -- are the GOP vote tallies measuring the number of individual votes while the Dems are counting only the number of delegates? Surely there aren't only 1,000 Dems in all of Iowa.
posted by lilac girl at 7:25 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by lilac girl at 7:25 PM on February 1, 2016
Even if Bernie loses tonight, this is good news for those of us who won't vote for Hillary. There are still a lot of people who aren't ready to do that yet.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
.8%, 84% reporting!
posted by zug at 7:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zug at 7:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
lilac girl: The Republican tallies are, yes, individual vote totals while the Democrats are using some sort of delegate jujitsu.
Clinton camp is declaring victory! Is the spin war starting?!
posted by Justinian at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton camp is declaring victory! Is the spin war starting?!
posted by Justinian at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder if this means the wheels falling off the Trump juggernaut, especially how his public identity is tied up, recursively, in being a winner. I'm guessing he is probably sufficiently delusional to gloss over some losses, but beyond that, will deflate rapidly and implode to a point.
Well, just remember that people have been predicting Trump's implosion non-stop for the last 9 months and he's somehow still here. I'd be careful about calling him over yet.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016
Well, just remember that people have been predicting Trump's implosion non-stop for the last 9 months and he's somehow still here. I'd be careful about calling him over yet.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016
Clinton calls it for Clinton.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is way closer than folks were calling, which gives me hope for the Trump-free future.
Cruz and Rubio are no less problematic than Trump. Cruz might well be worse. They can move the Party machinery better than Trump, and also the Dems can kiss the unified Latino vote goodbye.
Trump would make a horrible president, and anyone who's not a Republican knows it. Zero shot in the general. Things get trickier with Cruz or Rubio. They are younger and more polished than either Sanders or Clinton. They are capable of making gaffes, but this is not something to rely on. The GOP is fractured now, but will be in lockstep after the convention - don't let the Primary shenanigans fool you, the Republicans are better at staying on-message and can turn out every last R voter come November.
African Americans are on board with neither Bernie nor Hillary for a variety of reasons, and will likely stay home in numbers large enough to matter come November, barring Corey Booker or Deval Patrick as the veep. Older, established Latinos, especially religious social conservatives, may just well come out for Rubio or Cruz. Only a complete crazypants like Trump could get out the vote for the Dems in the needed numbers, because Obama's not coming back, and the DNC is fucking hopeless.
The best result is a Trump landslide, as it invalidates the Republicans as a party capable of governing seriously, and hands a comfy victory to either Hillary or Bernie, with positive knock-on effects up and down the D-side of the ticket.
The good news is that Trump had abandoned Iowa early when it looked like Cruz stole a march on him. He's aiming for a big win in New Hampshire and momentum in solidly conservative states.
I think coming in second tonight is far more damaging for Sanders' campaign than for Trump's.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Cruz and Rubio are no less problematic than Trump. Cruz might well be worse. They can move the Party machinery better than Trump, and also the Dems can kiss the unified Latino vote goodbye.
Trump would make a horrible president, and anyone who's not a Republican knows it. Zero shot in the general. Things get trickier with Cruz or Rubio. They are younger and more polished than either Sanders or Clinton. They are capable of making gaffes, but this is not something to rely on. The GOP is fractured now, but will be in lockstep after the convention - don't let the Primary shenanigans fool you, the Republicans are better at staying on-message and can turn out every last R voter come November.
African Americans are on board with neither Bernie nor Hillary for a variety of reasons, and will likely stay home in numbers large enough to matter come November, barring Corey Booker or Deval Patrick as the veep. Older, established Latinos, especially religious social conservatives, may just well come out for Rubio or Cruz. Only a complete crazypants like Trump could get out the vote for the Dems in the needed numbers, because Obama's not coming back, and the DNC is fucking hopeless.
The best result is a Trump landslide, as it invalidates the Republicans as a party capable of governing seriously, and hands a comfy victory to either Hillary or Bernie, with positive knock-on effects up and down the D-side of the ticket.
The good news is that Trump had abandoned Iowa early when it looked like Cruz stole a march on him. He's aiming for a big win in New Hampshire and momentum in solidly conservative states.
I think coming in second tonight is far more damaging for Sanders' campaign than for Trump's.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton camp is declaring victory! Is the spin war starting?!
When it's this close, there's no penalty for premature declarations of victory.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016
When it's this close, there's no penalty for premature declarations of victory.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016
The analysis by just about every democratic pundit and pollster seems to indicate that Sanders needed a 1-2 blow to knock out Hilary because SC and NV are much harder territory for Sanders to win.
Granted a lot of this is built around the narrative that Clinton has much stronger support among African American and Latino voters than Sanders which are a much larger percentage of the SC and NV electorate.
So the dominant narrative is the Sanders has to prove not only do people like him but that he's a better General election candidate than Clinton. A Tie in Iowa isn't strong enough of a showing to really knock out Clinton.
Obviously this result is going to be a dead heat which pushes the decision to NH which is Bernie's all-in position because it's the only early state that is so demographical and philosophical in tune with him. If Clinton can manage NH expectations well then she has way way easier going over the next states and can basically play rope a dope until super Tuesday which requires Bernie to build a ridiculously expansive and expensive organization on relatively short notice.
posted by vuron at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Granted a lot of this is built around the narrative that Clinton has much stronger support among African American and Latino voters than Sanders which are a much larger percentage of the SC and NV electorate.
So the dominant narrative is the Sanders has to prove not only do people like him but that he's a better General election candidate than Clinton. A Tie in Iowa isn't strong enough of a showing to really knock out Clinton.
Obviously this result is going to be a dead heat which pushes the decision to NH which is Bernie's all-in position because it's the only early state that is so demographical and philosophical in tune with him. If Clinton can manage NH expectations well then she has way way easier going over the next states and can basically play rope a dope until super Tuesday which requires Bernie to build a ridiculously expansive and expensive organization on relatively short notice.
posted by vuron at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can we just skip using any name that contains '-fem' or '-bro' in it here? I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
posted by benito.strauss at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]
Oh, the Clinton camp should really wait. Not a good idea.
posted by bgal81 at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by bgal81 at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016
Clinton is leading by ELEVEN (estimated) delegates at 84% precincts reporting, according to the NYT - that is 579-568 Clinton-Sanders
posted by flex at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by flex at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016
Yeah, the Democrats do delegates. They distribute the delegates not by straight turnout, but by precinct. Before the election, they determine the number of delegates that each precinct gets based on turnout in previous elections. (Not previous presidential elections: all previous elections.) Basically, it discriminates against precincts that have high turnout in presidential years and low turnout in midterms. Which is stupid, stupid, stupid, but the whole process is stupid.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Okay, now we see if Trump can be a gracious loser
lol
posted by triggerfinger at 7:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
lol
posted by triggerfinger at 7:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Clinton's campaign declaring their own victory is, FYI, why many people don't like her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
All of that noise about firewalls and 1-2 punches is bullshit when things are this close. Super Tuesday has the name for a reason -- a ton of delegrates are up for grabs then -- and even though recent years haven't had those primaries mean as much as they used to, for a two-horse race, there's no reason to believe that anyone has to get out while there are still so many delegates up for grabs.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:29 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by tonycpsu at 7:29 PM on February 1, 2016
African Americans are on board with neither Bernie nor Hillary for a variety of reasons, and will likely stay home in numbers large enough to matter come November, barring Corey Booker or Deval Patrick as the veep.
How do you know this?
posted by girlmightlive at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
How do you know this?
posted by girlmightlive at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
.7, 84% in... and the GOP site appears to be down.
posted by zug at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zug at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the only thing different on the Dem side is that O'Malley is out.
So no real difference. One thing that is for certain, is that Sanders' path to nomination is already looking to be different than Obama's.
posted by FJT at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
So no real difference. One thing that is for certain, is that Sanders' path to nomination is already looking to be different than Obama's.
posted by FJT at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
He doesn't. Clinton's approval among African American's is gigantic.
posted by Justinian at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Martin O'Malley calls Iowa for Martin O'Malley, starts out victory speech with, "I didn't know we could do that."
posted by Drinky Die at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Thanks for the feedback! I have to talk with high schoolers tomorrow and am trying to anticipate any weird sideways question I might get thrown.
posted by lilac girl at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by lilac girl at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016
CLINTON BEATS DEWEY
posted by uosuaq at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm thinking there's pretty good odds that Trump starts insulting voters directly if they don't start voting his way soon. Possibly even while throwing a full blown tantrum.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by jason_steakums at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Basically, it discriminates against precincts that have high turnout in presidential years and low turnout in midterms.
Interesting. Does that contribute to the Democrats massive midterms problem?
posted by Artw at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016
Interesting. Does that contribute to the Democrats massive midterms problem?
posted by Artw at 7:31 PM on February 1, 2016
African Americans are on board with neither Bernie nor Hillary for a variety of reasons
How do you know this?
I'm really curious to know too! Like, really curious.
posted by cashman at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016
How do you know this?
I'm really curious to know too! Like, really curious.
posted by cashman at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016
NYT says 590-583 Clinton-Sanders. That's SEVEN
posted by flex at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by flex at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
From Nate Silver:
posted by Justinian at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
And yet: There was not yet any proof in tonight’s results that Sanders can expand his performance beyond his base of white and liberal voters, which are plentiful in Iowa and New Hampshire but less so elsewhere. Instead, Sanders’s supporters seem to have been exactly who we thought they were. Sanders did really well among “very liberal” voters and extraordinarily well among young voters, but not very well among moderates, women or older voters.That's basically my feeling. Sanders' support is deep but not wide. Clinton's is wide but not deep. But wide is better than deep.
posted by Justinian at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Ok, just lost my shit when I saw that the CNN race ticker is "Sponsored by Audi". Nothing like blatant capitalism looking to advertise and sponsor even the most hypocritical of events.
posted by Nanukthedog at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Nanukthedog at 7:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Please knock it off with the cutesy-snide nicknames and personal attacks, please. thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
How do you know this?</em
Just got back from our weekly meeting and he's write. The vote was close, but yeah, it's been decided.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Just got back from our weekly meeting and he's write. The vote was close, but yeah, it's been decided.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
African Americans are on board with neither Bernie nor Hillary for a variety of reasons, and will likely stay home in numbers large enough to matter come November, barring Corey Booker or Deval Patrick as the veep.
If you believe this, Trump has a yuge, very strong bridge he'd like to sell you.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you believe this, Trump has a yuge, very strong bridge he'd like to sell you.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have a very hard time believing that black Americans are going to stay home for an election that is likely to feature the most radical GOP candidate in most people's memory. Like, I could believe the moon landing was faked or Mole People live under Manhattan before I buy that.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
Just sitting here eating supper and the thought pops into my head:
What if the Donald yells "fix"
Maybe I've been reading too much on Sovereign citizens and have too high an estimate of the loony factor currently.
posted by Trochanter at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
What if the Donald yells "fix"
Maybe I've been reading too much on Sovereign citizens and have too high an estimate of the loony factor currently.
posted by Trochanter at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's basically my feeling. Sanders' support is deep but not wide. Clinton's is wide but not deep. But wide is better than deep
Heh, was just about to post that myself Justinian.
Good news for Clinton, basically, as Iowa/NH are the ideal states for Sanders based on those demographics, as had been assumed. So if he's managing only 50%-ish in Iowa, he's going to get destroyed in the South.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Heh, was just about to post that myself Justinian.
Good news for Clinton, basically, as Iowa/NH are the ideal states for Sanders based on those demographics, as had been assumed. So if he's managing only 50%-ish in Iowa, he's going to get destroyed in the South.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
So the Google results are showing both votes and delegate counts for the Democrats but only percentages for the Republicans. The Republican results tab doesn't even have a column for delegates. Anyone know why?
posted by octothorpe at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 7:34 PM on February 1, 2016
[on its way home, the Trvmp campaign plane dumped 290,000 dimes over Iowa, damaging crops, tipping several cows and invoking the ire of metal detector enthusiasts in 4 states]
posted by clavdivs at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016
Hillary Just dipped below 50% of delegates awarded in the overall calculation.
posted by persona at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by persona at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump would make a horrible president, and anyone who's not a Republican knows it. Zero shot in the general.
Perhaps, perhaps not. The public has a short memory, and once the whipping-up-the-base part of the campaign is over, if Trump is the Republican candidate, there is a nonzero chance that, if he moderates his language, replaces some of his hard-right fascist-authoritarian talking points with quasi-leftist populist-paternalist talking points (which go well with a certain type of hard-right politics; look at Mussolini, or the current Polish or Hungarian governments), he might rope in people who wouldn't vote for a typical Republican theocrat/small-government zealot. Including, possibly, some people who would have voted for Sanders but can't see themselves voting for Clinton, with her Wall Street ties and glib, content-free sloganeering.
(None of which necessarily means that Trump has to moderate his actual policies or programmes; again, look at the PiS party in Poland, or Tony Abbott in Australia, both of whom toned down their rhetoric as not to spook the swing voters.)
posted by acb at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Perhaps, perhaps not. The public has a short memory, and once the whipping-up-the-base part of the campaign is over, if Trump is the Republican candidate, there is a nonzero chance that, if he moderates his language, replaces some of his hard-right fascist-authoritarian talking points with quasi-leftist populist-paternalist talking points (which go well with a certain type of hard-right politics; look at Mussolini, or the current Polish or Hungarian governments), he might rope in people who wouldn't vote for a typical Republican theocrat/small-government zealot. Including, possibly, some people who would have voted for Sanders but can't see themselves voting for Clinton, with her Wall Street ties and glib, content-free sloganeering.
(None of which necessarily means that Trump has to moderate his actual policies or programmes; again, look at the PiS party in Poland, or Tony Abbott in Australia, both of whom toned down their rhetoric as not to spook the swing voters.)
posted by acb at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
>Hillary Just dipped below 50% of delegates awarded in the overall calculation.
Where can I see this?
posted by zug at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016
Where can I see this?
posted by zug at 7:35 PM on February 1, 2016
Does that contribute to the Democrats massive midterms problem?I don't think so. I think it's more that the Democrats' massive midterms problem can distort the presidential nominating process.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jesus Christ the Democratic Iowa system makes no goddamn sense.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sangermaine at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
What if the Donald yells "fix"
Please don't give him any ideas.
posted by tommyD at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Please don't give him any ideas.
posted by tommyD at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rubio is declaring victory! Third place victory!!!
posted by Justinian at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
zug if you google IA caucus results it has Sanders up over Clinton 20-19, despite trailing slightly in the popular vote (not what I would have expected).
posted by en forme de poire at 7:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 7:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think a near win in Iowa and a big win in NH would give Bernie a lot more exposure, leading to better numbers in the coming primaries.
posted by saul wright at 7:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by saul wright at 7:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Rubio is declaring victory! Third place victory!!!
Victory over the rest of the establishment types at least. He's a serious contender now, but he better start proving he can win a fight against Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Victory over the rest of the establishment types at least. He's a serious contender now, but he better start proving he can win a fight against Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow, do I hate Rubio's voice.
posted by octothorpe at 7:38 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 7:38 PM on February 1, 2016
Rubio: "Hillary Clinton is disqualified."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:39 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:39 PM on February 1, 2016
octothorpe: "The Republican results tab doesn't even have a column for delegates."
I think this is because, on the Republican side, the Iowa caucus is non-binding. The delegates aren't allocated until later. Which leads to hilarious things like the 2012 situation where: 1) Mitt Romney was initially declared the winner, 2) until they recounted the votes and Santorum was declared the winner (well after the NH and maybe SC primary), 3) which didn't matter anyways because Ron Paul managed to scoop up most (22 out of 26) of the IA delegates later.
posted by mhum at 7:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think this is because, on the Republican side, the Iowa caucus is non-binding. The delegates aren't allocated until later. Which leads to hilarious things like the 2012 situation where: 1) Mitt Romney was initially declared the winner, 2) until they recounted the votes and Santorum was declared the winner (well after the NH and maybe SC primary), 3) which didn't matter anyways because Ron Paul managed to scoop up most (22 out of 26) of the IA delegates later.
posted by mhum at 7:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
NINE GINS-BURGS! NINE GINS-BURGS!
posted by Small Dollar at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Small Dollar at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Latest results really underscore the absurdity of taking percentages and multiplying by small numbers and then rounding them off. Way to pointlessly increase the noise in your system.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh, how much do I hate this "take our country back" phrasing.
posted by Automocar at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Automocar at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
NYT says 87% reporting, 601 estimated delegates to Clinton vs. 594 to Sanders
posted by flex at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by flex at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think Rubio looks really good here. As much as I hate all things Rubio it's better than Cruz or Trump. I still think the nomination will go to Cruz.
posted by sweetkid at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can the last 13% of precincts please hurry up? I need to take a nap.
posted by Justinian at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I predicted that Clinton would win Iowa by a hair, and I predict that Sanders will win New Hampshire. The real test will be whether Sanders can win a state that isn't basically all white. I don't think that's likely, but stranger things have happened.
And I think this is a pretty good argument for why we shouldn't have two disproportionately-white states go first.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
And I think this is a pretty good argument for why we shouldn't have two disproportionately-white states go first.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Hillary vs. Bernie vs. groundhog
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can the last 13% of precincts please hurry up? I need to take a nap.
You should try taking a nap while listening to American cable news. I find it gives you the most trippy nightmares.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016
You should try taking a nap while listening to American cable news. I find it gives you the most trippy nightmares.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016
I think a near win in Iowa and a big win in NH would give Bernie a lot more exposure, leading to better numbers in the coming primaries.
That's the pro-Sanders case. Once Iowa and NH establish him as a credible candidate, other people consider him more seriously. AKA the Obama strategy. He doesn't have the same level of easily gained minority support Obama did, but it's not ridiculous to think Sanders gains momentum from a strong early showing.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's the pro-Sanders case. Once Iowa and NH establish him as a credible candidate, other people consider him more seriously. AKA the Obama strategy. He doesn't have the same level of easily gained minority support Obama did, but it's not ridiculous to think Sanders gains momentum from a strong early showing.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
The real test will be whether Sanders can win a state that isn't basically all white.
People are really ignoring the race thing with Bernie, and that bugs me.
posted by sweetkid at 7:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
People are really ignoring the race thing with Bernie, and that bugs me.
posted by sweetkid at 7:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton just dropped below 50% overall, .5 pct ahead of Bernie.
posted by waitingtoderail at 7:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by waitingtoderail at 7:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Has anyone noticed that the Rubio campaign typography is pretty much a ripoff of a DC pizza chain.
posted by peeedro at 7:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 7:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
People are really ignoring the race thing with Bernie, and that bugs me.
No one is ignoring it. They are saying if Bernie pulls this out tonight, he will by all historical precedence win the Democratic nomination. No declared candidate has ever won Iowa and NH and gone on to lose the nomination.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:44 PM on February 1, 2016
No one is ignoring it. They are saying if Bernie pulls this out tonight, he will by all historical precedence win the Democratic nomination. No declared candidate has ever won Iowa and NH and gone on to lose the nomination.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:44 PM on February 1, 2016
Hillary vs. Bernie vs. groundhog
Here in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania (close by actually) the forecast calls for partly cloudy, so it's a toss-up.
posted by tommyD at 7:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania (close by actually) the forecast calls for partly cloudy, so it's a toss-up.
posted by tommyD at 7:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I still can't believe Rubio used "A New American Century" as his slogan.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think Polk County is gonna hold the state for Hillary, but only by the smallest of margins.
posted by Justinian at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016
Is Rubio always this bad at talking?
Yes. Remember his weird water break in the middle of his 2013 State of the Union response?
posted by Sangermaine at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes. Remember his weird water break in the middle of his 2013 State of the Union response?
posted by Sangermaine at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Rubio has a problem with cadence, though he appears more sincere then say Cruz.
posted by clavdivs at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016
Is Rubio always this bad at talking?
*awkwardly gets a drink of water*
posted by saul wright at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
*awkwardly gets a drink of water*
posted by saul wright at 7:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
I think this is because, on the Republican side, the Iowa caucus is non-binding. The delegates aren't allocated until later.
Didn't the RNC change the rules this year to make the delegates binding, mostly to avoid the Ron Paul shenanigans? At least, that's why Colorado doesn't officially have a Republican caucus this year.
posted by lilac girl at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Didn't the RNC change the rules this year to make the delegates binding, mostly to avoid the Ron Paul shenanigans? At least, that's why Colorado doesn't officially have a Republican caucus this year.
posted by lilac girl at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe he bought a Camelbak.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
People are really ignoring the race thing with Bernie, and that bugs me.
No one is ignoring it.
I haven't seen a lot of support for Bernie among minorities, like at all. That's what I'm talking about. I feel like Bernie's liberal base is really white, especially from what I've seen from my peers, and worrying about the minority vote is like silly or wait your turn or something, we've got something happening here.
"no one is ignoring it" is just not at all true.
posted by sweetkid at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
No one is ignoring it.
I haven't seen a lot of support for Bernie among minorities, like at all. That's what I'm talking about. I feel like Bernie's liberal base is really white, especially from what I've seen from my peers, and worrying about the minority vote is like silly or wait your turn or something, we've got something happening here.
"no one is ignoring it" is just not at all true.
posted by sweetkid at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
No declared candidate has ever not won Iowa, NH and gone on to lose the nomination.
Yeah ... and Missouri used to be considered "the bellweather state" until it voted against Obama twice.
Presidential elections are a shockingly small sample size, especially considering the changes the country has gone through in just the last hundred years or so.
posted by panama joe at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah ... and Missouri used to be considered "the bellweather state" until it voted against Obama twice.
Presidential elections are a shockingly small sample size, especially considering the changes the country has gone through in just the last hundred years or so.
posted by panama joe at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
As much as I hate all things Rubio it's better than Cruz or Trump.
It's better in the same way that having your face chewed off by a golden retriever versus a poodle versus a lab. Results are the same, it's just the sound of the bark that changes. They're all batshit crazy with equally horrid ideas.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's better in the same way that having your face chewed off by a golden retriever versus a poodle versus a lab. Results are the same, it's just the sound of the bark that changes. They're all batshit crazy with equally horrid ideas.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
No declared candidate has ever won Iowa and NH and gone on to lose the nomination.
Edmund Muskie.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Edmund Muskie.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
No declared candidate has ever won Iowa and NH and gone on to lose the nomination.
Tea-leaf reading. That sort of cargo-cult statistics is true right up until the moment that it isn't.
posted by figurant at 7:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Tea-leaf reading. That sort of cargo-cult statistics is true right up until the moment that it isn't.
posted by figurant at 7:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
How do you know this?
He doesn't. Clinton's approval among African American's is gigantic.
The Michelle Alexander book is a thing that's out there and very well known. It's a hard, hard thing for Hillary to get over - and Bernie is coming across as a white New Englander, who neither knows nor cares how to reach southern and urban African American voters. This is probably a matter of perception, an artifact of having to invest so much in campaigning in a pair of very white states early on, but it's a really damaging one at the moment. The local NPR radio show had an hour long segment on it today with African American journalists and political commentators, and it backs up what I've been reading and hearing elsewhere. Polls during the primaries are one thing, turnout in November another. Enthusiasm is not high.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
He doesn't. Clinton's approval among African American's is gigantic.
The Michelle Alexander book is a thing that's out there and very well known. It's a hard, hard thing for Hillary to get over - and Bernie is coming across as a white New Englander, who neither knows nor cares how to reach southern and urban African American voters. This is probably a matter of perception, an artifact of having to invest so much in campaigning in a pair of very white states early on, but it's a really damaging one at the moment. The local NPR radio show had an hour long segment on it today with African American journalists and political commentators, and it backs up what I've been reading and hearing elsewhere. Polls during the primaries are one thing, turnout in November another. Enthusiasm is not high.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
All eyes in America currently on @realDonaldTrump's page, fingers frantically hitting F5 again and again and again.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by triggerfinger at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Rubio needs a massive amount of arm twisting to get Bush/Christie/Fiorina etc to drop out of the race prior to NH otherwise he's going to have significant issues.
He basically needs to solidify the NOTTRUMP and NOTCRUZ vote asap and preferably before NH because Trump still looks dominant there (although Trump's support seems illusory at best). The best hope for that is that the big money donors see the writing on the wall and band together to support Rubio instead of the two sociopaths.
If one or more billionaires fails to cut off Christie or Bush before NH then things could get interesting because OMG the knives are going to be out for Cruz like crazy.
posted by vuron at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
He basically needs to solidify the NOTTRUMP and NOTCRUZ vote asap and preferably before NH because Trump still looks dominant there (although Trump's support seems illusory at best). The best hope for that is that the big money donors see the writing on the wall and band together to support Rubio instead of the two sociopaths.
If one or more billionaires fails to cut off Christie or Bush before NH then things could get interesting because OMG the knives are going to be out for Cruz like crazy.
posted by vuron at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
People are really ignoring the race thing with Bernie
Wait really? I feel like literally the #1 thing I've heard from forecasting-type pundits over the last few months is that his campaign's biggest problem is how he's polling among PoC, and that the states where he's doing the best are the ones with the highest concentration of white liberals.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
Wait really? I feel like literally the #1 thing I've heard from forecasting-type pundits over the last few months is that his campaign's biggest problem is how he's polling among PoC, and that the states where he's doing the best are the ones with the highest concentration of white liberals.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
david wasserman's suggesting neither sanders nor rubio will make it.
0.2% as i edit this...
posted by andrewcooke at 7:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
0.2% as i edit this...
posted by andrewcooke at 7:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
For some reason Rubio reminds me of Novak's character in Inglourious Basterds. So I'm gonna start calling him "Little Man".
posted by FJT at 7:49 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by FJT at 7:49 PM on February 1, 2016
Here comes Trump!
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:49 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:49 PM on February 1, 2016
lilac girl: "Didn't the RNC change the rules this year to make the delegates binding,"
Oh shoot. I think you're right. Wikipedia has Iowa listed as a binding caucus. So I dunno why they aren't showing the delegate counts.
posted by mhum at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2016
Oh shoot. I think you're right. Wikipedia has Iowa listed as a binding caucus. So I dunno why they aren't showing the delegate counts.
posted by mhum at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2016
Now I'm remembering what we're in for with the next six months of primaries...night after night of staying up late reloading the internet to get results that *don't really settle anything*. Sigh.
Trump is looking a lot more vulnerable now though. He needs to separate from the pack in NH or the bubble will start deflating...
posted by zipadee at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump is looking a lot more vulnerable now though. He needs to separate from the pack in NH or the bubble will start deflating...
posted by zipadee at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
david wasserman's suggesting neither sanders nor rubio will make it.
Yeah, I guess he's seeing the same thing I saw. Most of Sanders' best precincts have come in. The remaining counties are split at best.
posted by Justinian at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I guess he's seeing the same thing I saw. Most of Sanders' best precincts have come in. The remaining counties are split at best.
posted by Justinian at 7:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rubio always comes across as a high school kid who is wearing his Dad's suit for his first speech in the auditorium.
posted by Sangermaine at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Sangermaine at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
I feel like Bernie's liberal base is really white, especially from what I've seen from my peers
That's true, but I think that's another way of saying that Sanders' early support is from well-educated, financially secure people who have enough interest and spare time to pay attention to a new figure on the national scene. In America, those people are disproportionately white. I don't think that necessarily means Sanders couldn't pick up minority support. Clinton was leading Obama among minorities early in the primary season, too. (I think I remember that correctly--I'm having a hard time Googling a relevant poll from February 2008.)
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
That's true, but I think that's another way of saying that Sanders' early support is from well-educated, financially secure people who have enough interest and spare time to pay attention to a new figure on the national scene. In America, those people are disproportionately white. I don't think that necessarily means Sanders couldn't pick up minority support. Clinton was leading Obama among minorities early in the primary season, too. (I think I remember that correctly--I'm having a hard time Googling a relevant poll from February 2008.)
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
That said, it's down to 0.2!
posted by Justinian at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
"no one is ignoring it" is just not at all true.
I've seen people talk about race in every conversation about Bernie I've read since the Black Lives Matter protestors confronted him.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
I've seen people talk about race in every conversation about Bernie I've read since the Black Lives Matter protestors confronted him.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
NYT Live stream of Trump speech here.
Trump says he's "honored to finish second".
posted by FJT at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016
Trump says he's "honored to finish second".
posted by FJT at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2016
Is there a place to see the remaining precincts?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:52 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:52 PM on February 1, 2016
BY THREE DELEGATES according to the NYT - 628-625 Clinton-Sanders
posted by flex at 7:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by flex at 7:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
People are really ignoring the race thing with Bernie
Wait really? I feel like literally the #1 thing I've heard from forecasting-type pundits over the last few months is that his campaign's biggest problem is how he's polling among PoC, and that the states where he's doing the best are the ones with the highest concentration of white liberals.
My comment is pretty specifically about people who think he'll win it all because he's winning in majority white states. Also, yes it doesn't seem like he's doing much to bring in African American voters (PoC is a different thing in my opinion).
It's really just the ARE YOU DUMB BERNIE'S STARTING SOMETHING GET ON BOARD which I have only seen from white people, a lot of whom think about African American or PoC issues only secondarily.
posted by sweetkid at 7:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
Trump's pretty subdued.
posted by octothorpe at 7:52 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 7:52 PM on February 1, 2016
Buy a farm, Donald.
posted by peeedro at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Arbitrary: https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/state
Mouse over the counties and it tells you how many precincts are left to resort. For example, 27 left in Polk with 173 total left outstanding across the state.
posted by Justinian at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016
Mouse over the counties and it tells you how many precincts are left to resort. For example, 27 left in Polk with 173 total left outstanding across the state.
posted by Justinian at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016
Most of Sanders' best precincts have come in. The remaining counties are split at best.
But it's a 0.2% difference with 11% of the state left to report!
posted by saul wright at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016
But it's a 0.2% difference with 11% of the state left to report!
posted by saul wright at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016
It's really just the ARE YOU DUMB BERNIE'S STARTING SOMETHING GET ON BOARD which I have only seen from white people, a lot of whom think about African American or PoC issues only secondarily.
This is both unfair and untrue.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is both unfair and untrue.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
do you have proof? it seems completely true to me.
posted by sweetkid at 7:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 7:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Uh, okay. I'm not going to argue the point.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 PM on February 1, 2016
I see a lot of "Sanders' campaign's biggest issue is its lack of appeal with PoC/black voters" from people criticizing it, and not a ton from people supporting the campaign about how to make it more appealing.
But that's my relatively narrow, personal-social-media-feeds perspective. So YMMV.
posted by sciatrix at 7:55 PM on February 1, 2016
But that's my relatively narrow, personal-social-media-feeds perspective. So YMMV.
posted by sciatrix at 7:55 PM on February 1, 2016
It kind of makes me sad. Bernie may not be perfect but he's been the best chance of getting a real social democrat in a real position of power in a generation. None of this third way bullshit.
posted by Talez at 7:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Talez at 7:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
The last burst of Sanders' votes was the rest of Johnson County (Iowa City) coming in, which I think was his last really big amount of precincts to rack up, which left him a couple short. But we'll see.
posted by Justinian at 7:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 7:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I dunno, justinian. There are a bunch of precincts still out in Linn County, which seems to be doing well for Bernie. That's where Cedar Rapids is.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
(fwiw I am pro-Sanders, along with basically 80% of my feeds, but everyone on said feeds is pretty clear about throwing their weight behind whoever wins the primary. I haven't seen a lot of "I will not vote for that Dem candidate but I would vote for this one" perspectives off of MeFi, and even here those perspectives are pretty limited.)
posted by sciatrix at 7:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 7:57 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
rebound to 0.4%
posted by andrewcooke at 7:57 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 7:57 PM on February 1, 2016
From David Wasserman at 538:
Reality check: A tie in Iowa is actually a win for Clinton. According to our targets at the Cook Political Report, Bernie Sanders would have needed to win twice as many delegates as Clinton in Iowa to be “on track” for the nomination. He’s nowhere near that tonight.posted by Justinian at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh yeah, no matter how the primaries come out, I'm voting D in November.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah I don't get people who won't vote for a D. I don't like that economic inequality won't be a huge part of a Clinton administration but I'm not about to cut my nose off to spite my face.
posted by Talez at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Talez at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
David Wasserman of 538 says:
"To my eye, the outstanding precincts on the Democratic side slightly favor Hillary Clinton. Statewide, only 13 percent of precincts are left outstanding. But 21 percent of precincts are outstanding in Clinton’s best large county, Polk, and 23 percent of precincts remain to be counted in Dubuque, her other best large county. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has 23 percent of Story County (Ames), but that’s smaller. All but 7 percent of Johnson County (Iowa City) is in."
posted by markkraft at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016
"To my eye, the outstanding precincts on the Democratic side slightly favor Hillary Clinton. Statewide, only 13 percent of precincts are left outstanding. But 21 percent of precincts are outstanding in Clinton’s best large county, Polk, and 23 percent of precincts remain to be counted in Dubuque, her other best large county. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has 23 percent of Story County (Ames), but that’s smaller. All but 7 percent of Johnson County (Iowa City) is in."
posted by markkraft at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016
Also, yes it doesn't seem like he's doing much to bring in African American voters (PoC is a different thing in my opinion).
Not to argue, but have you seen his lengthy discussion with Killer Mike? It's some of the least condescending outreach I've ever seen from anyone in the Democratic party. He's also been stumping with Dr. Cornel West and has dedicated outreach at HBCU. His criminal justice platform is the best in the Democratic party according to Deray Mckesson's Campaign Zero. I don't say this to be argumentative at all, but I just don't think it's quite fair to say he's not doing much to earn the trust of African American voters
posted by dialetheia at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [38 favorites]
Not to argue, but have you seen his lengthy discussion with Killer Mike? It's some of the least condescending outreach I've ever seen from anyone in the Democratic party. He's also been stumping with Dr. Cornel West and has dedicated outreach at HBCU. His criminal justice platform is the best in the Democratic party according to Deray Mckesson's Campaign Zero. I don't say this to be argumentative at all, but I just don't think it's quite fair to say he's not doing much to earn the trust of African American voters
posted by dialetheia at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [38 favorites]
dunno, justinian. There are a bunch of precincts still out in Linn County, which seems to be doing well for Bernie. That's where Cedar Rapids is.
You're right, but until Polk finishes coming in I don't see how the last 0.3% gets made up. Polk is huge.
posted by Justinian at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016
You're right, but until Polk finishes coming in I don't see how the last 0.3% gets made up. Polk is huge.
posted by Justinian at 7:58 PM on February 1, 2016
Well, as huge as it gets in Iowa. Which is not very huge.
posted by Justinian at 7:59 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 7:59 PM on February 1, 2016
A tie in Iowa is actually a win for Clinton.
Not at all. There is no world in which Sanders should have come close.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
Not at all. There is no world in which Sanders should have come close.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
It's all anecdata. I'm gay and a PoC and I've supported Bernie from day 1 as have many of my gay and my PoC friends. I also have friends who are gay and straight, black, brown and white, who support Hillary.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
Reality check: A tie in Iowa is actually a win for Clinton.
Cool, thanks for clearing that up
posted by Automocar at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Cool, thanks for clearing that up
posted by Automocar at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't like that economic inequality won't be a huge part of a Clinton administration
Oh, I anticipate it will be a huge part, given her donors.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
Oh, I anticipate it will be a huge part, given her donors.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
do you have proof? it seems completely true to me.
"Do you have any proof of innocence to counter my presumption of guilt?"
posted by Behemoth at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Do you have any proof of innocence to counter my presumption of guilt?"
posted by Behemoth at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm probably slightly pro-Sanders, but I'd happily for for Clinton if she wins the primaries. I'm mainly glad that Sanders is dragging the Democratic discussion leftward. Heck, I'd vote a Satan/Sentient Ebola Virus Democratic ticket if I thought they would adhere to the party platform and it would keep the GOP out of the White House.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [37 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [37 favorites]
Honestly, I'm going to vote straight party ticket for the Democrats no matter what (hopefully there are no ballot initiatives on the November election because then I actually have to read) and honestly I have things I like and dislike about both Clinton and Sanders. Seriously though I can't even imagine not voting for the Democrat regardless of whoever is the eventually even though Texas will inevitably vote for some disgusting Republican regardless and my vote will be drowned out in a sea of nativism and racism and classism and at least a little misogyny.
I really do urge liberals regardless of your current preference for Clinton or Sanders to work together to support the democratic nominee in either case because no matter how awful you think Clinton is or how obnoxious some of the Sanders supporters are both candidates are vastly superior to the alternatives and futhermore neither one seem likely to support a massive rollback in civil rights for your fellow americans. Yes hold your nose if you must but realize that there is a vast gulf of difference between Sander or Clinton and even the most sane Republican candidate.
posted by vuron at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
I really do urge liberals regardless of your current preference for Clinton or Sanders to work together to support the democratic nominee in either case because no matter how awful you think Clinton is or how obnoxious some of the Sanders supporters are both candidates are vastly superior to the alternatives and futhermore neither one seem likely to support a massive rollback in civil rights for your fellow americans. Yes hold your nose if you must but realize that there is a vast gulf of difference between Sander or Clinton and even the most sane Republican candidate.
posted by vuron at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
I'm a registered Democrat who will vote elsewhere if Clinton is the nominee. It'll be interesting to see how many others there are out there.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's lots of actual demographic and opinion data out there about Sanders and Clinton supporters. No need to rely on anecdotal impressions gleaned from Reddit or Facebook or your circle of acquaintances.
posted by chortly at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by chortly at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are also 6 precincts out in Story County, which is where Ames and Iowa State University are.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:01 PM on February 1, 2016
I don't think that necessarily means Sanders couldn't pick up minority support. Clinton was leading Obama among minorities early in the primary season, too.
The problem is that the Clintons aren't really that comfortable catering to black voters. Their original claim to fame was attracting white southern voters back to the party... and Hillary's recent off-hand comment about "reconstruction" shows just how awkward that territory is for her. She's already been drawn left but would dearly like to pivot towards the "center," but the "center" for, say, law enforcement is pretty far away from what black voters need to hear. If she has to campaign against Bernie for black votes she is in a very difficult position.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016
The problem is that the Clintons aren't really that comfortable catering to black voters. Their original claim to fame was attracting white southern voters back to the party... and Hillary's recent off-hand comment about "reconstruction" shows just how awkward that territory is for her. She's already been drawn left but would dearly like to pivot towards the "center," but the "center" for, say, law enforcement is pretty far away from what black voters need to hear. If she has to campaign against Bernie for black votes she is in a very difficult position.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016
(Polk County is currently 151 out of 177 reporting, 53.6% Clinton - 45.7% Sanders, just FYI)
posted by flex at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by flex at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016
I'm mainly glad that Sanders is dragging the Democratic discussion leftward.
This so much. Just getting his economic inequality stuff onto the agenda as things in front of and shown as important for Democratic voters.
posted by Talez at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
This so much. Just getting his economic inequality stuff onto the agenda as things in front of and shown as important for Democratic voters.
posted by Talez at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
Traditionally, social democrats or even socialists have had a tough road into national politics, even local, I can only recall a few. It's just not conducive to business.
TRUSTED
That's sometning Rick Grimes yells to glen after a raid gone bad.
posted by clavdivs at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
TRUSTED
That's sometning Rick Grimes yells to glen after a raid gone bad.
posted by clavdivs at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
“No one remembers who came in second.” – Walter Hagen @realDonaldTrump
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:02 PM on February 1, 2016
do you have proof? it seems completely true to me.
"Do you have any proof of innocence to counter my presumption of guilt?"
I'm not saying anyone's guilty. I'm saying minority voters have good reason to be nervous about Sanders, despite agreeing overall with his policies. Saying no way that isn't happening and here have some stats is like, exactly proving my point.
posted by sweetkid at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Do you have any proof of innocence to counter my presumption of guilt?"
I'm not saying anyone's guilty. I'm saying minority voters have good reason to be nervous about Sanders, despite agreeing overall with his policies. Saying no way that isn't happening and here have some stats is like, exactly proving my point.
posted by sweetkid at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I just don't think it's quite fair to say he's not doing much to earn the trust of African American voters
Yeah, it's more accurate to say he isn't accomplishing much. He has been making serious effort since he was confronted on it, but it's not easy to do when you are against someone people are much more familiar with.
I'm a registered Democrat who will vote elsewhere if Clinton is the nominee. It'll be interesting to see how many others there are out there.
I'm not voting for Clinton, but there are not many of us. She is going to win
posted by Drinky Die at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016
Yeah, it's more accurate to say he isn't accomplishing much. He has been making serious effort since he was confronted on it, but it's not easy to do when you are against someone people are much more familiar with.
I'm a registered Democrat who will vote elsewhere if Clinton is the nominee. It'll be interesting to see how many others there are out there.
I'm not voting for Clinton, but there are not many of us. She is going to win
posted by Drinky Die at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016
The Hillary campaign HQ in Iowa suddenly burst out into a great fit of cheering. Not sure why, as yet. Watching the results at WHOTV. com and following the results as they are posted to the Des Moines Register.
It's really close, but it looks like she's run the gauntlet, and that the remainder of the vote should favor her.
posted by markkraft at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016
It's really close, but it looks like she's run the gauntlet, and that the remainder of the vote should favor her.
posted by markkraft at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016
https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/county/19153
I'm not so sure Polk being out is a huge win for Hillary.
posted by zug at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016
I'm not so sure Polk being out is a huge win for Hillary.
posted by zug at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016
*fistbumps as a liberal Texan with vuron* MORE VOTING. All the voting! Even if it's hopelessly ineffectual given how gerrymandered all to hell we are, well, it's a good habit to be in. You never know.
posted by sciatrix at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sorry if I missed it, but what happens to MoM's 7 delegates?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016
And in terms of African-American community leaders: TNC is apparently in the Clinton camp, but Cornel West has been stumping for him. Guess what, the community is not a monolith.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
From 538 blog:
Counties with 100k+ registered Democrats:
Polk County – 85 percent reporting – Clinton 54, Sanders 46 so far.
50-100k registered Democrats:
Linn County – 86 percent reporting – Sanders 53, Clinton 48 so far.
25-50k registered Democrats:
Scott County – 88 percent reporting – Sanders 51, Clinton 49 so far.
Blackhawk Country – 85 percent reporting – Sanders 53, Clinton 47 so far.
Dubuque County – 80 percent reporting – Clinton 53, Sanders 46 so far.
<25k registered Democrats:
Woodbury County – 81 percent reporting – Sanders 53, Clinton 46 so far.
Marshall County – 89 percent reporting – Sanders 52, Clinton 48 so far.
Story County – 86 percent reporting – Sanders 58, Clinton 42 so far.
Warren County – 83 percent reporting – Clinton 56, Sanders 44 so far.
posted by jpdoane at 8:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Counties with 100k+ registered Democrats:
Polk County – 85 percent reporting – Clinton 54, Sanders 46 so far.
50-100k registered Democrats:
Linn County – 86 percent reporting – Sanders 53, Clinton 48 so far.
25-50k registered Democrats:
Scott County – 88 percent reporting – Sanders 51, Clinton 49 so far.
Blackhawk Country – 85 percent reporting – Sanders 53, Clinton 47 so far.
Dubuque County – 80 percent reporting – Clinton 53, Sanders 46 so far.
<25k registered Democrats:
Woodbury County – 81 percent reporting – Sanders 53, Clinton 46 so far.
Marshall County – 89 percent reporting – Sanders 52, Clinton 48 so far.
Story County – 86 percent reporting – Sanders 58, Clinton 42 so far.
Warren County – 83 percent reporting – Clinton 56, Sanders 44 so far.
posted by jpdoane at 8:04 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
91% precincts in - NYT & NBC are both reporting 636-632 Clinton-Sanders
posted by flex at 8:05 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by flex at 8:05 PM on February 1, 2016
Thanks Despicable Asshole, Ted Cruz. You just won me 35 dollars!
posted by codacorolla at 8:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by codacorolla at 8:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Reality check: A tie in Iowa is actually a win for Clinton.
This is like when some internet buddies insisted the Broncos blew out the Patriots, because the Patriots lost by two points instead of won by three touchdowns. Stats nerdery sometimes goes too far.
This close, and Sanders has effectively won, from a campaign standpoint, as it will fundamentally alter the direction of the campaign in other important states. If he wins outright, things will be rocky for Clinton, in terms of gaining endorsements, building her ground game and fundraising.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is like when some internet buddies insisted the Broncos blew out the Patriots, because the Patriots lost by two points instead of won by three touchdowns. Stats nerdery sometimes goes too far.
This close, and Sanders has effectively won, from a campaign standpoint, as it will fundamentally alter the direction of the campaign in other important states. If he wins outright, things will be rocky for Clinton, in terms of gaining endorsements, building her ground game and fundraising.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
sweetkid: I feel like Bernie's liberal base is really white, especially from what I've seen from my peers
Pater Aletheias: That's true, but I think that's another way of saying that Sanders' early support is from well-educated, financially secure people who have enough interest and spare time to pay attention to a new figure on the national scene. In America, those people are disproportionately white.
"What do you think of this town you're moving to?"
"I don't know. I like it, but I feel out-of-place there. It's overwhelmingly white."
"Well, that's just another way of saying the people there are all well-educated and financially secure!"
"Oh, okay! Well, now I feel super welcome!"
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
Pater Aletheias: That's true, but I think that's another way of saying that Sanders' early support is from well-educated, financially secure people who have enough interest and spare time to pay attention to a new figure on the national scene. In America, those people are disproportionately white.
"What do you think of this town you're moving to?"
"I don't know. I like it, but I feel out-of-place there. It's overwhelmingly white."
"Well, that's just another way of saying the people there are all well-educated and financially secure!"
"Oh, okay! Well, now I feel super welcome!"
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
I'm voting Not Having a Republican Pick the Next Supreme Court Justices, that's what I'm voting.
Also I actually like Hilary and I will second that the Bernie types (on my FB) are kind of being assholes about it, on occasion. But I ain't voting for whatever pile of ichor in a suit gets the GOP nom, so.
posted by emjaybee at 8:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
Also I actually like Hilary and I will second that the Bernie types (on my FB) are kind of being assholes about it, on occasion. But I ain't voting for whatever pile of ichor in a suit gets the GOP nom, so.
posted by emjaybee at 8:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
rocky for Clinton, in terms of gaining endorsements
Maybe? But she's currently trouncing him in endorsements, 465-2. Not that I think those are all that important, really.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:08 PM on February 1, 2016
Maybe? But she's currently trouncing him in endorsements, 465-2. Not that I think those are all that important, really.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:08 PM on February 1, 2016
Solon and Thanks, I don't think that's a fair characterization of my point, but I'm not going to recap it here.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
I do of course certainly want Hillary to win in the general (and I expect that she will prevail in the primary). I probably won't be voting for her as I live in deep blue Illinois and my voting decision matrix is: Vote Green if a Green candidate is available unless there is a tight race between (D) and (R) in which case vote Democratic; don't vote for judges at all as I in principle think judges should be isolated from public opinion. (I never voted for Obama either although I think he's done a damn good job given what he had to deal with.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
What's happening with that half a percent or so of O'Malley supporters still on the boards? I thought they were supposed to have been redistributed by this point.
posted by fifthrider at 8:09 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by fifthrider at 8:09 PM on February 1, 2016
Trump still all over the headlines even if he loses, of course...
posted by Artw at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm a registered Democrat who will vote elsewhere if Clinton is the nominee.
I don't understand this. I'm certainly not a fan of Hillary Clinton. But for the first eight years of my adulthood, the White House was held by George W. Bush, and I'm entirely baffled by anybody old enough to have lived through that who isn't goddamned terrified of eight years of somebody who's even worse.
We're going to get punched in the face. Refusing to opt for it being done lightly instead of hard is bizarre.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [48 favorites]
I don't understand this. I'm certainly not a fan of Hillary Clinton. But for the first eight years of my adulthood, the White House was held by George W. Bush, and I'm entirely baffled by anybody old enough to have lived through that who isn't goddamned terrified of eight years of somebody who's even worse.
We're going to get punched in the face. Refusing to opt for it being done lightly instead of hard is bizarre.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [48 favorites]
Maddow says this is a victory for Sanders, no matter what.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I thought they were supposed to have been redistributed by this point.
Not if they hit 15% in their precinct, and some precincts did.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016
Not if they hit 15% in their precinct, and some precincts did.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016
"I don't know. I like it, but I feel out-of-place there. It's overwhelmingly white."
That's how I felt about moving to the New England suburbs. I'm used to quarter asian, quarter latino. Also, half the south of the border minority over here fala português instead of español.
posted by Talez at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016
That's how I felt about moving to the New England suburbs. I'm used to quarter asian, quarter latino. Also, half the south of the border minority over here fala português instead of español.
posted by Talez at 8:10 PM on February 1, 2016
Daily Kos reports that Trump got "schlonged" by Cruz, and except for the terrible mental picture it gives me, I found that pretty funny.
posted by emjaybee at 8:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 8:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Clinton back over 50% with 91% reporting.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by thefoxgod at 8:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just want to note that JEB! got (relatively) clobbered by Rand Paul. My schadenfreude gland is close to bursting.
posted by Panjandrum at 8:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Panjandrum at 8:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
1541 of 1683 precincts in, 50.1% Clinton to 49.3% Sanders
posted by flex at 8:13 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by flex at 8:13 PM on February 1, 2016
Maddow says this is a victory for Sanders, no matter what.That seems totally indisputable to me. Whether it's a victory that's going to matter in the long run is, I think, very much an open question.
Anyway, I think that having a real contest is good for the Democrats, so I'm happy about it. We don't have to worry about the Hillary-coronation problem anymore.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [19 favorites]
Already getting mail from the DCCC about how Ted Cruz winning could be the "end of the Republican Party as we know it". That expression could go two ways though...
posted by thefoxgod at 8:13 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by thefoxgod at 8:13 PM on February 1, 2016
Yeah, I am a black woman and I pretty much will never vote for Clinton. I think it is gross the way people get on Sanders's case about hypothetical things when Clinton was behind some of the worst depredations actually committed against black Americans since the Civil Rights era. But more than that: As a New Yorker who knows how terrible it was when someone blew a hole in my city, I will never, ever support someone who used that event to do the same thing to other people. If you can't learn that lesson of empathy, well, I don't want you.
(PS: OMG YOU WILL LET REPUBS WIN commenters, I live in New York. Who I vote for doesn't actually matter.)
posted by dame at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [53 favorites]
(PS: OMG YOU WILL LET REPUBS WIN commenters, I live in New York. Who I vote for doesn't actually matter.)
posted by dame at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [53 favorites]
The African American community is certainly not a monolith and while it is reliably democratic in the general election it can definitely influence primary races. Hopefully the Latino vote can also become as instrumental in defining the democratic primary process although that generally hasn't been as reliable outside of the southwest.
Long term the success of failure of the Democratic party depends on a stool of young voters (because who you vote with in your first election is a big determinant of future behavior), African-American and Latino voters.
Continued support of LGBTQ issues by Democrats will of course be critical in maintaining that part of the big tent and honestly I'm willing to lose some conservative southern voters (white or PoC) in order to continue pushing for increased support of LGBTQ issues.
The Asian community is unfortunately underserved in terms of electoral politics mainly because many states in which the Asian community is a large percentage of the electorate are already dominated by democrats but it would be good if more Asian democrats could get national exposure so that it's not just Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley on the Republican side.
posted by vuron at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Long term the success of failure of the Democratic party depends on a stool of young voters (because who you vote with in your first election is a big determinant of future behavior), African-American and Latino voters.
Continued support of LGBTQ issues by Democrats will of course be critical in maintaining that part of the big tent and honestly I'm willing to lose some conservative southern voters (white or PoC) in order to continue pushing for increased support of LGBTQ issues.
The Asian community is unfortunately underserved in terms of electoral politics mainly because many states in which the Asian community is a large percentage of the electorate are already dominated by democrats but it would be good if more Asian democrats could get national exposure so that it's not just Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley on the Republican side.
posted by vuron at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's long past time to move Iowa out of first and go to some kind of rotation. We shouldn't be beholden to the narrative of who won the Des Moines dog sled and mayonnaise eating biathlon every single presidential cycle.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
I understand the punditry's point that this is demographically one of the better states for Sanders (whiter, more liberal) but I think they're underestimating the differential between Beltway familiarity with Bernie Sanders and the average Democratic voter's familiarity.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Anyway, I think that having a real contest is good for the Democrats, so I'm happy about it. We don't have to worry about the Hillary-coronation problem anymore.
Agreed.
posted by sweetkid at 8:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Anyway, I think that having a real contest is good for the Democrats, so I'm happy about it.
Yeah, people on both sides were worried about the contested primary in 2008 hurting in the general, but it really seemed like it had the opposite effect. Democrats were energized, there was lots of coverage/exposure, and Hillary rallied to Obama's cause once the primary was over. I'm assuming/hoping Sanders will do the same (or Clinton if Sanders somehow pulls it off).
posted by thefoxgod at 8:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, people on both sides were worried about the contested primary in 2008 hurting in the general, but it really seemed like it had the opposite effect. Democrats were energized, there was lots of coverage/exposure, and Hillary rallied to Obama's cause once the primary was over. I'm assuming/hoping Sanders will do the same (or Clinton if Sanders somehow pulls it off).
posted by thefoxgod at 8:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
As a New Yorker who knows how terrible it was when someone blew a hole in my city, I will never, ever support someone who used that event to do the same thing to other people. If you can't learn that lesson of empathy, well, I don't want you.
Thank you for framing my thoughts exactly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Thank you for framing my thoughts exactly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:16 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by dame at 9:14 PM on February 1
Yes!
posted by Trochanter at 8:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes!
posted by Trochanter at 8:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
the Des Moine dog sled and mayonnaise eating biathlon
do they... do they eat the dog sled too?
posted by jason_steakums at 8:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
do they... do they eat the dog sled too?
posted by jason_steakums at 8:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
What I'm really hoping for is that whoever loses does what they can to support the winner- severe disunity lasting past the convention could be catastrophic.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:17 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't understand this. I'm certainly not a fan of Hillary Clinton. But for the first eight years of my adulthood, the White House was held by George W. Bush, and I'm entirely baffled by anybody old enough to have lived through that who isn't goddamned terrified of eight years of somebody who's even worse.
We have to keep Wormtongue as chief advisor, because Saruman would be much worse.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
We have to keep Wormtongue as chief advisor, because Saruman would be much worse.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not at all. There is no world in which Sanders should have come close.
It sure wasn't supposed to be this way back when the race was starting, and maybe she will finally start running a better campaign.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
It sure wasn't supposed to be this way back when the race was starting, and maybe she will finally start running a better campaign.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
With 91.73% reporting, Hillary has bounced back significantly.
Hillary Clinton
50.15%
Bernie Sanders
49.32%
That should be game over.
Given that Obama won Iowa by about 9%, and Hillary came in a distant third... well, Hillary is doing pretty well, and obviously won over a lot of people who didn't previously vote for her. The entrance polls showed a LARGE female turnout -- about 56% -- which is really hopeful if this party comes together.
Bernie did great, but he didn't win over the people of Iowa, which were demographically and liberally ideal for for his campaign. Had this been a primary, she would almost certainly won by several additional points, as the caucus process is notoriously difficult for the elderly, the disabled, etc.
But yes, Sanders needed to win by a margin larger than Obama to be anywhere near on track for victory, and to counter Iowa's superdelegates, all of whom favor Clinton, I believe. By the time those are tallied in, Hillary will have won a strong victory in Iowa.
A huge female turnout and a lot of millennial activism would be a win for everyone who wants to keep the GOP out of office.
posted by markkraft at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hillary Clinton
50.15%
Bernie Sanders
49.32%
That should be game over.
Given that Obama won Iowa by about 9%, and Hillary came in a distant third... well, Hillary is doing pretty well, and obviously won over a lot of people who didn't previously vote for her. The entrance polls showed a LARGE female turnout -- about 56% -- which is really hopeful if this party comes together.
Bernie did great, but he didn't win over the people of Iowa, which were demographically and liberally ideal for for his campaign. Had this been a primary, she would almost certainly won by several additional points, as the caucus process is notoriously difficult for the elderly, the disabled, etc.
But yes, Sanders needed to win by a margin larger than Obama to be anywhere near on track for victory, and to counter Iowa's superdelegates, all of whom favor Clinton, I believe. By the time those are tallied in, Hillary will have won a strong victory in Iowa.
A huge female turnout and a lot of millennial activism would be a win for everyone who wants to keep the GOP out of office.
posted by markkraft at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is there any actual evidence of severe disunity among Dems? Serious question.
posted by sciatrix at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 8:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
We have to keep Wormtongue as chief advisor, because Saruman would be much worse.
"The lesser of two evils is still evil" is only insightful when there's a third, non-evil possibility. In anything resembling the forseeable future, there isn't.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
"The lesser of two evils is still evil" is only insightful when there's a third, non-evil possibility. In anything resembling the forseeable future, there isn't.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
Clinton’s Support Runs Deep
Clinton holds a commanding lead among nearly every major subgroup of potential Democratic primary voters. Some of her strongest showings are among women, nonwhites, those in lower-income households, those with less formal education, and Southerners.
Gallup Election Review, Oct. 2007.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Clinton holds a commanding lead among nearly every major subgroup of potential Democratic primary voters. Some of her strongest showings are among women, nonwhites, those in lower-income households, those with less formal education, and Southerners.
Gallup Election Review, Oct. 2007.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
And I'm another black woman who is leaning towards Clinton but can be convinced to vote for Sanders. I'm just put off by the "dudebro" vibes of the Sanders supporters.
posted by ramix at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ramix at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
An anchorman on a Des Moines station just said "Ted Cruz was so hammered in those ads...uh...ha ha...I mean, for those ads."
posted by Beardman at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Beardman at 8:19 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is there any actual evidence of severe disunity among Dems? Serious question.
Did you start reading this thread at the comment you quoted?
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016
Did you start reading this thread at the comment you quoted?
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016
There is for people outside of swing states. If you're in NYC, for example, you can vote for whoever the fuck you want and it's not going to tip NY to a red state.
posted by corb at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by corb at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016
Is there any actual evidence of severe disunity among Dems? Serious question.
No.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
No.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
And by disunity, I do actually mean the kind of acrimonious disunity that would hurt a Dem candidate post election.
posted by sciatrix at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sciatrix at 8:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
A huge female turnout and a lot of millennial activism would be a win for everyone who wants to keep the GOP out of office.
Problem is the age splits, Sanders won the youth voter overwhelmingly. Hilary is going to have an enthusiasm problem keeping those young voters engaged and fighting Republican suppression to vote for her.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Problem is the age splits, Sanders won the youth voter overwhelmingly. Hilary is going to have an enthusiasm problem keeping those young voters engaged and fighting Republican suppression to vote for her.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Santorum won Iowa in 2012. He's currently last place.
You're saying Santorum ends up on bottom?
posted by peeedro at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
You're saying Santorum ends up on bottom?
posted by peeedro at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
Is there any actual evidence of severe disunity among Dems? Serious question.
No, polls have shown both Sanders and Clinton have extremely high favorability among Democrats (in Iowa it was like 87%/88% for Clinton/Sanders I think).
There are a few vocal people on Metafilter, but very few overall in the country.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
No, polls have shown both Sanders and Clinton have extremely high favorability among Democrats (in Iowa it was like 87%/88% for Clinton/Sanders I think).
There are a few vocal people on Metafilter, but very few overall in the country.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
Perhaps if I lived in a reliably blue state I would feel differently, but living in Ohio where we are always so, so close to having any sort of civil rights or social progress taken away from us has guaranteed that I'm 99.9% of the time going to pull that level for a Dem.
posted by girlmightlive at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by girlmightlive at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
(and now i'm imagining o'malley singing "i'm removing myself from the narrative...")
posted by nadawi at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 8:22 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
There is for people outside of swing states. If you're in NYC, for example, you can vote for whoever the fuck you want and it's not going to tip NY to a red state.
Yeah, but in that case your vote is not going to actually produce the outcome you want (unless the outcome you want is "I felt morally pure because I didn't stain myself with the filth of compromise and pragmatism"), so who cares?
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, but in that case your vote is not going to actually produce the outcome you want (unless the outcome you want is "I felt morally pure because I didn't stain myself with the filth of compromise and pragmatism"), so who cares?
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Is there any actual evidence of severe disunity among Dems? Serious question.I'm not seeing it. I have definitely run into a few "I would never vote for Clinton" Sanders supporters, but I suspect that they'd never vote for any mainstream Democrat. So it's more that they're third-party voters who are temporary Dems because of Sanders than that there's any unusual disunity among Democrats. I think there's pretty overwhelming opposition to everyone in the Republican field, for one thing.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:23 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
outcome you want is "I felt morally pure because I didn't stain myself with the filth of compromise and pragmatism"
That's a perfectly good outcome.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
That's a perfectly good outcome.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
And by disunity, I do actually mean the kind of acrimonious disunity that would hurt a Dem candidate post election.
No, people who support Bernie are the left wing of the party. They are among the most reliable Democratic voters because they are the most fearful of the country shifting right. Disengaged people in the center are the wishy washy types.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, people who support Bernie are the left wing of the party. They are among the most reliable Democratic voters because they are the most fearful of the country shifting right. Disengaged people in the center are the wishy washy types.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
My concern is that with HIllary younger people will stay home, and with Bernie African American voters will stay home. I still think it will be Hillary though.
posted by sweetkid at 8:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 8:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Are god, glory, and creator all different bingo squares?
posted by Beardman at 8:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Beardman at 8:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I predict that Hillary will not start running a better campaign, nor be a better president, for all of this.
posted by uosuaq at 8:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 8:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Joy cometh in the morning." - Ted Cruz.
Listen, Cruz, what the hell did you do to the groundhog.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Listen, Cruz, what the hell did you do to the groundhog.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's a perfectly good outcome.
Wow. Wooooow.
posted by sciatrix at 8:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
Wow. Wooooow.
posted by sciatrix at 8:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
Watching Rubio and now Cruz speak, I seriously feel like Republican voters and Democratic voters are actually living in culturally distinct nations. This will not indicate civil war, since no money is involved, but it will mean a dysfunctional federal government, probably for decades to come.
Globe: are you ready for the United States of America to become Belgium?
posted by Automocar at 8:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Globe: are you ready for the United States of America to become Belgium?
posted by Automocar at 8:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
but it will mean a dysfunctional federal government, probably for decades to come.
We've already been there for a while now.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
We've already been there for a while now.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, but in that case your vote is not going to actually produce the outcome you want (unless the outcome you want is "I felt morally pure because I didn't stain myself with the filth of compromise and pragmatism"), so who cares?
Or you could not be rude and consider that other messages are sent. I vote for leftists, so if the Dems ever get their shit together, they know how many leftists votes there are. ALSO if you live in New York, voting for other parties (or for Dems on the other parties' lines, like Clinton on Working Family) gets those parties state money, so actually, yes it does more than let people vote their conscience. But also also, there is nothing wrong with voting your conscience and being snotty sure isn't going to get me to side with you. Actually addressing your candidate's flaws, like rolling around in Goldman Sachs money, might.
posted by dame at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
Or you could not be rude and consider that other messages are sent. I vote for leftists, so if the Dems ever get their shit together, they know how many leftists votes there are. ALSO if you live in New York, voting for other parties (or for Dems on the other parties' lines, like Clinton on Working Family) gets those parties state money, so actually, yes it does more than let people vote their conscience. But also also, there is nothing wrong with voting your conscience and being snotty sure isn't going to get me to side with you. Actually addressing your candidate's flaws, like rolling around in Goldman Sachs money, might.
posted by dame at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [25 favorites]
Wow. Wooooow.
I am truly sorry if you are offended by everyone's right to vote.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
I am truly sorry if you are offended by everyone's right to vote.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
We have to keep Wormtongue as chief advisor, because Saruman would be much worse.
"The lesser of two evils is still evil" is only insightful when there's a third, non-evil possibility. In anything resembling the forseeable future, there isn't.
The point is that the Clintons are in deep with the evil. I don't even really care that they are corrupt, but that their political career is based on selling out the country toSauron Wall Street. If you think things in the US are the way they are because a plutocratic elite is systematically looting the country, then the Clintons are dedicated to making that worse.
I wouldn't argue that you can't come up with reasons to vote for them, but you are voting for evil. Whether they are lesser is irrelevant.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
"The lesser of two evils is still evil" is only insightful when there's a third, non-evil possibility. In anything resembling the forseeable future, there isn't.
The point is that the Clintons are in deep with the evil. I don't even really care that they are corrupt, but that their political career is based on selling out the country to
I wouldn't argue that you can't come up with reasons to vote for them, but you are voting for evil. Whether they are lesser is irrelevant.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you click on the counties in the idpcaucuses.com map, it shows you which precincts have not yet reported. Those familiar with Iowa political trends might be able to glean information from that.
posted by booksherpa at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by booksherpa at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016
Looks like it will end up being Clinton by about .7-1% and the delegate count about 30-22 in her favor.
posted by Justinian at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Justinian at 8:27 PM on February 1, 2016
I seriously feel like Republican voters and Democratic voters are actually living in culturally distinct nations. This will not indicate civil war, since no money is involved, but it will mean a dysfunctional federal government, probably for decades to come.
Not just culturally, but also as it regards simple facts about the world. We inhabit different realities. It's a very difficult situation and I don't know how to solve it.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Not just culturally, but also as it regards simple facts about the world. We inhabit different realities. It's a very difficult situation and I don't know how to solve it.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I seriously feel like Republican voters and Democratic voters are actually living in culturally distinct nation
Parallel universes, actually.
posted by Panjandrum at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Parallel universes, actually.
posted by Panjandrum at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
We've already been there for a while now.
Well yeah, obvs. But it's not getting any better.
posted by Automocar at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016
Well yeah, obvs. But it's not getting any better.
posted by Automocar at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016
Clinton speaking now, declaring her own victory.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016
People know that Cruz is extreme. But few people fully recognize exactly how unpopular the Cruz policy agenda is likely to be once it is exposed to the light of day.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm watching "Tailgunner" Ted Cruz on my TV right now and I have to say that he honestly frightens me more than Trump.
posted by ob1quixote at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
The true winner tonight on the Democratic side is Ann Selzer.
posted by bgal81 at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by bgal81 at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016
I really don't see how any Dem stays home when you are looking at a possible Pres. Cruz or Pres. Trump. People are working to become US citizens just so they can vote against Trump. And surely the chance to have the first woman president (or even a historic first Jewish president) would stir up some fervor.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [11 favorites]
Jay Smooth, don't know where you've been, but I'm going to need you back making videos.
posted by cashman at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cashman at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm actually offended by your casual dismissal of the prospect of achieving anything with your right to vote, but whatever.
posted by sciatrix at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
I hate to say it but Metafilter is not even remotely representative of the Democratic tent as a whole. Not that I would change it at all because I like having an oasis of liberal and progressive thought that isn't incredibly shouty but the truth is Metafilter is considerably left of democratic center in aggregate.
Which is good because honestly we need activists that are willing to challenge the political classes to move that ole overton window back to the left.
Which is also why I really like that Sanders has been running even though his path the nomination seems quixotic at best. I like that there is a sizable plurality of liberals that is saying "I'm not ashamed to be called liberal and neither should our candidate" because that makes for a stronger candidate come November.
The reality is that our military industrial complex will probably continue to be the tail that wags the dog and that the vested interests of finance, technology companies, etc will continue to exert undue influence over public policy but I do think that the messaging of Sanders campaign and the relative success of it shows that no we don't have to surrender our democracy to Super PACs and billionaire donors.
For better or worse that even seems to be happening on the Republican side as electable candidates supported by big donors seem to be falling flat.
posted by vuron at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
Which is good because honestly we need activists that are willing to challenge the political classes to move that ole overton window back to the left.
Which is also why I really like that Sanders has been running even though his path the nomination seems quixotic at best. I like that there is a sizable plurality of liberals that is saying "I'm not ashamed to be called liberal and neither should our candidate" because that makes for a stronger candidate come November.
The reality is that our military industrial complex will probably continue to be the tail that wags the dog and that the vested interests of finance, technology companies, etc will continue to exert undue influence over public policy but I do think that the messaging of Sanders campaign and the relative success of it shows that no we don't have to surrender our democracy to Super PACs and billionaire donors.
For better or worse that even seems to be happening on the Republican side as electable candidates supported by big donors seem to be falling flat.
posted by vuron at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
That's because Trump is a blatant opportunist while Cruz is a True Believer. Fanatics are scary motherfuckers.
posted by Justinian at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
dame for President.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, but in that case your vote is not going to actually produce the outcome you want (unless the outcome you want is "I felt morally pure because I didn't stain myself with the filth of compromise and pragmatism"), so who cares?
Huh? I live in Chicago which is a one-party Democratic city and lots of those Democrats are corrupt and racist as fuck. In other parts of the country, you can pretty much figure that voting for the Democrat is going to be the best viable option. Here, they're GOING to win and it's just a matter of casting a protest vote against the more egregious ones and turning out to support the actual progressives.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Huh? I live in Chicago which is a one-party Democratic city and lots of those Democrats are corrupt and racist as fuck. In other parts of the country, you can pretty much figure that voting for the Democrat is going to be the best viable option. Here, they're GOING to win and it's just a matter of casting a protest vote against the more egregious ones and turning out to support the actual progressives.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yeah, I am super excited to see Cruz's policies get actual sustained attention. He is a serious wackjob, and would be worse for this country than Trump.
posted by skewed at 8:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by skewed at 8:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm a Bernie supporter, but this is a good speech by Hillary.
posted by skewed at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by skewed at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
is there anything more boring than a "you're using your individual vote wrong" argument? it just makes everything super personal and raises the heat in the room and isn't all that instructive.
posted by nadawi at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]
I'm watching "Tailgunner" Ted Cruz on my TV right now and I have to say that he honestly frightens me more than Trump.
Trump is a big city Republican. I've worked for people like him before. They are (to me) pretty awful politically, but I understand them. At the end of the day, it's all about selfishness, getting a good deal, paying low taxes, and enforcing the existing power structure.
Cruz is a radical who has a vision. Infinitely more scary to me, I don't understand people like that at all, or even know any personally other than the parents of a friend of mine who were extreme bible thumpers.
posted by cell divide at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump is a big city Republican. I've worked for people like him before. They are (to me) pretty awful politically, but I understand them. At the end of the day, it's all about selfishness, getting a good deal, paying low taxes, and enforcing the existing power structure.
Cruz is a radical who has a vision. Infinitely more scary to me, I don't understand people like that at all, or even know any personally other than the parents of a friend of mine who were extreme bible thumpers.
posted by cell divide at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I really don't see how any Dem stays home when you are looking at a possible Pres. Cruz or Pres. Trump.
We have really low voter turnout. It's scary but completely possible that people will stay home. They stay home for midterms all the time and that's how we get this horrific Congress.
posted by sweetkid at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
We have really low voter turnout. It's scary but completely possible that people will stay home. They stay home for midterms all the time and that's how we get this horrific Congress.
posted by sweetkid at 8:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm inclined to agree Cruz would be worse. Trump is horrible, but he's mainly a narcissist. Cruz is a true believer, and remarkably stubborn. I don't know exactly what Trump would do; but I do know what Cruz would do, and it isn't pretty.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I wonder what it's like to be so secure in your own privilege that you don't care if a Republican gets the WH and to name the next Supreme Court Justice.
I believe most of us have already told you we live in New York.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I believe most of us have already told you we live in New York.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I am truly sorry if you are offended by everyone's right to vote.
Tell us more about your free speech.
No but seriously, *come on*. That's just nonsense right there, and I'm sure it was a kneejerk reaction, but let's all try to avoid that in future.
posted by uosuaq at 8:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Tell us more about your free speech.
No but seriously, *come on*. That's just nonsense right there, and I'm sure it was a kneejerk reaction, but let's all try to avoid that in future.
posted by uosuaq at 8:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Gross. Cruz oozes...
It's like he was taken over by a parasitic wasp and is trying so hard to act human.
He just makes my skin crawl.
posted by futz at 8:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's like he was taken over by a parasitic wasp and is trying so hard to act human.
He just makes my skin crawl.
posted by futz at 8:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm actually offended by your casual dismissal of the prospect of achieving anything with your right to vote, but whatever.
I am not sure who you are talking to here, but I am not casually dismissing it. It pisses me off to no end that I have never — and likely will never — have an actual say in who governs me. Between the electoral college, bullshit gerrymandering, these primaries shenanigans focusing on nonrepresentive states, the lock the Democratic party has on my city and state, and the frankly preposterous campaign finance laws, I have no fucking hope at all at seeing anything like my values represented. I am incandescent over it. But I also know it to be true, so, you know, at least my conscience is squeaky and I am not shilling for the candidate funded by banks, weapons manufacturers, and the insurance companies that steal all our money.
posted by dame at 8:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]
I am not sure who you are talking to here, but I am not casually dismissing it. It pisses me off to no end that I have never — and likely will never — have an actual say in who governs me. Between the electoral college, bullshit gerrymandering, these primaries shenanigans focusing on nonrepresentive states, the lock the Democratic party has on my city and state, and the frankly preposterous campaign finance laws, I have no fucking hope at all at seeing anything like my values represented. I am incandescent over it. But I also know it to be true, so, you know, at least my conscience is squeaky and I am not shilling for the candidate funded by banks, weapons manufacturers, and the insurance companies that steal all our money.
posted by dame at 8:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [24 favorites]
You know, roomthreeseventeen, as one Sanders fan to another, it's that air of condescension that is really hurting the campaign. Could you maybe pull your nose out of the air and talk to those of us mere mortals not lucky enough to live in NYC?
posted by sciatrix at 8:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 8:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
I vote for leftists, so if the Dems ever get their shit together, they know how many leftists votes there are.
The Dems don't give a fuck about us beyond yelling at us at the merest suggestion that they aren't entitled to our votes. The only thing the Democrats see when they see votes for leftists is traitors who need to shape up. The idea that they need to give us anything in exchange for our votes wouldn't occur to them.
Actually addressing your candidate's flaws, like rolling around in Goldman Sachs money, might.
She's not "my candidate", she's just the one I think is more likely to result in positive outcomes. The instant you buy into the idea that the person you vote for should be the one you agree most with, you're already buying into the system.
The point is that the Clintons are in deep with the evil. I don't even really care that they are corrupt, but that their political career is based on selling out the country to Sauron Wall Street. If you think things in the US are the way they are because a plutocratic elite is systematically looting the country, then the Clintons are dedicated to making that worse.
I wouldn't argue that you can't come up with reasons to vote for them, but you are voting for evil. Whether they are lesser is irrelevant.
Voting isn't a fucking religion. It's about who wins and who loses. There is no non-evil candidate with a chance to win the Presidency. Any comment, idea, suggestion, or action which does not acknowledge that fact is rooted in fantasy and not in reality.
dame for President.
That would be a better world.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Dems don't give a fuck about us beyond yelling at us at the merest suggestion that they aren't entitled to our votes. The only thing the Democrats see when they see votes for leftists is traitors who need to shape up. The idea that they need to give us anything in exchange for our votes wouldn't occur to them.
Actually addressing your candidate's flaws, like rolling around in Goldman Sachs money, might.
She's not "my candidate", she's just the one I think is more likely to result in positive outcomes. The instant you buy into the idea that the person you vote for should be the one you agree most with, you're already buying into the system.
The point is that the Clintons are in deep with the evil. I don't even really care that they are corrupt, but that their political career is based on selling out the country to Sauron Wall Street. If you think things in the US are the way they are because a plutocratic elite is systematically looting the country, then the Clintons are dedicated to making that worse.
I wouldn't argue that you can't come up with reasons to vote for them, but you are voting for evil. Whether they are lesser is irrelevant.
Voting isn't a fucking religion. It's about who wins and who loses. There is no non-evil candidate with a chance to win the Presidency. Any comment, idea, suggestion, or action which does not acknowledge that fact is rooted in fantasy and not in reality.
dame for President.
That would be a better world.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm a Bernie supporter, but this is a good speech by Hillary
Because she expressed the exact same positions as Bernie?
posted by ymgve at 8:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Because she expressed the exact same positions as Bernie?
posted by ymgve at 8:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Do federal laws not apply to NY?
Let's not be obtuse. NY is solid Dem; roomthreeseventeen staying home won't hurt Clinton in the least because electoral college.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Let's not be obtuse. NY is solid Dem; roomthreeseventeen staying home won't hurt Clinton in the least because electoral college.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
I wouldn't argue that you can't come up with reasons to vote for them, but you are voting for evil. Whether they are lesser is irrelevant.
Wow. It's starting to smell a lot like 2000 in here.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Wow. It's starting to smell a lot like 2000 in here.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
clarity for dame: I am exclusively talking to roomthreeseventeen with my response. I actually don't have a problem with your comment.
posted by sciatrix at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
“The next president of the United States will not be chosen by the media, will not be chosen by the Washington establishment, will not be chosen by the lobbyists but will be chosen by the most incredibly powerful force where all of our sovereign power resides … the people.”
Cruz with a subtle sovereign shout-out?
posted by saul wright at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Cruz with a subtle sovereign shout-out?
posted by saul wright at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
bgal81: "Do federal laws not apply to NY? Man, that must be cool. No wonder New Yorkers are so proud of their hometown."
I think they mean not voting for Clinton in New York won't have any effect on the presidential contest. She ain't losing the state.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think they mean not voting for Clinton in New York won't have any effect on the presidential contest. She ain't losing the state.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Johnson County Iowa democratic caucus: our precinct was held in a University Art building. Clinton supporters took the auditorium seating, Bernie supporters told to go downstairs and stand in the lobby. O'Malley people were off to the side in a little room. Bernie won.
posted by fraxil at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by fraxil at 8:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
sciatrix, yes, okay, I apologize. I do not appreciate being policed about how to vote. But I am sorry.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:37 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:37 PM on February 1, 2016
I think Cruz would probably be worse than Trump; but Trump has the chance of being either somewhat better or much, MUCH worse. Not sure whom I'd choose if there were a gun to my head. Probably Cruz if only because he's a huge asshole who would alienate his own party leaders in Congress?
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:37 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:37 PM on February 1, 2016
Maybe we need to get some kind of protest vote cap and trade market going where people in New York and other stone-cold lock Democratic states agree to cast protest votes for the people in purple states who can't stomach the thought of casting a lesser-evil vote.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 8:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Maybe we need to get some kind of protest vote cap and trade market going where people in New York and other stone-cold lock Democratic states agree to cast protest votes for the people in purple states who can't stomach the thought of casting a lesser-evil vote.
I think the last time I heard someone talk about that it turned out it would be illegal. Dumb though, straight up selling votes should be legal. Money is just speech after all, paying for votes is just being very persuasive.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think the last time I heard someone talk about that it turned out it would be illegal. Dumb though, straight up selling votes should be legal. Money is just speech after all, paying for votes is just being very persuasive.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
>> That's a perfectly good outcome.
> Wow. Wooooow.
This must be your first election on MetaFilter. They get pissy and unpleasant.
My advice is that before you start arguing with someone find out if their individual vote will make any difference or not, based on the state they vote in. (I live in Massachusetts, so mine doesn't.) If not, then ask yourself what concrete result would be achieved by changing their mind and whether it's worth your effort to try to.
If I ran this place people who participate in political threads would have to have a little badge next to their name, like the 'moderator' badge, that says whether or not their state's electoral votes are actual up for grabs.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
> Wow. Wooooow.
This must be your first election on MetaFilter. They get pissy and unpleasant.
My advice is that before you start arguing with someone find out if their individual vote will make any difference or not, based on the state they vote in. (I live in Massachusetts, so mine doesn't.) If not, then ask yourself what concrete result would be achieved by changing their mind and whether it's worth your effort to try to.
If I ran this place people who participate in political threads would have to have a little badge next to their name, like the 'moderator' badge, that says whether or not their state's electoral votes are actual up for grabs.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
Hey, the bombs won't be dropping on you, right?
Ted Cruz quipped his solution to the Middle East would be to carpet bomb everyone. It didn't seem like was joking all that much. If you are a committed pacifist voter, FEWER dropped bombs is the goal, not MORE.
I mean, sure, staying home in November will send a message - That it's OK for the Republicans to trump up a war against Iran. Or worse.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ted Cruz quipped his solution to the Middle East would be to carpet bomb everyone. It didn't seem like was joking all that much. If you are a committed pacifist voter, FEWER dropped bombs is the goal, not MORE.
I mean, sure, staying home in November will send a message - That it's OK for the Republicans to trump up a war against Iran. Or worse.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you live in a reliably Red state (Oklahoma I'm looking at you) or a reliably blue state (New York come on down) then yeah I can totally understand tossing in a third party vote and I would even suggest that this might be a good year for "unofficial" vote trading with people who live in actual battleground states.
That way you can vote your conscience and you can still be relatively certain that Armageddon won't be coming in the next 4 years.
Yeah I think it's kinda hinky and wouldn't participate in it but if you absolutely want to vote for Jill Stein as a protest vote if Sanders fails to get the nomination I'll understand but please please please if you live in a place where your vote actually matter think twice before casting a protest vote.
posted by vuron at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
That way you can vote your conscience and you can still be relatively certain that Armageddon won't be coming in the next 4 years.
Yeah I think it's kinda hinky and wouldn't participate in it but if you absolutely want to vote for Jill Stein as a protest vote if Sanders fails to get the nomination I'll understand but please please please if you live in a place where your vote actually matter think twice before casting a protest vote.
posted by vuron at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
It must be like still living and paying taxes in a country that perpetrated those crimes so you can still reap the privileges of said country.
What, you going to Canada if Cruz wins?
posted by Drinky Die at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
What, you going to Canada if Cruz wins?
posted by Drinky Die at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait, is Cruz campaigning for Cruz or Reagan?
posted by telepanda at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by telepanda at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
whoa, the vote just jumped DOWN on NBC back to 655-652 from 671-661!
WTF??
posted by flex at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016
WTF??
posted by flex at 8:40 PM on February 1, 2016
Not sure whom I'd choose if there were a gun to my head.
"I vote pull the trigger."
posted by emjaybee at 8:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
"I vote pull the trigger."
posted by emjaybee at 8:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
I just remembered that upthread I agreed to sell my vote to JEB for $1000, so you'll see me at the smallest party in town when the Texas primary happens.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
> What, you going to Canada if Cruz wins?
I thought that meant Canada was coming to us.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I thought that meant Canada was coming to us.
posted by benito.strauss at 8:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton "won" by a half a percentage point. Sanders has rising momentum. If he places in South Carolina it'll start to really shake things up!
I'm predicting that this it the high point for Cruze.
posted by sammyo at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm predicting that this it the high point for Cruze.
posted by sammyo at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh yeah that is an option as well I guess.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016
If I ran this place people who participate in political threads would have to have a little badge next to their name, like the 'moderator' badge, that says whether or not their state's electoral votes are actual up for grabs.
A groundswell of interest in Nader in places where the vote wasn't up for grabs, especially large urban centers with money and manpower to put behind the effort, enhanced the Green's reputation nationwide and swung voters his way, not just in "safe" states. We saw what that lead to in FL.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
A groundswell of interest in Nader in places where the vote wasn't up for grabs, especially large urban centers with money and manpower to put behind the effort, enhanced the Green's reputation nationwide and swung voters his way, not just in "safe" states. We saw what that lead to in FL.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
It pisses me off to no end that I have never — and likely will never — have an actual say in who governs me.
I've always subscribed to the view that a good compromise leaves EVERYONE ANGRY. So, someone must be doing a good job.
posted by FJT at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've always subscribed to the view that a good compromise leaves EVERYONE ANGRY. So, someone must be doing a good job.
posted by FJT at 8:42 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Jesus fucking Christ, I'm having 2000 flashbacks. Can people stop acting like Sanders voters are going to personally usher in the apocalypse, especially when most people here aren't in swing states?
posted by corb at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
You're not exactly a political prisoner suffering in jail for your beliefs.
You do know a lot of us went out and protested right? And risked jail? And some people wound up there? You know all about the Republican convention? You know about those of us who were on the streets mere days after Sept. 11 calling for peace? Sure, people draw their lines different places and sure I pretend all my tax money goes to the things I believe in, but not being perfect doesn't make it wrong to dislike Clinton for being a warmonger.
posted by dame at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [21 favorites]
You do know a lot of us went out and protested right? And risked jail? And some people wound up there? You know all about the Republican convention? You know about those of us who were on the streets mere days after Sept. 11 calling for peace? Sure, people draw their lines different places and sure I pretend all my tax money goes to the things I believe in, but not being perfect doesn't make it wrong to dislike Clinton for being a warmonger.
posted by dame at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [21 favorites]
Clinton will probably win, but it's still too early for a victory speech if the numbers I am looking at are accurate.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'd totally support Justin Trudeau for President but somehow I think Trump might object to that.
posted by vuron at 8:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by vuron at 8:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, I've just returned from the caucus (and some beers and burgers after), in Johnson county.
I get that a lot of the country is sick of the Iowa caucus stuff, and much has been made recently about how the caucus doesn't matter and that Iowa doesn't represent the country.
And I get that, I do. But the thing is that, whatever the media makes of it, the Iowa caucus is about us, about the parties in Iowa, about our neighbors and friends, and not about some great prediction of the race. Tonight I spent a few hours with nearly 800 folks from my neighborhood, folks I don't see that much. I got to reconnect with people, talk about the race, talk about the snow that doesn't get cleared from the alley. We sang songs together, Hillary and Bernie and O'Malley supporters, singing This Land is Our Land and the song from School House Rock and the Iowa Fight Song. And we debated and cheered and were counted by our friends and neighbors.
I was there to support Bernie, but we all sat next to one another, laughed and cheered together, an old stalwart of the neighborhood sang a few songs upon request. We had a great time. We had beers and now we're getting ready for the storm. This is what the caucus is for us. We aren't trying to decide the election; we're just doing what we've always done in Iowa.
posted by Lutoslawski at 8:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [58 favorites]
I get that a lot of the country is sick of the Iowa caucus stuff, and much has been made recently about how the caucus doesn't matter and that Iowa doesn't represent the country.
And I get that, I do. But the thing is that, whatever the media makes of it, the Iowa caucus is about us, about the parties in Iowa, about our neighbors and friends, and not about some great prediction of the race. Tonight I spent a few hours with nearly 800 folks from my neighborhood, folks I don't see that much. I got to reconnect with people, talk about the race, talk about the snow that doesn't get cleared from the alley. We sang songs together, Hillary and Bernie and O'Malley supporters, singing This Land is Our Land and the song from School House Rock and the Iowa Fight Song. And we debated and cheered and were counted by our friends and neighbors.
I was there to support Bernie, but we all sat next to one another, laughed and cheered together, an old stalwart of the neighborhood sang a few songs upon request. We had a great time. We had beers and now we're getting ready for the storm. This is what the caucus is for us. We aren't trying to decide the election; we're just doing what we've always done in Iowa.
posted by Lutoslawski at 8:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [58 favorites]
(Full disclosure: I voted for Nader in NY and regret NOTHING, because Florida wasn't our fault.)
posted by corb at 8:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by corb at 8:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I thought that meant Canada was coming to us.
Woo! Bring smoked meat!
posted by Room 641-A at 8:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Woo! Bring smoked meat!
posted by Room 641-A at 8:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
All this "throw away my vote" talk makes me wish we either had a single-transferable vote/insta-runoff system, or even just a runoff for the president.
posted by dw at 8:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dw at 8:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
I loved seeing a woman shouting about running the country.
posted by sweetkid at 8:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 8:45 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Tonight I spent a few hours with nearly 800 folks from my neighborhood, folks I don't see that much. I got to reconnect with people, talk about the race, talk about the snow that doesn't get cleared from the alley. We sang songs together, Hillary and Bernie and O'Malley supporters, singing This Land is Our Land and the song from School House Rock and the Iowa Fight Song. And we debated and cheered and were counted by our friends and neighbors.
I mean, it's great that you enjoyed that, but it sounds like hell to me. I'm glad I don't have to go through that to vote in the primary here in California (assuming the Democratic primary still has any meaning by then).
posted by thefoxgod at 8:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, it's great that you enjoyed that, but it sounds like hell to me. I'm glad I don't have to go through that to vote in the primary here in California (assuming the Democratic primary still has any meaning by then).
posted by thefoxgod at 8:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
We sang songs together, Hillary and Bernie and O'Malley supporters, singing This Land is Our Land and the song from School House Rock and the Iowa Fight Song.
You guys got songs? We didn't get songs. I feel cheated.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
You guys got songs? We didn't get songs. I feel cheated.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not caucusing this year. My experience in 2008 was loud, messy, and generally left me feeling disheartened by how Seattleites treat each other when their candidate isn't winning.
I don't want to deal with that in 2016 when a bunch of Bernie and Hillary people go at each others' throats next month.
And I say that as someone who'll support either of them over that shitshow on the Republican side.
posted by dw at 8:47 PM on February 1, 2016
I don't want to deal with that in 2016 when a bunch of Bernie and Hillary people go at each others' throats next month.
And I say that as someone who'll support either of them over that shitshow on the Republican side.
posted by dw at 8:47 PM on February 1, 2016
singing This Land is Our Land
I want to go to there.
posted by uosuaq at 8:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I want to go to there.
posted by uosuaq at 8:47 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mod note: bgal81, you're responsible for an unreasonable percentage of the snide remarks in this thread. Knock it off. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 8:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [17 favorites]
*kicks rock*
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:48 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:48 PM on February 1, 2016
Maybe we need to get some kind of protest vote cap and trade market going where people in New York and other stone-cold lock Democratic states agree to cast protest votes for the people in purple states who can't stomach the thought of casting a lesser-evil vote.
Some Nader supporters tried to do this in 2000 (the "Nader Traders") but it's possibly illegal at least in CA?
posted by en forme de poire at 8:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Some Nader supporters tried to do this in 2000 (the "Nader Traders") but it's possibly illegal at least in CA?
posted by en forme de poire at 8:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
or even just a runoff for the president.
SANTORUM
posted by Artw at 8:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
SANTORUM
posted by Artw at 8:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Caucus is definitely a super strange experience. I had to vote that way during my stint living in Maine. It was fun in a circuslike way, but it is a big time commitment. Ours was also very chaotic - not at all well organized. It seems like a very old-timey thing appropriate for small communities and for people who have all day to pontificate 18th or 19th century style but that scales extremely poorly.
posted by Miko at 8:49 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Miko at 8:49 PM on February 1, 2016
Sanders, ever the socialist, dividing the votes almost completely equally.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Some Nader supporters tried to do this in 2000 (the "Nader Traders") but it's possibly illegal at least in CA?
Oh, it definitely is very illegal, and impossible to enforce because we don't get a receipt showing who we voted for (precisely to avoid this kind of transferring / selling of votes) but if it keeps 2000 from happening again, I'm all for it.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:51 PM on February 1, 2016
Oh, it definitely is very illegal, and impossible to enforce because we don't get a receipt showing who we voted for (precisely to avoid this kind of transferring / selling of votes) but if it keeps 2000 from happening again, I'm all for it.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:51 PM on February 1, 2016
This is just low level fighty.
I can totally understand though it's like having a football game where you really want your team to win but secretly you think the other team is pretty good and as long as there isn't a ton of fouls and everyone competes to the best of their abilities you are going to let the decision be settled on the field.
When it gets to the general that's grudge match time where you actually wouldn't mind your team's ultras showing up and scaring off the opposition fanbase. Even then at this point in time I think I'd tend to feel sorry for some percentage of the opposition fanbase because yeah I completely disagree with them on virtually every issue but I also feel kinda sorry that their party has been hijacked by extremists even if they've been courting those selfsame extremists as a way to GotV for the last 5-6 elections and schadenfreude is also kicking in.
posted by vuron at 8:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I can totally understand though it's like having a football game where you really want your team to win but secretly you think the other team is pretty good and as long as there isn't a ton of fouls and everyone competes to the best of their abilities you are going to let the decision be settled on the field.
When it gets to the general that's grudge match time where you actually wouldn't mind your team's ultras showing up and scaring off the opposition fanbase. Even then at this point in time I think I'd tend to feel sorry for some percentage of the opposition fanbase because yeah I completely disagree with them on virtually every issue but I also feel kinda sorry that their party has been hijacked by extremists even if they've been courting those selfsame extremists as a way to GotV for the last 5-6 elections and schadenfreude is also kicking in.
posted by vuron at 8:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hey, there's a question. Is there any point in going to caucuses when delegates are being chosen by primary vote? I'm thinking of heading to a Republican caucus to stand off the Trumpocalypse.
posted by corb at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why is it that Bernie's going last, don't the winners usually wait until the losers have given concession speeches?
posted by skewed at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by skewed at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016
Everyone was perfectly well-behaved at our caucus. I totally hate the process and feel that it was designed specifically to torment me, personally, but nobody that I observed was rude to the opposing side, and the Bernie people definitely could have been very gloat-y if they had wanted to be.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is just low level fighty.
Yeah, I suspect most of us on the blue team are saving our ire for any sort of PUMA / (whatever the equivalent of PUMA for Bernie is) movement that may develop after the nomination.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016
Yeah, I suspect most of us on the blue team are saving our ire for any sort of PUMA / (whatever the equivalent of PUMA for Bernie is) movement that may develop after the nomination.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016
I assume Hillary's campaign wanted to try and catch more people awake and agreed to go first.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:53 PM on February 1, 2016
Oh, it definitely is very illegal
At the federal or at the state level though? I think it might be state by state, but that article is super old so idk what might have changed in the last 16 years.
posted by en forme de poire at 8:54 PM on February 1, 2016
At the federal or at the state level though? I think it might be state by state, but that article is super old so idk what might have changed in the last 16 years.
posted by en forme de poire at 8:54 PM on February 1, 2016
AHHHH so that numbers-drop explained! Check it on 538
Michael McDonald @ElectProjectposted by flex at 8:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton's lead now again down to +0.2 points, so there you go. Change happened with no Polk precs reporting
Joseph Lenski @JoeLenski
.@ElectProject there was a reporting error in Dallas County - too many state delegates were being reported and that has now been corrected.
Chuck Todd @chucktodd
@JoeLenski @ElectProject an error in Sanders favor?
Joseph Lenski @JoeLenski
.@chucktodd @ElectProject correcting the error in Dallas County narrowed Clinton's lead by 6.76 state delegate equivalents
Oh, it definitely is very illegal, and impossible to enforce because we don't get a receipt showing who we voted for (precisely to avoid this kind of transferring / selling of votes) but if it keeps 2000 from happening again, I'm all for it.
Require a cell phone video of the voting process before payment is released. We'll use the Uber model regarding the illegality. Just ignore it and say the word "Disrupt" a lot.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Require a cell phone video of the voting process before payment is released. We'll use the Uber model regarding the illegality. Just ignore it and say the word "Disrupt" a lot.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I voted for Nader in NY and regret NOTHING, because Florida wasn't our fault.
Precisely. NH, and FL however . . .
Elections are not personal purity tests, they are machines that select the next politician to serve in that office.
1934 election:
"When the votes were counted, Upton Sinclair got 37% of the vote, the Republican candidate got 48% and a third-party progressive candidate took another 13%."
German 1925 election:
Paul von Hindenburg 48.3%
Wilhelm Marx Centre Party 45.3%
Ernst Thälman Communist Party 6.4%
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Precisely. NH, and FL however . . .
Elections are not personal purity tests, they are machines that select the next politician to serve in that office.
1934 election:
"When the votes were counted, Upton Sinclair got 37% of the vote, the Republican candidate got 48% and a third-party progressive candidate took another 13%."
German 1925 election:
Paul von Hindenburg 48.3%
Wilhelm Marx Centre Party 45.3%
Ernst Thälman Communist Party 6.4%
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
But the thing is, I can't separate that feeling from the sexist hatchet job the media has been doing on her for over two decades now. Can anyone at this point?
Yeah, I think I can, actually. I think about it a lot because I know how bad the media has been to her, but I also recognize she's very flawed, and flawed specifically in ways Sanders isn't flawed.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yeah, I think I can, actually. I think about it a lot because I know how bad the media has been to her, but I also recognize she's very flawed, and flawed specifically in ways Sanders isn't flawed.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [8 favorites]
One thing that really annoys me about the Clinton hate is no one seems to question where it comes from. Everyone just _knows_ she's awful, fake, calculating, power-hungry.
Well, she did just make a clarion call for universal health care when she spent about 15 minutes in the last Democratic debate calling it unrealistic.
posted by Automocar at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
Well, she did just make a clarion call for universal health care when she spent about 15 minutes in the last Democratic debate calling it unrealistic.
posted by Automocar at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
Can anyone at this point?
I can. Every time she talks about "working with Silicon Valley" to "fix" encryption.
posted by fifthrider at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can. Every time she talks about "working with Silicon Valley" to "fix" encryption.
posted by fifthrider at 8:55 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Dashy: "You are aware that Clinton was Secretary of State for quite a while, much more recently, and widely appreciated as one of the most effective in that arena, yes?"
I meant to add it to my comment, but I would agree with that assessment. She was the best Secretary of State in recent memory.
I abide by my stance that her support for the Iraq war would be problematic for our foreign relations (as head of state).
posted by schmod at 8:56 PM on February 1, 2016
I meant to add it to my comment, but I would agree with that assessment. She was the best Secretary of State in recent memory.
I abide by my stance that her support for the Iraq war would be problematic for our foreign relations (as head of state).
posted by schmod at 8:56 PM on February 1, 2016
Hilary was just trying to be sympathetic to her aging voter base ;)
I kid because it's true!
posted by vuron at 8:56 PM on February 1, 2016
I kid because it's true!
posted by vuron at 8:56 PM on February 1, 2016
One thing that really annoys me about the Clinton hate is no one seems to question where it comes from. Everyone just _knows_ she's awful, fake, calculating, power-hungry. It's a feeling I get myself at times. But the thing is, I can't separate that feeling from the sexist hatchet job the media has been doing on her for over two decades now. Can anyone at this point?
I don't think we can. I thought Obama was the better candidate in 08 but it took me a while to decide. I was mad at Hillary about the Iraq vote but, we're continuing to wage war there. Obama didn't close Guantanamo. No one's hands are clean.
posted by sweetkid at 8:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
So here's what I wanna know -- what's up with the 7 delegates who went to O'Malley? Did they like owe him a favor or something? Or are they just diehard contrarians?
posted by panama joe at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by panama joe at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016
Yes, my dislike of Clinton has everything to do with her policies not with her personality. I don't think any politicians are particularly likable, though she kinda reminds me of my mom, who is a badass. I just wish she turned her badassery on policies I support.
posted by dame at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by dame at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
One thing that really annoys me about the Clinton hate is no one seems to question where it comes from. Everyone just _knows_ she's awful, fake, calculating, power-hungry. It's a feeling I get myself at times. But the thing is, I can't separate that feeling from the sexist hatchet job the media has been doing on her for over two decades now. Can anyone at this point?
I have to check myself on this too, then I remember that she really doesn't have a record of accomplishment aside from surviving scandals. Everything else is generally notable for being done "while a woman".
posted by fraxil at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016
I have to check myself on this too, then I remember that she really doesn't have a record of accomplishment aside from surviving scandals. Everything else is generally notable for being done "while a woman".
posted by fraxil at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016
have given concession speeches
proportional allocation states, this shouldn't apply
everybody take their delegates and go to the next pony show
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
proportional allocation states, this shouldn't apply
everybody take their delegates and go to the next pony show
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
but I also recognize she's very flawed, and flawed specifically in ways Sanders isn't flawed.
I have a feeling that's going to change if he becomes the frontrunner. Someone, somewhere will dig something up or make it up. And after 8 years of Obama, he's looking a little "seasoned" too, y'know what I mean?
posted by FJT at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have a feeling that's going to change if he becomes the frontrunner. Someone, somewhere will dig something up or make it up. And after 8 years of Obama, he's looking a little "seasoned" too, y'know what I mean?
posted by FJT at 8:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obama didn't close Guantanamo. No one's hands are clean.
Obama has faults, but I can't blame him for failing to close Gitmo when it was Congress who prevented him from doing that. US Presidents can only do so much alone, as the Republicans have proven over the last five years.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Obama has faults, but I can't blame him for failing to close Gitmo when it was Congress who prevented him from doing that. US Presidents can only do so much alone, as the Republicans have proven over the last five years.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
when she spent about 15 minutes in the last Democratic debate calling it unrealistic.
Wasn't she talking about single payer then? Did she say single payer or universal this time, I missed the speech. The two ARE NOT the same thing at all.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wasn't she talking about single payer then? Did she say single payer or universal this time, I missed the speech. The two ARE NOT the same thing at all.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Obama didn't close Guantanamo. No one's hands are clean.
He really tried though. This one isn't his fault.
posted by futz at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
He really tried though. This one isn't his fault.
posted by futz at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Everything else is generally notable for perhaps being the only option stopping a GOP candidate taking White House for the remainder of this decade.
If this isn't important for you, well, let's say we just have our differences about that.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
If this isn't important for you, well, let's say we just have our differences about that.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
538 reports that all of these results are "preliminary", because they're being reported via the Microsoft app, but will have to be counted for real on paper. Which matters when you're talking .2 percent.
posted by corb at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 9:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know she said 'universal'. I'm not sure how you get there in a meaningful sense without single-payer though.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton 49.8; Sander 49.6 with 94% of precincts in.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Germany and Japan and other countries have universal coverage without single payer. The answer is government regulation.
posted by thefoxgod at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by thefoxgod at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Uh, hey, guys?
The fact it's Cruz/Trump/Rubio as the OTHER option means that, uh, I'd be more comfortable that my like-minded neighbours don't break out the circular firing squad quite yet.
November's a ways away.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
The fact it's Cruz/Trump/Rubio as the OTHER option means that, uh, I'd be more comfortable that my like-minded neighbours don't break out the circular firing squad quite yet.
November's a ways away.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bernie is killing it in this speech.
posted by futz at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by futz at 9:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
538 reports that all of these results are "preliminary", because they're being reported via the Microsoft app
I've read a lot of awful things in this thread, but that's about the worst.
It's been nice knowing you all.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
I've read a lot of awful things in this thread, but that's about the worst.
It's been nice knowing you all.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Obama didn't close Guantanamo. No one's hands are clean.
He really tried though. They one isn't his fault.
Right, so it's important to remember midterm elections, especially when Presidential candidates are promising great things.
posted by sweetkid at 9:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
He really tried though. They one isn't his fault.
Right, so it's important to remember midterm elections, especially when Presidential candidates are promising great things.
posted by sweetkid at 9:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's theoretically possible for everyone to afford coverage, especially with publicly-mandated plans with subsidies for the most in need, which would get you universal without single payer.
posted by Miko at 9:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 9:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that's basically what other countries do. Heavy regualtion on plans and pricing, wiht subsidies and a mandate. It works, but Obamacare didn't do much of that. It was a start but we need more. Not single payer, though.
posted by thefoxgod at 9:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 9:03 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
map of where the outstanding precincts still are (on 538)
posted by flex at 9:05 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by flex at 9:05 PM on February 1, 2016
If I could get one political wish granted America would ditch this crazy self-defeating political system and move to a unicameral parliamentary structure. It'll never happen, but it would be loads better than perpetual gridlock and an 18 month long presidential election campaign.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
I can totally understand why people think Hilary is insincere and power-hungry and while alot of that narrative has been shaped by the overall narrative directed at her and her husband I don't think it's entitely fictional.
However I also feel like Clinton has been the target of an insane amount of misogyny and borderline slanderous charges over the years and ultimately I think that any female politician is pretty much held up to a ridiculous standard and in this regards I think that Clinton while flawed has done exceptionally well.
Overall I have sympathy for both the legitimate concerns about her and the very legitimate concerns that she's being held to an impossible standard based largely on her gender. I think it's possible to hold both narratives up simultaneously and while there is inevitable leakage between the two narratives I hope that it is possible to be fair to both narratives.
Personally I'd like for the next president to be something other than another white guy (yes Bernie is very much an outsider based upon his religious and ethnic background) but my desire for that is tempered by the desire for the next president to also be the most electable individual possible and if Bernie can prove through the nomination process that he's the most electable democrat I'll gladly support him because while First Jewish President is probably less ground breaking than first female President it's still a pretty decent accomplishment.
posted by vuron at 9:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [22 favorites]
However I also feel like Clinton has been the target of an insane amount of misogyny and borderline slanderous charges over the years and ultimately I think that any female politician is pretty much held up to a ridiculous standard and in this regards I think that Clinton while flawed has done exceptionally well.
Overall I have sympathy for both the legitimate concerns about her and the very legitimate concerns that she's being held to an impossible standard based largely on her gender. I think it's possible to hold both narratives up simultaneously and while there is inevitable leakage between the two narratives I hope that it is possible to be fair to both narratives.
Personally I'd like for the next president to be something other than another white guy (yes Bernie is very much an outsider based upon his religious and ethnic background) but my desire for that is tempered by the desire for the next president to also be the most electable individual possible and if Bernie can prove through the nomination process that he's the most electable democrat I'll gladly support him because while First Jewish President is probably less ground breaking than first female President it's still a pretty decent accomplishment.
posted by vuron at 9:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [22 favorites]
It's true that you can get to universal without single-payer, but as long as you're funneling the money through for-profit entities, you're not going to do better at controlling cost.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
I remember that she really doesn't have a record of accomplishment aside from surviving scandals. Everything else is generally notable for being done "while a woman".
You may disagree with her politics and the outcomes of her actions but she is an incredibly accomplished person by any measure, regardless of her gender.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
You may disagree with her politics and the outcomes of her actions but she is an incredibly accomplished person by any measure, regardless of her gender.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
For the past three years I've worked at the same company, and in that time we've had three totally different insurance plans, and so I have had to change doctors three times. This is... not ideal.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:08 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Anything I ever saw about Obama wanting to close Guantanamo involved merely relocating the vile unaccountable torture den away from Guantanamo and continuing the vile unaccountable tortures.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:08 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 9:08 PM on February 1, 2016
That's not really true tonycpsu, the government can definitely limit pricing on both plans and procedures, which is how they do it elsewhere.
posted by thefoxgod at 9:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by thefoxgod at 9:09 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie: "Beginning a political revolution"
I admit that my jaw always clenches a bit when politicians say "revolution". It just kind of makes me think of disorder and chaos. I thought the same thing with the "Ron Paul: REVOLUTION" stuff and I still get the same feeling. I'm aware Americans have a positive connotation of the word (e.g., "American Revolution") but it reminds me more of stuff my grandparents fled from.
posted by FJT at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I admit that my jaw always clenches a bit when politicians say "revolution". It just kind of makes me think of disorder and chaos. I thought the same thing with the "Ron Paul: REVOLUTION" stuff and I still get the same feeling. I'm aware Americans have a positive connotation of the word (e.g., "American Revolution") but it reminds me more of stuff my grandparents fled from.
posted by FJT at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
For what it's worth, and I say this as a Sanders leaner, his legislative record isn't exactly filled with giant trophies to put on his wall. He's been a reliable lefty vote, a good floor debater, and has championed a couple of causes, but Hillary's brief legislative career and cabinet experience put her at least on equal footing with him.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
If I could get one political wish granted America would ditch this crazy self-defeating political system and move to a unicameral parliamentary structure.
As I've gotten older I've become more skeptical about the idea that "the system" is the problem and if we just change that we could get more sensible results.
Most embarrassingly, I certainly used to think more clearly ideological parties with stronger discipline and fewer people breaking ranks would help things and I am so not enjoying it now that it's here.
posted by mark k at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
As I've gotten older I've become more skeptical about the idea that "the system" is the problem and if we just change that we could get more sensible results.
Most embarrassingly, I certainly used to think more clearly ideological parties with stronger discipline and fewer people breaking ranks would help things and I am so not enjoying it now that it's here.
posted by mark k at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Single payer would also best address medical debt and bankruptcy, which are still huge problems.
posted by dialetheia at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:10 PM on February 1, 2016 [18 favorites]
However I also feel like Clinton has been the target of an insane amount of misogyny and borderline slanderous charges over the years
She has; but then again, her husband was subjected to numerous slanders and investigations before being impeached. Obama is said to be a Kenyan socialist Muslim who hates America. I'm not sure that what H. Clinton has been subjected to is noticeably worse than what the GOP has flung at the recent Democratic presidents. It's just what they do.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
She has; but then again, her husband was subjected to numerous slanders and investigations before being impeached. Obama is said to be a Kenyan socialist Muslim who hates America. I'm not sure that what H. Clinton has been subjected to is noticeably worse than what the GOP has flung at the recent Democratic presidents. It's just what they do.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jim Gilmore got 12 votes. 12 votes! I wonder if he had campaign volunteers and now knows they didn't vote for him.
posted by skewed at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by skewed at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Right, so it's important to remember midterm elections, especially when Presidential candidates are promising great things.
Of course. But that has nothing to do with what you originally said. But yes, everyone should vote at their local level. Democrats suck at this.
posted by futz at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2016
Of course. But that has nothing to do with what you originally said. But yes, everyone should vote at their local level. Democrats suck at this.
posted by futz at 9:11 PM on February 1, 2016
Just to remind you.
In 2008, Barak Obama won 37.6%, John Edwards 29.7%, and Hilary Clinton 29.4%, the rest o other candidates and "uncommitted" This resulted in delegate split of:
Obama: 16
Edwards: 14
Clinton: 15
(Hilary won the 5th district, which had 4 delegates, which is why she had one more than Edwards.)
Yep. After all was said and done, Obama beat Clinton by 8% and got *one* net delegate for that.
That's what will happen here. One of them will get 23, one will get 22, and all this sound and fury will result in somebody being up one delegate.
I told you Iowa doesn't matter. Whichever one of them walks away with 22 will say "It's still early yet, blah blah blah," heck they'll probably claim they actually one because of X. The winner will assert it was a mandate.
posted by eriko at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
In 2008, Barak Obama won 37.6%, John Edwards 29.7%, and Hilary Clinton 29.4%, the rest o other candidates and "uncommitted" This resulted in delegate split of:
Obama: 16
Edwards: 14
Clinton: 15
(Hilary won the 5th district, which had 4 delegates, which is why she had one more than Edwards.)
Yep. After all was said and done, Obama beat Clinton by 8% and got *one* net delegate for that.
That's what will happen here. One of them will get 23, one will get 22, and all this sound and fury will result in somebody being up one delegate.
I told you Iowa doesn't matter. Whichever one of them walks away with 22 will say "It's still early yet, blah blah blah," heck they'll probably claim they actually one because of X. The winner will assert it was a mandate.
posted by eriko at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
That's not really true tonycpsu, the government can definitely limit pricing on both plans and procedures, which is how they do it elsewhere.
Yeah, at some point that approaches a publicly-regulated utility model, which can work, but I still don't see the point of for-profit entities in the middle.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, at some point that approaches a publicly-regulated utility model, which can work, but I still don't see the point of for-profit entities in the middle.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
it's important to remember midterm elections
Esp 2020 because there will be another round of redistricting.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Esp 2020 because there will be another round of redistricting.
posted by en forme de poire at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just my experience, but I don't know any Dems, or liberals, or Sanders supporters whose opposition to Hillary has anything to do with her personality, real or perceived.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 9:12 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
tonycpsu: "It's true that you can get to universal without single-payer, but as long as you're funneling the money through for-profit entities, you're not going to do better at controlling cost."
Not to totally derail, but organizations like Kaiser Permanente are fairly concrete examples of the best parts of single-payer and private healthcare working well together (even in the US).
If we're not going to get single payer, we could at the very least encourage incremental improvements to the system, focusing on some of the small successes that we have. The current model of small medical practices made sense if you were living on the prairie in the 1800s – but we should really know better by now.
posted by schmod at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not to totally derail, but organizations like Kaiser Permanente are fairly concrete examples of the best parts of single-payer and private healthcare working well together (even in the US).
If we're not going to get single payer, we could at the very least encourage incremental improvements to the system, focusing on some of the small successes that we have. The current model of small medical practices made sense if you were living on the prairie in the 1800s – but we should really know better by now.
posted by schmod at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
The biggest hurdles for me to warm to Hillary are her repeated votes for the Patriot Act and the aforementioned call to 'fix' encryption with a "Manhattan-Project"-style endeavor. One tier down are her allegiances to the parasitic portions of the corporate world and her tenure as a board member of Wal*Mart. While she did work toward gender equity as a board member, I can't find anything she did that redressed inequity between labor and management. I trust generally that she'll work to redress gender inequity, but I don't think that she'll work the end the drug war or the mass imprisonment of young black men, which are among the larger issues of racial inequity.
If it looks close in my state, I'll vote Clinton, just like I did with John Kerry in 2004. But she has never proposed anything that spoke to my heart or my interests, so I see her as my firewall against worse things.
Sanders has been speaking to me like no other politician since I was stoned and watching C-Span in the 90s. Now that I have to keep disabled relatives afloat financially to stave off homelessness and defaulting on student debt, this health care and college shit is getting really personal.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [34 favorites]
If it looks close in my state, I'll vote Clinton, just like I did with John Kerry in 2004. But she has never proposed anything that spoke to my heart or my interests, so I see her as my firewall against worse things.
Sanders has been speaking to me like no other politician since I was stoned and watching C-Span in the 90s. Now that I have to keep disabled relatives afloat financially to stave off homelessness and defaulting on student debt, this health care and college shit is getting really personal.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [34 favorites]
I pay so much money for a plan with an impossible to meet deductible that I would be better off with an old-school catastrophic plan at old-school rates and socking the difference into a private account. I have friends rushing off to surgery on Dec 30 so they can make it before the deductible resets. Sure making it so that plans have to accept everyone is not nothing but the subsidies are so low that plenty of people in high COL areas bear the full burden when they can't really and just oh the ACA is a flaming pile of poop where I am compelled to give my money to for-profit entities with pretty much no protection. Sob.
posted by dame at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dame at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, my understanding is that in the German model, plans are so tightly regulated by the government as to approximate single-payer in terms of general costs and benefits. In which case I don't really see why they don't merge them together to cut admin costs. I suppose that the ACA framework could be regulatorily tightened to approximate that model, but I continue to think that the better path forward is to have demonstration / pilot single payer projects at the state level, like Vermont tried to do and like Colorado will be considering in a referendum this fall. Not to mention the continuing experiments with reform to existing public payers like Medicaid.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of course. But that has nothing to do with what you originally said.
That's not true. I voted for Obama based on promises of things like closing Guantanamo. That didn't happen because Congress. When people actually get in office lots of things happen. I don't think anyone at the national level can walk away clean.
A bunch of people copy pasted just the Guantanamo part of my comment and some winky stuff about Bernie.
So I added more to my point. So not "nothing to do with" - Can we stop with this stuff?
posted by sweetkid at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's not true. I voted for Obama based on promises of things like closing Guantanamo. That didn't happen because Congress. When people actually get in office lots of things happen. I don't think anyone at the national level can walk away clean.
A bunch of people copy pasted just the Guantanamo part of my comment and some winky stuff about Bernie.
So I added more to my point. So not "nothing to do with" - Can we stop with this stuff?
posted by sweetkid at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can totally understand why people think Hilary is insincere and power-hungry
But it's not that. I have no idea whether she is a bad person. It's that she works for Wall Street.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
But it's not that. I have no idea whether she is a bad person. It's that she works for Wall Street.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016 [7 favorites]
Last comment on the universal coverage: universal without single payer is not some theoretical thing. It's being done all over the world. The point is you get a better mix of choice and cost.
It is also slightly more politically feasible than single payer in the US, although nothing will happen on either front without a Democratic Congress.
Universal coverage is a shared goal amongst most Democrats, including Clinton. Single-payer is one way, but one that many don't think is the best (obviously including me).
posted by thefoxgod at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016
It is also slightly more politically feasible than single payer in the US, although nothing will happen on either front without a Democratic Congress.
Universal coverage is a shared goal amongst most Democrats, including Clinton. Single-payer is one way, but one that many don't think is the best (obviously including me).
posted by thefoxgod at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016
The French Health care system IIRC manages to achieve universal coverage without single-payer and does a pretty decent job of constraining costs. I know that trying to get anything based upon a French anything in the current political climate is probably even more unpossible than single-payer but it's obviously another model.
I do tend to agree with the assessment that there is no political capital to do much with ACA other than tinker around the edges though. I'm not saying that we should quit working towards a better solution than ACA but if we have a Democratic president in 2016 I strongly suspect that healthcare reform will not be a major priority for congress regardless of whether it's Sanders or Clinton.
Instead I suspect we'll have the endless game of whack a mole where the house tries to repeal ACA and the president has to veto (or the Senate has to filibuster).
2016-2020 is going to suck for legislative progress but fortunately there is room for improvement in the judicial and administrative sphere. Hopefully in that period we can get enough business types to see the advantage in pursuing a cap and trade system but I kinda doubt it.
posted by vuron at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016
I do tend to agree with the assessment that there is no political capital to do much with ACA other than tinker around the edges though. I'm not saying that we should quit working towards a better solution than ACA but if we have a Democratic president in 2016 I strongly suspect that healthcare reform will not be a major priority for congress regardless of whether it's Sanders or Clinton.
Instead I suspect we'll have the endless game of whack a mole where the house tries to repeal ACA and the president has to veto (or the Senate has to filibuster).
2016-2020 is going to suck for legislative progress but fortunately there is room for improvement in the judicial and administrative sphere. Hopefully in that period we can get enough business types to see the advantage in pursuing a cap and trade system but I kinda doubt it.
posted by vuron at 9:15 PM on February 1, 2016
667-664 Clinton-Sanders with 1604 out of 1683 precincts reporting
posted by flex at 9:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by flex at 9:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie did great, but he didn't win over the people of Iowa,
c'mon man, this dismissal of an avowed "socialist" getting 50% is pretty lame. Iowa isn't a single person to be "won over".
Just like the nation is split nearly 50-50 GOP vs. the not-insane, the not-insane vote is also split among people with different outlooks and preferences.
"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."
-- Upton Sinclair (and yes, I got two books on him from the library this weekend)
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [20 favorites]
c'mon man, this dismissal of an avowed "socialist" getting 50% is pretty lame. Iowa isn't a single person to be "won over".
Just like the nation is split nearly 50-50 GOP vs. the not-insane, the not-insane vote is also split among people with different outlooks and preferences.
"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to "End Poverty in California" I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."
-- Upton Sinclair (and yes, I got two books on him from the library this weekend)
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:18 PM on February 1, 2016 [20 favorites]
Another incremental path I've seen toward single-payer includes progressively lowering the Medicare age (currently 65) and/or allowing people to buy in to Medicare.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hilary isn't a bad person. She has good policies, a strong record (although with some very notable issues), and practically a lifetime of experience. The problem is that she keeps bowing to the same calls to lean rightward that have been the Democrats' biggest problem for ages now. I am sure that she believes, in her heart, in many of the same things that I do, but I also think she'll tack to the "pragmatic" angle and compromise certain values along the way.
There's an argument that you have to be pragmatic in politics, and I've heard that most often as the reason why we, as voters, should be pragmatic and vote for her. But if nothing else comes of this election season, I hope it's at least the lesson that some of what we think of as "pragmatic" is really just a way to weaken your own position and compromise your own values. If nothing else, I hope we're upending at least a part of the traditional narratives about how politics should be conducted, just from seeing so many surprises Left and Right.
posted by teponaztli at 9:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [30 favorites]
There's an argument that you have to be pragmatic in politics, and I've heard that most often as the reason why we, as voters, should be pragmatic and vote for her. But if nothing else comes of this election season, I hope it's at least the lesson that some of what we think of as "pragmatic" is really just a way to weaken your own position and compromise your own values. If nothing else, I hope we're upending at least a part of the traditional narratives about how politics should be conducted, just from seeing so many surprises Left and Right.
posted by teponaztli at 9:20 PM on February 1, 2016 [30 favorites]
Do we have an idea of how many people total voted in the Republican vs. Democratic caucuses? And how has that ratio shifted from '08 and '12?
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:21 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:21 PM on February 1, 2016
Hillary doesn't bow to calls to lean right, she leads them. She understands that the country is a lot more right wing than most dems want to admit.
posted by chaz at 9:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by chaz at 9:21 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
but Hillary's brief legislative career and cabinet experience put her at least on equal footing with him.
Equal? Maybe it's my big state bias talking, but Sanders has been a mayor of a town of less than 50k and the Rep and Senator of a state of about of 627k. He's never really been stress tested with a big organization/constituency or on the national stage (until now). And he's doing very well with his campaign now, but that's still an issue in my mind.
posted by FJT at 9:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
Equal? Maybe it's my big state bias talking, but Sanders has been a mayor of a town of less than 50k and the Rep and Senator of a state of about of 627k. He's never really been stress tested with a big organization/constituency or on the national stage (until now). And he's doing very well with his campaign now, but that's still an issue in my mind.
posted by FJT at 9:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
As I've gotten older I've become more skeptical about the idea that "the system" is the problem and if we just change that we could get more sensible results.
Also from my Upton Sinclair reading:
"The longer I live, the more I am convinced that the common people are doomed to be diddled forever.” -- H. L. Mencken
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also from my Upton Sinclair reading:
"The longer I live, the more I am convinced that the common people are doomed to be diddled forever.” -- H. L. Mencken
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
She understands that the country is a lot more right wing than most dems want to admit.
FWIW, the country is also a lot more left wing than most republicans want to admit.
posted by dersins at 9:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
FWIW, the country is also a lot more left wing than most republicans want to admit.
posted by dersins at 9:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [16 favorites]
Considering that Hilary and Bernie have basically the same numbers...how can you say that with a straight face?
posted by futz at 9:26 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by futz at 9:26 PM on February 1, 2016
" There is nothing that is going to prevent the Democratic Caucus from ending at this point with Clinton and Sanders both walking away with 15 delegates."
Except for Iowa's superdelegates, who will feel pretty comfortable after tonight supporting Clinton.
"Problem is the age splits, Sanders won the youth voter overwhelmingly."
Polls indicate that the split is a lot less severe outside of states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where it still feels safe to support Clinton. He is definitely not going to rack up these kind of margins among young voters in Nevada and South Carolina.
Both Nevada and S.C. demographically "look" a lot more like America than either Iowa or New Hampshire, which Nate Silver & Co. showed as the 2nd and 3rd best states, demographically, for Sanders.
posted by markkraft at 9:26 PM on February 1, 2016
Except for Iowa's superdelegates, who will feel pretty comfortable after tonight supporting Clinton.
"Problem is the age splits, Sanders won the youth voter overwhelmingly."
Polls indicate that the split is a lot less severe outside of states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where it still feels safe to support Clinton. He is definitely not going to rack up these kind of margins among young voters in Nevada and South Carolina.
Both Nevada and S.C. demographically "look" a lot more like America than either Iowa or New Hampshire, which Nate Silver & Co. showed as the 2nd and 3rd best states, demographically, for Sanders.
posted by markkraft at 9:26 PM on February 1, 2016
Equal? Maybe it's my big state bias talking, but Sanders has been a mayor of a town of less than 50k and the Rep and Senator of a state of about of 627k. He's never really been stress tested with a big organization or on the national stage (until now). And he's doing very well now, but that's still an issue in my mind.
The size of his state and his mayoral career has fuck-all to do with his legislative record, which is the comparison I was making.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
The size of his state and his mayoral career has fuck-all to do with his legislative record, which is the comparison I was making.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:26 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
FWIW, the country is also a lot more left wing than most republicans want to admit.
Well, it's getting there. Hope us, millennials!
posted by tonycpsu at 9:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, it's getting there. Hope us, millennials!
posted by tonycpsu at 9:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, THIS: If I could get one political wish granted America would ditch this crazy self-defeating political system and move to a unicameral parliamentary structure.
The USA was at the cutting edge of democratic experimentation 200 years ago. We were Modern Democracy 1.0. And now we're at version 1.5 or so while other countries have leapfrogged us. We just have too damn many veto points, too much diffusion of responsibility and too great a mismatch between perceived responsibility and actual effectiveness. (Example quoted above: closing Guantanamo.) We need to be able to elect a government that is clearly responsible for a program, has the power to carry it out within meta (constitutional) limits, and can be democratically judged by the electorate at the end of its term.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
The USA was at the cutting edge of democratic experimentation 200 years ago. We were Modern Democracy 1.0. And now we're at version 1.5 or so while other countries have leapfrogged us. We just have too damn many veto points, too much diffusion of responsibility and too great a mismatch between perceived responsibility and actual effectiveness. (Example quoted above: closing Guantanamo.) We need to be able to elect a government that is clearly responsible for a program, has the power to carry it out within meta (constitutional) limits, and can be democratically judged by the electorate at the end of its term.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:28 PM on February 1, 2016 [12 favorites]
Do we have an idea of how many people total voted in the Republican vs. Democratic caucuses? And how has that ratio shifted from '08 and '12?'12 isn't relevant on the Democratic side, because it was a foregone conclusion. I'm hearing that statewide, Democratic turnout was lower than '08 but higher than '04. Some precincts in Iowa City are reporting higher turnout than in '08, which has taken everyone by surprise.
The outstanding precincts seem to be some sort of problem with the app in Polk County.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:28 PM on February 1, 2016
And he's doing very well with his campaign now, but that's still an issue in my mind.
I don't really give a crap about that. The office is much bigger than the man, er person.
Who they pick to run the administration is much more important, and even that is gated by the career service + the "Deep State" that runs autonomously.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't really give a crap about that. The office is much bigger than the man, er person.
Who they pick to run the administration is much more important, and even that is gated by the career service + the "Deep State" that runs autonomously.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Carly Fiorina no-showed her own Iowa party
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:29 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, and there were supposedly three delegates assigned by coin toss, because of ties. Hillary won all of them.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
The right wins if people don't care enough to vote. Bush won twice that way.
Obama won because he got people fired up to vote.
Clinton risks most by being boring and safe. Low turnout is the Repub strategy. It works well for them. They don't have to be better than her, just least worst. They know negative campaigns work.
Saunders is the only candidate who has dragged out even one democratic voter sub-group to the polls. If Clinton doesn't steal a good chunk of his strategy and put some policies out there that people can believe in she risks being buried by compromise and scandal. "Can't do better today " isn't a slogan to win with.
posted by bonehead at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
Obama won because he got people fired up to vote.
Clinton risks most by being boring and safe. Low turnout is the Repub strategy. It works well for them. They don't have to be better than her, just least worst. They know negative campaigns work.
Saunders is the only candidate who has dragged out even one democratic voter sub-group to the polls. If Clinton doesn't steal a good chunk of his strategy and put some policies out there that people can believe in she risks being buried by compromise and scandal. "Can't do better today " isn't a slogan to win with.
posted by bonehead at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
Bernie Sanders has far more legislative experience and executive experience than Barack Obama did on January 20, 2009.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [14 favorites]
FWIW, the country is also a lot more left wing than most republicans want to admit.
I think what a lot of republicans think is left wing is centrist Democrats.
posted by sweetkid at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think what a lot of republicans think is left wing is centrist Democrats.
posted by sweetkid at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hillary doesn't bow to calls to lean right, she leads them. She understands that the country is a lot more right wing than most dems want to admit.
That's really a myth, though - if you look at the policies that people actually support, the vast majority of the country supports things that we would consider left-wing. If anything, the country is becoming less conservative as demographics shift, at least on certain angles. And that's the thing - conservatism isn't a unified bloc. There's a huge variety of positions on social, economic, and other issues, and support for one doesn't guarantee support for another.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that by tacking to the right, Democrats create a self-fulfilling prophecy: they undermine their own policies and create something that's unappealing to the Left and the Right. When their numbers aren't strong, they assume it's because they need to tack more to the right to appeal to conservatives, who continue not supporting them.
The way people on the left talk about politics, you'd think they're an island of sanity surrounded by a seething mass of neo-Nazis. If anything, the Democrats have an inflated sense of how right-wing the country is.
posted by teponaztli at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]
That's really a myth, though - if you look at the policies that people actually support, the vast majority of the country supports things that we would consider left-wing. If anything, the country is becoming less conservative as demographics shift, at least on certain angles. And that's the thing - conservatism isn't a unified bloc. There's a huge variety of positions on social, economic, and other issues, and support for one doesn't guarantee support for another.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that by tacking to the right, Democrats create a self-fulfilling prophecy: they undermine their own policies and create something that's unappealing to the Left and the Right. When their numbers aren't strong, they assume it's because they need to tack more to the right to appeal to conservatives, who continue not supporting them.
The way people on the left talk about politics, you'd think they're an island of sanity surrounded by a seething mass of neo-Nazis. If anything, the Democrats have an inflated sense of how right-wing the country is.
posted by teponaztli at 9:30 PM on February 1, 2016 [26 favorites]
We need to be able to elect a government that is clearly responsible for a program
We also need ~half the country to turn their sign around and "Get a brain!"
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:31 PM on February 1, 2016
We also need ~half the country to turn their sign around and "Get a brain!"
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:31 PM on February 1, 2016
> Oh, and there were supposedly three delegates assigned by coin toss, because of ties. Hillary won all of them.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious
eponyblahblah
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious
eponyblahblah
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
In 2008, people were big jerks to each other around here during the Democratic primaries. At least I felt that way. I felt unwelcome as a Clinton supporter
People are nicer to each other now and I think that's really wonderful. I appreciate the positive ways that the Metafilter culture has changed in those 8 years. A lot of hard discussions about privilege and tolerance and tighter moderation have really changed the culture, in my opinion. I'm not here as much as I used to be, but I feel better about it when I'm around.
Anyway. I've admired Hillary Clinton since I was in elementary school and she was First Lady. The vast majority of Americans agree with me; she's been the most admired woman in America for two decades. I think she's going to be an incredibly effective President and I can't wait to vote for her again.
posted by Kwine at 9:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
People are nicer to each other now and I think that's really wonderful. I appreciate the positive ways that the Metafilter culture has changed in those 8 years. A lot of hard discussions about privilege and tolerance and tighter moderation have really changed the culture, in my opinion. I'm not here as much as I used to be, but I feel better about it when I'm around.
Anyway. I've admired Hillary Clinton since I was in elementary school and she was First Lady. The vast majority of Americans agree with me; she's been the most admired woman in America for two decades. I think she's going to be an incredibly effective President and I can't wait to vote for her again.
posted by Kwine at 9:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
I wonder how many GOP members will be out by New Hampshire. Fiorina. Santorum. Gilmore. I don't see much point in continuing on now.
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Saunders is the only candidate who has dragged out even one democratic voter sub-group to the polls.
I know this is a typo, but now I have the image in my mind of Edina sloshing her drink out of her glass as she stands in front of a rally audience and slurs her way through a speech about Harrods.
posted by teponaztli at 9:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
I know this is a typo, but now I have the image in my mind of Edina sloshing her drink out of her glass as she stands in front of a rally audience and slurs her way through a speech about Harrods.
posted by teponaztli at 9:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [13 favorites]
#1 /r/all right now: C-SPAN Stream: Clinton Precinct Chair lied about the vote counting in Precinct 43 and it was all caught on camera
posted by flex at 9:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by flex at 9:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Carly Fiorina no-showed her own Iowa party
Abort! Abort!
posted by Artw at 9:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Abort! Abort!
posted by Artw at 9:34 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think ultimately Clinton adheres to the incrementalist view of public policy, i.e. that incremental changes around the periphery of established policies are less risky than going for broke and trying to achieve something big and revolutionary. Thinking back to her failed attempt to do health care reform under Bill Clinton was definitely instrumental in shaping her public policy strategies ever since. She tends actually be fairly successful because she goes with incremental approaches.
Unfortunately the polarization of the legislative branch combined with extreme gerrymandering has made the incremental approach less and less reliable because only a small percentage of congress critters live in competitive districts and most Republicans are more scared of a primary challenger from the right than a democratic challenger in the general election. This has led to an impressive level of ideological purity on the right and the changes to pork barrel appropriations have largely curtailed one of the more reliable ways of twisting the arms of legislators.
Ultimately I doubt either Clinton or Sanders would be particularly successful legislatively in the current climate with a revolutionary or incrementalist stance and personally I think the bully pulpit is dramatically overrated (witness Obama getting approximately nowhere on gun violence) so the majority of the power either would have is in the administrative power of the Presidency. That is actually fairly considerable but I really don't know how either one would really be in that regard as neither has a ton of executive leadership.
posted by vuron at 9:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Unfortunately the polarization of the legislative branch combined with extreme gerrymandering has made the incremental approach less and less reliable because only a small percentage of congress critters live in competitive districts and most Republicans are more scared of a primary challenger from the right than a democratic challenger in the general election. This has led to an impressive level of ideological purity on the right and the changes to pork barrel appropriations have largely curtailed one of the more reliable ways of twisting the arms of legislators.
Ultimately I doubt either Clinton or Sanders would be particularly successful legislatively in the current climate with a revolutionary or incrementalist stance and personally I think the bully pulpit is dramatically overrated (witness Obama getting approximately nowhere on gun violence) so the majority of the power either would have is in the administrative power of the Presidency. That is actually fairly considerable but I really don't know how either one would really be in that regard as neither has a ton of executive leadership.
posted by vuron at 9:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
She understands that the country is a lot more right wing than most dems want to admit.
triangulation is a bit more involved than that. Mainly, there are more voters to the right of Clinton than to the left, and the left have nowhere to go other than throwing the election to the GOP, which most sane voters consider a not-good outcome.
and triangulation pushes the GOP further from the center in their opposition, too.
Whether they're taking the electorate with them is the interesting question.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
triangulation is a bit more involved than that. Mainly, there are more voters to the right of Clinton than to the left, and the left have nowhere to go other than throwing the election to the GOP, which most sane voters consider a not-good outcome.
and triangulation pushes the GOP further from the center in their opposition, too.
Whether they're taking the electorate with them is the interesting question.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Carly was too busy repurposing text from old HP termination letters for her staffers.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
I know this is a typo, but now I have the image in my mind of Edina sloshing her drink out of her glass as she stands in front of a rally audience and slurs her way through a speech about Harrods.
"Sweetie, sweetie darling, don't disappoint me."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Sweetie, sweetie darling, don't disappoint me."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
"The country" is not the same as voters. I should've said voters.
posted by chaz at 9:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by chaz at 9:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure that what H. Clinton has been subjected to is noticeably worse than what the GOP has flung at the recent Democratic presidents.
Well, it's certainly different, in the way that the racist shit Obama got is slightly different than the misogynistic shit she gets. And both of them are experiencing a different kind of bile than Bill himself did as our last white Dem president.
Oh and also she's been in the national GOP crosshairs for what, 30-40 years now? Obama was not known until his presidential campaign. Sanders has gotten a lot of "Pssh! Socialist!" from the right but nothing that in any way compares to the hellstorm that has engulfed Clinton since the day she appeared on the scene.
Multiple books have been written asserting that she murdered a man, among other crimes. I'm sure there is a website somewhere that says she eats babies. Rush Limbaugh practically built his career on nasty Hilary slurs, about her family, her sexuality, her looks and of course her evilness.
So no, I don't think it's the same as "what other Democratic presidents" have experienced. None of them has been a woman. It's a Big Fucking Difference.
You certainly don't have to agree with her policies, but I have a hard time thinking of any man who has weathered and triumphed over the level and duration of targeted, out-and-out hate that she has.
posted by emjaybee at 9:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [56 favorites]
Well, it's certainly different, in the way that the racist shit Obama got is slightly different than the misogynistic shit she gets. And both of them are experiencing a different kind of bile than Bill himself did as our last white Dem president.
Oh and also she's been in the national GOP crosshairs for what, 30-40 years now? Obama was not known until his presidential campaign. Sanders has gotten a lot of "Pssh! Socialist!" from the right but nothing that in any way compares to the hellstorm that has engulfed Clinton since the day she appeared on the scene.
Multiple books have been written asserting that she murdered a man, among other crimes. I'm sure there is a website somewhere that says she eats babies. Rush Limbaugh practically built his career on nasty Hilary slurs, about her family, her sexuality, her looks and of course her evilness.
So no, I don't think it's the same as "what other Democratic presidents" have experienced. None of them has been a woman. It's a Big Fucking Difference.
You certainly don't have to agree with her policies, but I have a hard time thinking of any man who has weathered and triumphed over the level and duration of targeted, out-and-out hate that she has.
posted by emjaybee at 9:39 PM on February 1, 2016 [56 favorites]
Clinton adheres to the incrementalist view of public policy, i.e. that incremental changes around the periphery of established policies are less risky than going for broke and trying to achieve something big and revolutionary.
You're not wrong, but she has to stop giving "No we can't", "think really, really small", art-of-the-possible messages in stump speeches. That isn't a strong voter draw, either to get already committed people to the voter's booth, or to win new hearts and minds.
posted by bonehead at 9:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
You're not wrong, but she has to stop giving "No we can't", "think really, really small", art-of-the-possible messages in stump speeches. That isn't a strong voter draw, either to get already committed people to the voter's booth, or to win new hearts and minds.
posted by bonehead at 9:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
I agree with vuron. What we need to see from the candidates is an, uh, candid acknowledgement that not much will be possible legislatively unless an unforeseen thing happens that throws the House back to the Democrats. And so they each should be articulating how they are planning to use the Executive to push progressive policy forward. That would be a great debate and I think it would give us a good sense of their priorities and the level of realism that they would bring to the presidency under the conditions that hold right now.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
What we need to see from the candidates is an, uh, candid acknowledgement that not much will be possible legislatively unless an unforeseen thing happens that throws the House back to the Democrats.
Honestly, this is my biggest regret about Sanders. I'm glad he's pushing the conversation to the left but I really just want more people like him in Congress, where they can do the most good, not running for President.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
Honestly, this is my biggest regret about Sanders. I'm glad he's pushing the conversation to the left but I really just want more people like him in Congress, where they can do the most good, not running for President.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
"Saunders is the only candidate who has dragged out even one democratic voter sub-group to the polls. "
...assuming you don't count, y'know, like women. Entrance polls in Iowa showed a big, huge turnout of female voters. About 57% of the total vote.
posted by markkraft at 9:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
...assuming you don't count, y'know, like women. Entrance polls in Iowa showed a big, huge turnout of female voters. About 57% of the total vote.
posted by markkraft at 9:44 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that Fiorina was always just angling for a VP nomination which considering the general antipathy female voters have for the Republican party might be a decent strategy but I suspect the knives would come out full force if that happened because she cost alot of very powerful people alot of money during her tenure at HP and people have long memories about that shit.
posted by vuron at 9:44 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by vuron at 9:44 PM on February 1, 2016
Entrance polls in Iowa showed a big, huge turnout of female voters.
Is that really surprising, historically? Women voted at +12% over the final level in 2012 for Obama. The gender gap between Democrats and Republicans was 20% in the final vote, so more women than men voting democratic would follow the usual trends would it not?
posted by bonehead at 9:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is that really surprising, historically? Women voted at +12% over the final level in 2012 for Obama. The gender gap between Democrats and Republicans was 20% in the final vote, so more women than men voting democratic would follow the usual trends would it not?
posted by bonehead at 9:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Multiple books have been written asserting that she murdered a man, among other crimes. I'm sure there is a website somewhere that says she eats babies. Rush Limbaugh practically built his career on nasty Hilary slurs, about her family, her sexuality, her looks and of course her evilness.
This is absolutely the case - not that I'm a fan of her policy stances across a whole range of issues, but holy fuck. It's been brutal.
And can you imagine if the same vitriol had been directed at, for example, Barbara Bush?
In my mind, if I strip out the problems I have with her politics, a Hillary Clinton presidency will be important in that it would demonstrate the ability of the US to elect a woman as president.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
This is absolutely the case - not that I'm a fan of her policy stances across a whole range of issues, but holy fuck. It's been brutal.
And can you imagine if the same vitriol had been directed at, for example, Barbara Bush?
In my mind, if I strip out the problems I have with her politics, a Hillary Clinton presidency will be important in that it would demonstrate the ability of the US to elect a woman as president.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [15 favorites]
Multiple books have been written asserting that she murdered a man, among other crimes. I'm sure there is a website somewhere that says she eats babies. Rush Limbaugh practically built his career on nasty Hilary slurs, about her family, her sexuality, her looks and of course her evilness.
I visited some elderly relatives in ~2001 whose bathroom reading material was entirely anti-Hilary. You really can't overestimate the hatred some people have for her.
posted by brundlefly at 9:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
I visited some elderly relatives in ~2001 whose bathroom reading material was entirely anti-Hilary. You really can't overestimate the hatred some people have for her.
posted by brundlefly at 9:51 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
lmao someone in that reddit thread has already copied the cspan video to 10 USB drives
posted by mannequito at 9:51 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by mannequito at 9:51 PM on February 1, 2016
"the majority of the power either would have is in the administrative power of the Presidency. That is actually fairly considerable but I really don't know how either one would really be in that regard as neither has a ton of executive leadership."
...except, perhaps, being considered "extraordinarily experienced ... wicked smart and knows every policy inside and out... she can govern and she can start here, day one, more experienced than any non-vice president has ever been who aspires to this office" by the current POTUS, having close relationships with all the leaders of her party, having strong ties with the DNC, who could apply leverage on Democrats who stand in the way of changes, and, of course, having a former POTUS as her husband / proxy / close personal adviser.
posted by markkraft at 9:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
...except, perhaps, being considered "extraordinarily experienced ... wicked smart and knows every policy inside and out... she can govern and she can start here, day one, more experienced than any non-vice president has ever been who aspires to this office" by the current POTUS, having close relationships with all the leaders of her party, having strong ties with the DNC, who could apply leverage on Democrats who stand in the way of changes, and, of course, having a former POTUS as her husband / proxy / close personal adviser.
posted by markkraft at 9:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Holy crap Iowa finish those fucking precincts already I need to go to work tomorrow and I'm not tolerating any Florida 2000 recount bullshit
posted by vuron at 9:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 9:53 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Coin toss? Are you fucking kidding me?
posted by corb at 9:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 9:56 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
JFC I'm still here refreshing shit! - ummm, I mean, 1636 precincts out of 1683 are in, so that's 97% reporting with 683-680 Clinton-Sanders
posted by flex at 9:57 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by flex at 9:57 PM on February 1, 2016
Hey you guys, just so you know ...
O'Malley just got another delegate! That brings it to eight, count 'em, eight delegates! Victory is in sight! Go team O! Feel the O'urn!
... anybody? ... anybody?
posted by panama joe at 9:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
O'Malley just got another delegate! That brings it to eight, count 'em, eight delegates! Victory is in sight! Go team O! Feel the O'urn!
... anybody? ... anybody?
posted by panama joe at 9:58 PM on February 1, 2016 [9 favorites]
I suspect Clinton knows how to govern administratively but keep in mind that this congress has been willing to basically hold up virtually every cabinet nominee with endless procedural obstacles so I'm not entirely convinced that Clinton or Sanders will be able to get their nominees confirmed.
Yes a decent amount of administrative functions take place lower than the cabinet heads and other confirmed positions but if the Democrat has difficulty in confirming cabinet heads that's going to be problematic.
Which is further confirmation of how fucked up the current environment is because blocking every nominee to the extent the Republicans have blocked Obama's is completely unprecedented.
posted by vuron at 9:59 PM on February 1, 2016
Yes a decent amount of administrative functions take place lower than the cabinet heads and other confirmed positions but if the Democrat has difficulty in confirming cabinet heads that's going to be problematic.
Which is further confirmation of how fucked up the current environment is because blocking every nominee to the extent the Republicans have blocked Obama's is completely unprecedented.
posted by vuron at 9:59 PM on February 1, 2016
Coin toss? Are you fucking kidding me?
Given that this could ultimately decide who holds the nuclear football, it's either folksy or frightening.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Given that this could ultimately decide who holds the nuclear football, it's either folksy or frightening.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:59 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Coin toss? Are you fucking kidding me?
See, this is what dithering/error diffusion were invented for.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
See, this is what dithering/error diffusion were invented for.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Really, though, I just like the idea of some delegate out there seeing the neck-and-neck nail-biting Clinton-vs-Bernie suspense, and at 11:59PM CST, says, "You know what? Fuck it. I'm going to O'Malley. Yeah, that's right, O'Malley. Whattaya gonna do about it?"
posted by panama joe at 10:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by panama joe at 10:00 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Where are people finding the precinct-level delegate counts? I'm only finding state-level delegates and raw %.
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 10:01 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 10:01 PM on February 1, 2016
He got that eighth delegate like an hour ago, but it's a compelling narrative
posted by flex at 10:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by flex at 10:01 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
...except, perhaps, being considered "extraordinarily experienced ... wicked smart and knows every policy inside and out... she can govern and she can start here, day one, more experienced than any non-vice president has ever been who aspires to this office" by the current POTUS, having close relationships with all the leaders of her party, having strong ties with the DNC, who could apply leverage on Democrats who stand in the way of changes, and, of course, having a former POTUS as her husband / proxy / close personal adviser.
Jesus markkraft, we get it. Hilary can do no wrong. Your evangelism is really off-putting.
posted by futz at 10:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [21 favorites]
Jesus markkraft, we get it. Hilary can do no wrong. Your evangelism is really off-putting.
posted by futz at 10:02 PM on February 1, 2016 [21 favorites]
Seems like 90 precincts failed to properly record their results: "Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing."
https://twitter.com/WPJohnWagner/status/694397961757810688
posted by pinsomniac at 10:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
https://twitter.com/WPJohnWagner/status/694397961757810688
posted by pinsomniac at 10:07 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Apparently the coin flips were for county delegates not statewide equivalent delegates. Still pretty funny.
So here's to more dank memes especially now that Cruz has proven that in fact you can Stump the Trump
posted by vuron at 10:10 PM on February 1, 2016
So here's to more dank memes especially now that Cruz has proven that in fact you can Stump the Trump
posted by vuron at 10:10 PM on February 1, 2016
Unfortunately the polarization of the legislative branch combined with extreme gerrymandering has made the incremental approach less and less reliable because only a small percentage of congress critters live in competitive districts and most Republicans are more scared of a primary challenger from the right than a democratic challenger in the general election.
Indeed, if you subscribe to Krehbiel's "Pivotal Politics" model, (and you should; his point is well proven,) shooting for incremental change actually actively prevents real change from taking place, because it reduces the number of representatives who are far enough from their ideal points to go for a more radical position.
To pose an extremely exaggerated hypothetical, if the status quo was an official policy of Literally Eat the Poor, even relatively right-wing Congresscritters would sign on to a comprehensive social welfare package, just to get away from that position. They would also sign onto a milquetoast neoliberal package, for the same reasons. Once the milquetoast neoliberal package is the status quo, however, they would be impossible to persuade to vote for the comprehensive reforms.
Of course, all this is contingent on the counterfactual of "Literally Eat the Poor" not being a major party plank.
posted by fifthrider at 10:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Indeed, if you subscribe to Krehbiel's "Pivotal Politics" model, (and you should; his point is well proven,) shooting for incremental change actually actively prevents real change from taking place, because it reduces the number of representatives who are far enough from their ideal points to go for a more radical position.
To pose an extremely exaggerated hypothetical, if the status quo was an official policy of Literally Eat the Poor, even relatively right-wing Congresscritters would sign on to a comprehensive social welfare package, just to get away from that position. They would also sign onto a milquetoast neoliberal package, for the same reasons. Once the milquetoast neoliberal package is the status quo, however, they would be impossible to persuade to vote for the comprehensive reforms.
Of course, all this is contingent on the counterfactual of "Literally Eat the Poor" not being a major party plank.
posted by fifthrider at 10:11 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm totally confused by this 90 missing precincts thing. I think I'm going to go to bed and wait until tomorrow for the scuttlebutt. None of the people I trust are saying anything about it.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:13 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am confused too - there's only 19 precincts left to report according to the https://www.idpcaucuses.com/#/state site and NBC is saying 692-689 - I feel like I am at the end of my ability to even
posted by flex at 10:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by flex at 10:14 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, in highschool there was this guy named Chad who always had boogers. Always. So of course we called boogers "chads". Some of those boogers would be attached to a single nose hair, hence, hanging chad.
posted by futz at 10:18 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by futz at 10:18 PM on February 1, 2016
Sticking with my prediction from last September. But it's 6:19am here in England, and despite this being the best election night since November 4th 2008, and twitter really being made for Eurovision and rural state caucuses, this Englishman needs his sleep.
posted by Wordshore at 10:21 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Wordshore at 10:21 PM on February 1, 2016
With 99% reporting, Clinton is still up by .2% and I'm going to bed. The total difference between Clinton and Sanders will be less than O'Malley's support, which makes it possible that his candidacy, minor though it was, decided the winner here.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:24 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
"So, these chads, they're... hanging
Yeeeah. These coins...they're clanging.
This Cruz lays the stump.
Right to the chin of this chump Trump.
But sorry we sent him down there.
Though the Ted woke the sleepin' lib'rul bear.
Rubio can't speak without takin' a sip?
Sheeeeit.
Iowa makes the call on that last flip."
Peace out. Canada sends the love.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:24 PM on February 1, 2016
Yeeeah. These coins...they're clanging.
This Cruz lays the stump.
Right to the chin of this chump Trump.
But sorry we sent him down there.
Though the Ted woke the sleepin' lib'rul bear.
Rubio can't speak without takin' a sip?
Sheeeeit.
Iowa makes the call on that last flip."
Peace out. Canada sends the love.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:24 PM on February 1, 2016
Oh, crap. Now it's tied. I might not sleep just yet.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:25 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:25 PM on February 1, 2016
It sounds like there may have been problems with some of the precincts that have reported: possibly they weren't staffed correctly or some procedure wasn't followed. At this point, I think we should probably call it a tie, move on, and consider switching to a different system in the future. Maybe just paper ballots at a caucus like the Republicans do.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:25 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Latest precise result from that API link upthread:
Clinton: 49.765%
Sanders: 49.651%
0.114% margin
posted by Rhaomi at 10:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton: 49.765%
Sanders: 49.651%
0.114% margin
posted by Rhaomi at 10:27 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Democrats are denying any problems. They say they just need to contact a few precinct chairs, but nothing is missing or wrong.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:30 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:30 PM on February 1, 2016
O'Malley's bowing out is perhaps the biggest change in the race, really. He got a really small percent of the delegates, due to caucus rules, but he polled between 2 and 7 percent, and has endorsed Clinton in the past.
A lot of the reason this is so close probably has to do with O'Malley getting under 15% and then having his voters go over to Sanders' camp. Previous polling suggested that nearly 2/3rds of them in Iowa favored Sanders as their second choice... but Iowa is Iowa, and Sanders has more support there than most of the country.
If he endorses H. as most every Democratic politician has done, it could make it harder for Sanders to be the beneficiary of his former supporters elsewhere. It could also reduce the extent of a likely Clinton loss in New Hampshire.
posted by markkraft at 10:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
A lot of the reason this is so close probably has to do with O'Malley getting under 15% and then having his voters go over to Sanders' camp. Previous polling suggested that nearly 2/3rds of them in Iowa favored Sanders as their second choice... but Iowa is Iowa, and Sanders has more support there than most of the country.
If he endorses H. as most every Democratic politician has done, it could make it harder for Sanders to be the beneficiary of his former supporters elsewhere. It could also reduce the extent of a likely Clinton loss in New Hampshire.
posted by markkraft at 10:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pretty much anything that potentially ends the caucus process is a net positive in my book. Personally I'd also like a rotating primary calendar so maybe some years Colorado is the first primary and other years Oregon is first, etc. But then again I might just hold out for a unicorn because that might be more doable.
posted by vuron at 10:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by vuron at 10:31 PM on February 1, 2016 [6 favorites]
18th century voting processes just aren't up to the task of really, truly discerning voter intention below about 1% difference. People make mistakes, get fuddled, forget stuff.
When races are this tight, they should just call it a tie and have a hotdog-eating contest or go bowling or something.
posted by bonehead at 10:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
When races are this tight, they should just call it a tie and have a hotdog-eating contest or go bowling or something.
posted by bonehead at 10:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Seems like 90 precincts failed to properly record their results: "Sanders's camp says that the Iowa Democratic Party has informed the campaigns that the caucus results from 90 precincts are missing."
This could be a non story but if you find Debbie Wasserman Schultz cackling behind Hilary's backdrop curtains you should probably investigate further.
posted by futz at 10:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
This could be a non story but if you find Debbie Wasserman Schultz cackling behind Hilary's backdrop curtains you should probably investigate further.
posted by futz at 10:32 PM on February 1, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not clear if this is related to those 90 precincts stories or not, but the Des Moines Register-Guard is reporting that more than a dozen precinct results are simply missing.
posted by dialetheia at 10:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 10:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
When races are this tight, they should just call it a tie and have a hotdog-eating contest or go bowling or something.
This would be an outstanding amendment to the US Constitution. But you know Walter Sobchak would be out there flashing his piece on the lanes if it got close.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
This would be an outstanding amendment to the US Constitution. But you know Walter Sobchak would be out there flashing his piece on the lanes if it got close.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:35 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
markkraft: "O'Malley's bowing out is perhaps the biggest change in the race, really."
Also important: we now get straightforward one-on-one debates between Clinton and Sanders going forward. O'Malley's a good guy with good ideas, but his go-nowhere candidacy took up a disproportionate amount of time and attention in all the debates he was in.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also important: we now get straightforward one-on-one debates between Clinton and Sanders going forward. O'Malley's a good guy with good ideas, but his go-nowhere candidacy took up a disproportionate amount of time and attention in all the debates he was in.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:36 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, only 279 days till the election proper now, folks. #GettingClose
posted by Wordshore at 10:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Wordshore at 10:37 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Huh. I wonder if that just means that the chairs have gone to bed and aren't answering their phones. If the reporting app didn't work, they may not realize there's a problem.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:38 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
How about the Republican results? Does Rubio come out of this the winner, in a sense, because he's now without a doubt one of the top 3? It's really hard to see Cruz going far in this election, and while Rubio seems like a lightweight, perhaps finishing almost tied with Trump here will give him more support?
posted by cell divide at 10:39 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by cell divide at 10:39 PM on February 1, 2016
I'd be interested in a Trump/Cruz/Rubio debate without the rest of the clown car. I think a large amount of Trump's support actually comes from how he destroyed Bush and how enjoyable that was for the audience. He isn't nearly as impressive swinging at other targets.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 10:40 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I think Rubio is the big GOP winner. The establishment was already consolidating around him, and now he seems viable.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:41 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Instead of deciding the remaining the districts via hotdog eating I think they should settle it with the Hawkeyes and Cyclones being proxies for a game of football or basketball. Coin toss gets to pick the school that you want representing you and the other person gets to pick the sport. Winner gets the remainder of the delegates.
posted by vuron at 10:41 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by vuron at 10:41 PM on February 1, 2016
I'd be interested in a Trump/Cruz/Rubio debate without the rest of the clown car.
Even if they just said you need 10% national support to be in the debate, I believe it would be those three.
posted by cell divide at 10:43 PM on February 1, 2016
Even if they just said you need 10% national support to be in the debate, I believe it would be those three.
posted by cell divide at 10:43 PM on February 1, 2016
> I wonder if that just means that the chairs have gone to bed and aren't answering their phones. If the reporting app didn't work, they may not realize there's a problem.
A bunch of the responsible parties probably have to get up at 6:30 in the morning and go to their Real Jobs.
posted by bukvich at 10:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
A bunch of the responsible parties probably have to get up at 6:30 in the morning and go to their Real Jobs.
posted by bukvich at 10:43 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, we appear to have stalled out with 12 precincts left to report (maybe they are those missing ones?) and the count at 696-693.
posted by flex at 10:44 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by flex at 10:44 PM on February 1, 2016
Well, at 10pm EST my linear extrapolation gave an projected tie at 49.7 each. And now, with 99% reporting, it's Clinton 49.8, Sanders 49.6. Surprisingly accurate! -- especially given that the projection blithely ignored all precinct demographics.
posted by chortly at 10:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by chortly at 10:48 PM on February 1, 2016 [10 favorites]
Reports are that GOP turnout was way up from 2012: 180,000 compared to 120,000 last time.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:49 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
The odds on who will be the Republican POTUS candidate have changed somewhat in the last few hours (in other words, a lot of money is being bet).
posted by Wordshore at 11:00 PM on February 1, 2016
posted by Wordshore at 11:00 PM on February 1, 2016
To pose an extremely exaggerated hypothetical, if the status quo was an official policy of Literally Eat the Poor, even relatively right-wing Congresscritters would sign on to a comprehensive social welfare package, just to get away from that position. They would also sign onto a milquetoast neoliberal package, for the same reasons. Once the milquetoast neoliberal package is the status quo, however, they would be impossible to persuade to vote for the comprehensive reforms.
You do realize that this kind of reduces to "Sorry, poor, you're just going to have to agree to be eaten for a little while longer because we're waiting for comprehensive reform," don't you? An easier position to hold if one is not the one being eaten.
posted by dersins at 11:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
You do realize that this kind of reduces to "Sorry, poor, you're just going to have to agree to be eaten for a little while longer because we're waiting for comprehensive reform," don't you? An easier position to hold if one is not the one being eaten.
posted by dersins at 11:06 PM on February 1, 2016 [5 favorites]
That's what will happen here. One of them will get 23, one will get 22, and all this sound and fury will result in somebody being up one delegate.
You're forgetting the Iowa superdelegates. It'll either be 30-22 or 29-23 for clinton, probably 30-22.
posted by Justinian at 11:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
You're forgetting the Iowa superdelegates. It'll either be 30-22 or 29-23 for clinton, probably 30-22.
posted by Justinian at 11:46 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
coin toss????
posted by yueliang at 11:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by yueliang at 11:50 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie Sanders has far more legislative experience and executive experience than Barack Obama did on January 20, 2009.
Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, had more legislative experience and executive experience than the top 4 finishers on the GOP side tonight.
Maybe experience is overrated.
posted by dw at 11:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, had more legislative experience and executive experience than the top 4 finishers on the GOP side tonight.
Maybe experience is overrated.
posted by dw at 11:52 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]
Please explain the nature of these apparently-legal "stickers".
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:54 PM on February 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
In robert's rules, which governs many organizational elections, a tied election results in a coin toss/lots or re-vote, at the discretion of the electoral officer.
Even better, some provinces in Canada use a coin toss for a provincial election, as was done in PEI in May 2015!!
posted by chapps at 11:55 PM on February 1, 2016
Even better, some provinces in Canada use a coin toss for a provincial election, as was done in PEI in May 2015!!
posted by chapps at 11:55 PM on February 1, 2016
I'm a Bernie supporter. Have been since there was word he might run. I've loved him for 15 years now. And yet I seem to spend most of my time in political discussions defending Hillary from scurrilous attacks from fellow Berners.
Hillary will most likely win the presidency. She'll be a good president, just as Obama has been. But until she is nominated, I'm supporting Bernie. (Now, I've ditched the campaign, as I couldn't stand the misogyny from those involved. But I'm one hell of a small donater and Facebook liker.)
posted by persona au gratin at 12:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]
Hillary will most likely win the presidency. She'll be a good president, just as Obama has been. But until she is nominated, I'm supporting Bernie. (Now, I've ditched the campaign, as I couldn't stand the misogyny from those involved. But I'm one hell of a small donater and Facebook liker.)
posted by persona au gratin at 12:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]
With 99.94% reporting and only 1 precinct outstanding in the entire state, in a Sanders-friendly section of Des Moines, precinct 42:
The race is at:
Hillary Clinton
49.89%
Bernie Sanders
49.54%
It is now safe to say that Hillary Clinton has won the Iowa Caucus, the first woman to have done so in U.S. history.
posted by markkraft at 12:44 AM on February 2, 2016
The race is at:
Hillary Clinton
49.89%
Bernie Sanders
49.54%
It is now safe to say that Hillary Clinton has won the Iowa Caucus, the first woman to have done so in U.S. history.
posted by markkraft at 12:44 AM on February 2, 2016
It is now safe to wonder why some Clinton supporters are declaring historic victories, when, given the conventional wisdom repeated ad nauseum for months past, she should have won this by a much larger margin. Sound kinda Pyrrhic to me.
posted by CincyBlues at 1:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by CincyBlues at 1:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
So, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton tied in Iowa.
Assuming the computers are trustworthy, she is in trouble. There's no way she can move left, and now Bernie has shown that it's a real contest. I think it hinges on the ground game in South Carolina. ( if the tabulating computers can be trusted, though with my background in auditing, that's a big if, so at the end of the day, I expect the status quo to continue...)
posted by mikelieman at 1:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Assuming the computers are trustworthy, she is in trouble. There's no way she can move left, and now Bernie has shown that it's a real contest. I think it hinges on the ground game in South Carolina. ( if the tabulating computers can be trusted, though with my background in auditing, that's a big if, so at the end of the day, I expect the status quo to continue...)
posted by mikelieman at 1:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
NPR is reporting:
Hillary Clinton has won the Iowa caucuses, according to the Iowa Democratic Party.
Clinton: 699.57
Sanders: 695.49
Outstanding: 2.28
posted by markkraft at 1:42 AM on February 2, 2016
Hillary Clinton has won the Iowa caucuses, according to the Iowa Democratic Party.
Clinton: 699.57
Sanders: 695.49
Outstanding: 2.28
posted by markkraft at 1:42 AM on February 2, 2016
Throwback Thursday Tuesday, from my 2012 GOP Iowa caucus post:
posted by Rhaomi at 1:50 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
"...perennial laughingstock Rick Santorum [...] with 99% of the vote counted, is separated from Mitt Romney by four votes out of ~120,000 -- by far the closest result in caucus history. "Of course, Santorum ended up winning the finalized count, so there's still (symbolic) hope for Sanders yet. Also, it will be interesting to see if the party releases the raw vote totals as the Sanders campaign has been demanding -- caucus math advantages Clinton's more even geographical support vs. Sanders' college town strength, so he may have actually won the popular vote after all.
posted by Rhaomi at 1:50 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I find it an interesting side effect of majority rule that a finish this close can be said to have a winner and loser:
Hillary Clinton
49.89%
Bernie Sanders
49.54%
Clinton: 699.57
Sanders: 695.49
Outstanding: 2.28
I suppose in a way it's not that different from a runner who wins a race by a tenth of a second, but on the other hand we're talking about governance and representing the will of the people, and so forth.
posted by not that girl at 3:58 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hillary Clinton
49.89%
Bernie Sanders
49.54%
Clinton: 699.57
Sanders: 695.49
Outstanding: 2.28
I suppose in a way it's not that different from a runner who wins a race by a tenth of a second, but on the other hand we're talking about governance and representing the will of the people, and so forth.
posted by not that girl at 3:58 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think Clinton can work with this result. Now she can claim the underdog spot which is a really useful media narrative.
posted by betsybetsy at 4:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by betsybetsy at 4:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
How can she claim the victory spot (as she did long before the count was over) and the underdog spot at the same time? Oh, wait, this is politics...
posted by tommyD at 4:18 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by tommyD at 4:18 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
Maybe experience is overrated.
posted by dw at 2:52 AM on February 2
It is. For Republicans who don't remember what they didn't like about Obama during his first campaign.
posted by emelenjr at 4:30 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by dw at 2:52 AM on February 2
It is. For Republicans who don't remember what they didn't like about Obama during his first campaign.
posted by emelenjr at 4:30 AM on February 2, 2016
caucus math advantages Clinton's more even geographical support vs. Sanders' college town strength, so he may have actually won the popular vote
Yeah, it looks based on the results that Sanders did win the popular vote (and would likely have won it more handily if there weren't such a huge time barrier to entry). Clinton and the Democratic Party leadership NEED to tap into that stream of younger, more leftist supporters for the general and for elections beyond 2016. That is going to mean, I think, some changes that will be hard.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:45 AM on February 2, 2016
Yeah, it looks based on the results that Sanders did win the popular vote (and would likely have won it more handily if there weren't such a huge time barrier to entry). Clinton and the Democratic Party leadership NEED to tap into that stream of younger, more leftist supporters for the general and for elections beyond 2016. That is going to mean, I think, some changes that will be hard.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:45 AM on February 2, 2016
How can she claim the victory spot (as she did long before the count was over) and the underdog spot at the same time? Oh, wait, this is politics...
She can't even claim victory this morning. The press won't call the race for her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
She can't even claim victory this morning. The press won't call the race for her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's my perspective, coming from someone who likes both Democratic candidates and loathes all the Republican candidates.
On the Democratic side, in terms of narrative, Iowa can credibly be painted as a good thing by both Clinton and Sanders. Clinton because she actually won, Sanders because he did better than predicted, so both can claim they came out looking good. (O'Malley is, of course, now out of it.)
By actual, strict numbers, of course, it was effectively a tie. This is, I think, probably better news than Clinton than it is for Sanders; Iowa is one of the states where he had the best chance of doing well. If things play out like this in the rest of the states, with Sanders doing better than his current polling by about this much, Clinton will take it.
Of course, that isn't necessarily the way it will play out. If Sanders wins in New Hampshire, as expected, there's then a long pause between that and Nevada / South Carolina / Super Tuesday. A tie plus a win will keep him a credible candidate during that period, which will keep wavering voters from abandoning him and give him the chance to make a case. Win/win would have been even stronger, but tie/win isn't nothing. (Of course, he hasn't won in New Hampshire yet, and Clinton performed better than expectations there four years ago, but I'm pretty comfortable saying he'll probably win it.)
Nonetheless, I'd still give the edge at this point to Clinton. Sanders needs to get his numbers up quite a bit to come out the other side of Super Tuesday still in this. While that's possible, it's an uphill climb.
On the Republican side, the ones who can spin this into a narrative victory are Cruz and Rubio. Rubio performed better than expectations, and Cruz performed better than expectations and won. Trump underperformed and didn't win. (And the rest of the candidates are at this point either out of it or irrelevant.)
I suspect what's going on is that anti-Trump voters are being spurred to come out; my guess would be Evangelicals who don't think Trump is really with them are leaning to Cruz, and anybody-but-Trump people went to Rubio, but possibly also to Cruz as well since he looked like the most credible alternative. Which means that now that Rubio has put in a credible showing, he *might* continue to gain some of those as people who hate Trump but aren't thrilled with Cruz move his way. This is, of course, an overly simplistic narrative, since ground game is very important in Iowa and supposedly Cruz's was good and Trump's was practically nonexistent.
However, in real numbers, Trump came in second, meaning he's realistically still a force in the race -- especially if ground game was a big factor, because Cruz isn't going to have that ground game advantage in every state. If a considerable number of people are going to Trump when his opponent has a big tactical advantage, those numbers might go up when his opponents don't.
I suspect New Hampshire is going to be pretty important here. If Trump wins, even if not by a lot, he's still in it strongly and still looks like the likely winner. If Trump underperforms again and doesn't win, he starts to look like a paper tiger with poll numbers that don't reflect his actual popularity, and then has a few weeks to explain why he's a winner who can't win anything. Cruz winning would make him start to look like the popular choice, but the Iowa win means he's still in it even if he doesn't. Rubio outperforming his current poll numbers again keeps him in as a candidate that could be rallied around down the line, and if he wins it then it starts to look like a Rubio vs. Cruz battle.
It's still a three-person race on the Republican side, but I'd give Trump a little bit of an edge; I think he's most likely to take New Hampshire and come out swinging again. But if he doesn't, the race suddenly looks very different.
posted by kyrademon at 4:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
On the Democratic side, in terms of narrative, Iowa can credibly be painted as a good thing by both Clinton and Sanders. Clinton because she actually won, Sanders because he did better than predicted, so both can claim they came out looking good. (O'Malley is, of course, now out of it.)
By actual, strict numbers, of course, it was effectively a tie. This is, I think, probably better news than Clinton than it is for Sanders; Iowa is one of the states where he had the best chance of doing well. If things play out like this in the rest of the states, with Sanders doing better than his current polling by about this much, Clinton will take it.
Of course, that isn't necessarily the way it will play out. If Sanders wins in New Hampshire, as expected, there's then a long pause between that and Nevada / South Carolina / Super Tuesday. A tie plus a win will keep him a credible candidate during that period, which will keep wavering voters from abandoning him and give him the chance to make a case. Win/win would have been even stronger, but tie/win isn't nothing. (Of course, he hasn't won in New Hampshire yet, and Clinton performed better than expectations there four years ago, but I'm pretty comfortable saying he'll probably win it.)
Nonetheless, I'd still give the edge at this point to Clinton. Sanders needs to get his numbers up quite a bit to come out the other side of Super Tuesday still in this. While that's possible, it's an uphill climb.
On the Republican side, the ones who can spin this into a narrative victory are Cruz and Rubio. Rubio performed better than expectations, and Cruz performed better than expectations and won. Trump underperformed and didn't win. (And the rest of the candidates are at this point either out of it or irrelevant.)
I suspect what's going on is that anti-Trump voters are being spurred to come out; my guess would be Evangelicals who don't think Trump is really with them are leaning to Cruz, and anybody-but-Trump people went to Rubio, but possibly also to Cruz as well since he looked like the most credible alternative. Which means that now that Rubio has put in a credible showing, he *might* continue to gain some of those as people who hate Trump but aren't thrilled with Cruz move his way. This is, of course, an overly simplistic narrative, since ground game is very important in Iowa and supposedly Cruz's was good and Trump's was practically nonexistent.
However, in real numbers, Trump came in second, meaning he's realistically still a force in the race -- especially if ground game was a big factor, because Cruz isn't going to have that ground game advantage in every state. If a considerable number of people are going to Trump when his opponent has a big tactical advantage, those numbers might go up when his opponents don't.
I suspect New Hampshire is going to be pretty important here. If Trump wins, even if not by a lot, he's still in it strongly and still looks like the likely winner. If Trump underperforms again and doesn't win, he starts to look like a paper tiger with poll numbers that don't reflect his actual popularity, and then has a few weeks to explain why he's a winner who can't win anything. Cruz winning would make him start to look like the popular choice, but the Iowa win means he's still in it even if he doesn't. Rubio outperforming his current poll numbers again keeps him in as a candidate that could be rallied around down the line, and if he wins it then it starts to look like a Rubio vs. Cruz battle.
It's still a three-person race on the Republican side, but I'd give Trump a little bit of an edge; I think he's most likely to take New Hampshire and come out swinging again. But if he doesn't, the race suddenly looks very different.
posted by kyrademon at 4:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
It was an interesting night.
It answered the question, "does Trump need a real GOTV effort and other conventional campaign tools?" with a resounding "yes". The happiest people today are the ground game consultants who aren't committed to Cruz or Rubio; they were worried about becoming unemployment, but Trump is about to back dump trucks full of money to their houses.
It also made very clear that Sanders, if anything, under-polls and that his support is not old white hippies but broad. Clinton is in real trouble -- New Hampshire won't bail her out like in 2008. Her next moves are going to be a real test of her character and creativity as we roll into states with a much less educated much more variable turnout propensity Democratic electorate.
I also want to observe about general elections that people turn out because they want to vote FOR someone not AGAINST someone. I worked very similar electoral districts in 2004 and 2008. Among Democrats, there was no one who disliked McCain more than they had disliked Bush, the difference was they loved Obama and were blah about Kerry. Among Republicans, the opposite. In 2004 at least, Bush was their boy -- strong feelings of affinity for religious or cultural reasons, lingering post-9/11 leadership admiration, etc. McCain 2008 -- blah: no affinity for social conservatives, a squish to economic conservatives and strong partisans.
posted by MattD at 4:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
It answered the question, "does Trump need a real GOTV effort and other conventional campaign tools?" with a resounding "yes". The happiest people today are the ground game consultants who aren't committed to Cruz or Rubio; they were worried about becoming unemployment, but Trump is about to back dump trucks full of money to their houses.
It also made very clear that Sanders, if anything, under-polls and that his support is not old white hippies but broad. Clinton is in real trouble -- New Hampshire won't bail her out like in 2008. Her next moves are going to be a real test of her character and creativity as we roll into states with a much less educated much more variable turnout propensity Democratic electorate.
I also want to observe about general elections that people turn out because they want to vote FOR someone not AGAINST someone. I worked very similar electoral districts in 2004 and 2008. Among Democrats, there was no one who disliked McCain more than they had disliked Bush, the difference was they loved Obama and were blah about Kerry. Among Republicans, the opposite. In 2004 at least, Bush was their boy -- strong feelings of affinity for religious or cultural reasons, lingering post-9/11 leadership admiration, etc. McCain 2008 -- blah: no affinity for social conservatives, a squish to economic conservatives and strong partisans.
posted by MattD at 4:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
I don't think New Hampshire is a huge problem for Clinton. She is largely expected to lose by a large margin. The real tests will be in the Nevada caucus and then South Carolina.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:02 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:02 AM on February 2, 2016
Don't often find myself agreeing with Ezra Klein, but agree with this:
If the caucus results ended in a tie between Sanders and Clinton, then the speeches turned the night into a win for Sanders — he made a detailed, thorough case for his candidacy in a way Clinton simply didn't. His speech felt like Obama's primary-night speeches in 2008. Clinton's felt like, well, Clinton's primary-night speeches in 2008.
From: Bernie Sanders's tie should be the biggest story of the Iowa caucuses
posted by mediareport at 5:36 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
If the caucus results ended in a tie between Sanders and Clinton, then the speeches turned the night into a win for Sanders — he made a detailed, thorough case for his candidacy in a way Clinton simply didn't. His speech felt like Obama's primary-night speeches in 2008. Clinton's felt like, well, Clinton's primary-night speeches in 2008.
From: Bernie Sanders's tie should be the biggest story of the Iowa caucuses
posted by mediareport at 5:36 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
According to the entrance polls, which wrongly predicted a Clinton victory, Sanders got eighty-six per cent of the Democratic vote in the seventeen-to-twenty-four age group, eighty-one per cent in the twenty-five-to-twenty-nine group, and sixty-five per cent in the thirty-to-thirty-nine age group.
posted by bukvich at 5:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by bukvich at 5:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Ezra Klein also mentioned on Twitter last night that he has come to believe that if Warren had entered the race, she would have been the eventual nominee. I think that's probably true. Sanders has shown that there is strong appeal from a the genuinely liberal wing of the party. Warren would have had most of his advantages, plus she's younger, had more name recognition, and doesn't have whatever (negligible) baggage the "socialist" label brings. Given the surprising strength of the Sanders campaign, the counterfactuals are interesting.
Regardless, I think a hotly contest primary is going to be a good thing for the Democrats, whoever the nominee will be. Close contests and an interesting race will keep the candidates in the media spotlight and get their supporters engaged in the process early. It certainly had that effect in 2008.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:48 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Regardless, I think a hotly contest primary is going to be a good thing for the Democrats, whoever the nominee will be. Close contests and an interesting race will keep the candidates in the media spotlight and get their supporters engaged in the process early. It certainly had that effect in 2008.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:48 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
"poll numbers that don't reflect his actual popularity"
I've long suspected that the things people say when questioned by a pollster bear almost no relation to how they end up voting.
A pollster's question carries no consequences whatsoever, amounting simply to an invitation to shoot your mouth off in whatever amusing or cathartic way takes your fancy. Actual votes carry actual consequences, so people take that decision much more seriously - and may reach a very different conclusion as a result.
Pollsters are reluctant to consider this charge for the obvious reason that it would undermine their whole operation. Journalists are equally reluctant to consider it because polls provide such a useful source of copy. Tempting as it is to be seduced by the excitement and hype polls generate, though, we'd all do well to remember that their predictive power is severely limited.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:51 AM on February 2, 2016
I've long suspected that the things people say when questioned by a pollster bear almost no relation to how they end up voting.
A pollster's question carries no consequences whatsoever, amounting simply to an invitation to shoot your mouth off in whatever amusing or cathartic way takes your fancy. Actual votes carry actual consequences, so people take that decision much more seriously - and may reach a very different conclusion as a result.
Pollsters are reluctant to consider this charge for the obvious reason that it would undermine their whole operation. Journalists are equally reluctant to consider it because polls provide such a useful source of copy. Tempting as it is to be seduced by the excitement and hype polls generate, though, we'd all do well to remember that their predictive power is severely limited.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:51 AM on February 2, 2016
At this point I have to say that I really hope Bernie refrains from getting on any small planes.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 5:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 5:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
any fun press headlines re trump? the guardian had "the ego has landed" last night as a sub-heading (not sure that works for americans - "the eagle has landed" was a popular thriller in the uk, at least, back in the day).
posted by andrewcooke at 5:58 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 5:58 AM on February 2, 2016
"The Eagle has landed" is well know to Americans, since it is a quote from Neil Armstrong at the first moon landing.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
oh god i feel dumb. right.
posted by andrewcooke at 6:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by andrewcooke at 6:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
No matter who eventually wins the nomination, I think Sanders will have moved the conversation leftward (within the Democratic Party, anyway), and that is a Good Thing.
I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever they are, because I don't want a Republican choosing Supreme Court Justices.
All that said, I would like to see Sanders get the nomination, because I honestly believe the country would benefit from the national discussion being about single payer and unions and minimum wage increases vice gay marriage destroying hetero marriage, planned parenthood selling baby parts and all those damned immigrants stealing jobs.
posted by Mooski at 6:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever they are, because I don't want a Republican choosing Supreme Court Justices.
All that said, I would like to see Sanders get the nomination, because I honestly believe the country would benefit from the national discussion being about single payer and unions and minimum wage increases vice gay marriage destroying hetero marriage, planned parenthood selling baby parts and all those damned immigrants stealing jobs.
posted by Mooski at 6:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
Pater, I think we need Warren, and more like her, in the Senate, where she's been for a whopping two whole years. It's partly my state's horrible experience with John Edwards talking, but I'm totally soured on one-term senators with presidential ambitions that can't wait. Warren is making the smart long-term move by not running, and is exactly where the USA needs her to be for the foreseeable future.
We need the Senate back this year. If we get that, then even a frothing lunatic like Rubio will only be able to do so much damage.
posted by mediareport at 6:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
We need the Senate back this year. If we get that, then even a frothing lunatic like Rubio will only be able to do so much damage.
posted by mediareport at 6:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
any fun press headlines re trump?
Well, there is the New York Daily News, might be too subtle though.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, there is the New York Daily News, might be too subtle though.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ya gotta love that Trump's twitter account has been oddly silent since 7:34 last night. Might be the longest stretch of no tweets in a while for the schmuck.
posted by mediareport at 6:06 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by mediareport at 6:06 AM on February 2, 2016
James Lyden on Twitter re Trump:
@mtaibbi I love how it's gone from "we've never seen anything like this!" to "Oh, right. He's Pat Buchanan, but orange."posted by graymouser at 6:07 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
Seriously: Bernie supporters. You have a shot at winning this thing, but you need to stop using totally misogynistic language about Hillary, and you need to stop implying that black and Latino people support her because they're stupid/ uneducated/ swayed by "favors." If something sounds like it could be said by a Republican front-runner, pause and think for a minute before you say it. If you would like people to support your candidate, do not try to convince them by insulting them.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:10 AM on February 2, 2016 [44 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:10 AM on February 2, 2016 [44 favorites]
(oops, Warren's been in the Senate for 3 years now, not 2)
posted by mediareport at 6:14 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by mediareport at 6:14 AM on February 2, 2016
Mod note: A few comments deleted. Please a) flag dumb comments, b) refresh the thread before responding to dumb comments. As asked earlier, "please knock it off with the cutesy-snide nicknames," and this includes all the not-so-clever "evil woman" insulting cliches for Clinton. We're seriously not doing this.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 6:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
This piece at The Baffler about the erasure of the left feminist critique of Hillary (and the erasure of left feminist women from the "Berniebros" discussion in general), linked early in this thread, is probably worth linking again.
posted by mediareport at 6:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 6:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [17 favorites]
This was a win for Clinton, because, well... it *was*, in fact, a win.
If she had lost, then the argument that Sanders' people had that their success would get the superdelegates to change their support might have traction... but those superdelegates are all longtime Democratic Party members, many of whom have a strong history with the Clintons, and most of whom have no love lost for Sanders, who has spent most of his career badmouthing them. If they have a good excuse for voting for Hillary, they will take it... and by not winning last night, Bernie gave it to them. And while a 23-22 delegate difference doesn't matter much, 30-22 absolutely does. Making up those kind of deficits without a reliable pool of superdelegates will be HARD, especially without the demographic advantages that Obama had.
People will come to see the race as it really is -- a battle for delegates -- and that is one framing of the race that Sanders has already lost.
New Hampshire is Bernie's back yard, and Hillary will handle expectations appropriately. She might even exceed expectations, just like she did in '08... though not enough to win, most likely.
Pollsters like Nate Silver have made it pretty clear that New Hampshire comes only second to Vermont as far as states he should have a demographic advantage in.
The real battle is in Nevada and South Carolina... and I think it's very likely Sanders has already lost South Carolina. Why? Well, for one, you would have had to already register to vote in the primary. Sanders just doesn't have his ground game there up to speed yet, while Clinton has really consolidated her support, which means that most of those who have registered are likely Clinton supporters, many of whom can already cast their ballots... and absentee voting is especially easy to do if you are over 65. For many South Carolina voters, this will be the narrative many will have paid attention to before they cast their ballot... not New Jersey, and not necessarily even Iowa. Certainly, most will vote later, but not enough to prevent a substantial percent of the vote locking in at a 25 point margin for Clinton.
I saw the same thing in '08 in California, where Obama was leading by five points in the polls, only to lose by about 8. All the evidence suggested more people went out to vote for Obama on the day of the election, but the winning majority was already banked with voting intentions set before weeks of hard campaigning. This is why Clinton actually won the popular vote in the '08 primaries, despite losing the delegate count.
Nevada is a caucus and Bernie's best chance to rewrite the narrative somewhat... but South Carolina will be the defining race going into the South in Super Tuesday, and I don't personally see how he can change it enough to beat expectations. Rather, he will likely see the polls tighten somewhat before the race, only to underperform the polls due to early voting... and that will definitely impact how the press views things going into Super Tuesday.
posted by markkraft at 6:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
If she had lost, then the argument that Sanders' people had that their success would get the superdelegates to change their support might have traction... but those superdelegates are all longtime Democratic Party members, many of whom have a strong history with the Clintons, and most of whom have no love lost for Sanders, who has spent most of his career badmouthing them. If they have a good excuse for voting for Hillary, they will take it... and by not winning last night, Bernie gave it to them. And while a 23-22 delegate difference doesn't matter much, 30-22 absolutely does. Making up those kind of deficits without a reliable pool of superdelegates will be HARD, especially without the demographic advantages that Obama had.
People will come to see the race as it really is -- a battle for delegates -- and that is one framing of the race that Sanders has already lost.
New Hampshire is Bernie's back yard, and Hillary will handle expectations appropriately. She might even exceed expectations, just like she did in '08... though not enough to win, most likely.
Pollsters like Nate Silver have made it pretty clear that New Hampshire comes only second to Vermont as far as states he should have a demographic advantage in.
The real battle is in Nevada and South Carolina... and I think it's very likely Sanders has already lost South Carolina. Why? Well, for one, you would have had to already register to vote in the primary. Sanders just doesn't have his ground game there up to speed yet, while Clinton has really consolidated her support, which means that most of those who have registered are likely Clinton supporters, many of whom can already cast their ballots... and absentee voting is especially easy to do if you are over 65. For many South Carolina voters, this will be the narrative many will have paid attention to before they cast their ballot... not New Jersey, and not necessarily even Iowa. Certainly, most will vote later, but not enough to prevent a substantial percent of the vote locking in at a 25 point margin for Clinton.
I saw the same thing in '08 in California, where Obama was leading by five points in the polls, only to lose by about 8. All the evidence suggested more people went out to vote for Obama on the day of the election, but the winning majority was already banked with voting intentions set before weeks of hard campaigning. This is why Clinton actually won the popular vote in the '08 primaries, despite losing the delegate count.
Nevada is a caucus and Bernie's best chance to rewrite the narrative somewhat... but South Carolina will be the defining race going into the South in Super Tuesday, and I don't personally see how he can change it enough to beat expectations. Rather, he will likely see the polls tighten somewhat before the race, only to underperform the polls due to early voting... and that will definitely impact how the press views things going into Super Tuesday.
posted by markkraft at 6:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
re: the coin toss: It turns out money decides elections after all. #IowaCaucus
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:32 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:32 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
So Hillary wins if she beats expectations but loses NH, but Bernie loses if he beats expectations but virtually ties IA?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:33 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:33 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'm not all that convinced that Bernie supporters will vote for Ms. Clinton in November. It'll be very interesting to see what happens if this trajectory continues.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Clinton internals should be seriously worrying:
And the results showed again that she is failing to inspire young voters, who have to come out in large number for a Democrat to win the presidency. In polls, she lost 18 to 29 year old voters to Sanders by 84 to 13 percent. Clinton also displayed continuing weakness in connecting with voters. The quarter of Democratic voters who want a candidate who “cares about people like you” preferred Sanders by three to one. Those who wanted a candidate who was “honest and trustworthy” preferred Sanders by 82 to 11 percent. These kind of concerns could plague Clinton in the general election.
Bernie has ALL of the youth vote, and Clinton is running a tired looking and expectant version of her 2008 campaign. There's only one thing that matters on the Democratic side, how many marginal voters can you drive to the polls through Republican suppression efforts? If Marco Rubio pulls out the Republican nomination, she's going to be in real trouble. The Republicans are fired up to vote against Obama, regain unified control, and implement their 100-days doomsday agenda once and for all. Clinton right now is not inspiring anything like what she needs to drive turnout against that, all the enthusiasm is for Bernie, who would need to face Trump or Cruz to have a realistic chance.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]
And the results showed again that she is failing to inspire young voters, who have to come out in large number for a Democrat to win the presidency. In polls, she lost 18 to 29 year old voters to Sanders by 84 to 13 percent. Clinton also displayed continuing weakness in connecting with voters. The quarter of Democratic voters who want a candidate who “cares about people like you” preferred Sanders by three to one. Those who wanted a candidate who was “honest and trustworthy” preferred Sanders by 82 to 11 percent. These kind of concerns could plague Clinton in the general election.
Bernie has ALL of the youth vote, and Clinton is running a tired looking and expectant version of her 2008 campaign. There's only one thing that matters on the Democratic side, how many marginal voters can you drive to the polls through Republican suppression efforts? If Marco Rubio pulls out the Republican nomination, she's going to be in real trouble. The Republicans are fired up to vote against Obama, regain unified control, and implement their 100-days doomsday agenda once and for all. Clinton right now is not inspiring anything like what she needs to drive turnout against that, all the enthusiasm is for Bernie, who would need to face Trump or Cruz to have a realistic chance.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]
I'm changing my mind on the caucuses being a cool thing and putting them in the category of a bunch of shit. And not because my candidate "lost" but because the process is fucked.
Last night in my precinct Iowa for Bernie Sanders had 219 votes to Hillary's 180. There were 8 delegates up for grabs so you needed 60 votes to be viable. This meant Sanders got 4.1 delegates to Hillary's 3.9, but since you can't split delegates you round up for her and down for him. Everyone goes home with a trophy.
You also had over 400 people jammed in a grade school auditorium, and once the process started the Sanders supporters were made to go into the hall. It was stifling hot out there and no on could hear shit. When it came time to do the realignment they would only allow the Sanders "representatives" back in the room to try to sway the Clinton and O'Malley supporters.
I complained that they should be made to leave the room as well, and if they wanted to return that was fine, but by having them all stay in the Hillary room they would become default Hillary supporters. The guy running the show said I was th only one complaining (until others complained), then he made an announcement, "Tell it to the Bernie supporter in the hall that just chewed my ass." I didn't chew his ass. I pointed out something that seemed unfair.
Then after I asked for the actual vote numbers, "Why, are you reporting them for someone?" I said it was for my own edification (I use big words like that). And he rattled off the above, and said I was "welcome to his fucking job" if I wanted it.
So the way I see it Sanders resoundingly trounced Clinton in our precinct, but she goes home with the same prize. Buncha shit. It's like those 40 people don't count (or at least their votes don't).
Then this: Iowa caucus: Hillary Clinton won six delegates by coin toss
By the way, the chances of one candidate winning all 6 coin tosses is about 1.5%.
So now, when Bernie says they more or less tied he fucking means it. I'd love to know how much she and her super PACs outspent Sander's on ad buys in Iowa. Good luck in New Hampshire, Hillary. You're gonna need it.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [36 favorites]
Last night in my precinct Iowa for Bernie Sanders had 219 votes to Hillary's 180. There were 8 delegates up for grabs so you needed 60 votes to be viable. This meant Sanders got 4.1 delegates to Hillary's 3.9, but since you can't split delegates you round up for her and down for him. Everyone goes home with a trophy.
You also had over 400 people jammed in a grade school auditorium, and once the process started the Sanders supporters were made to go into the hall. It was stifling hot out there and no on could hear shit. When it came time to do the realignment they would only allow the Sanders "representatives" back in the room to try to sway the Clinton and O'Malley supporters.
I complained that they should be made to leave the room as well, and if they wanted to return that was fine, but by having them all stay in the Hillary room they would become default Hillary supporters. The guy running the show said I was th only one complaining (until others complained), then he made an announcement, "Tell it to the Bernie supporter in the hall that just chewed my ass." I didn't chew his ass. I pointed out something that seemed unfair.
Then after I asked for the actual vote numbers, "Why, are you reporting them for someone?" I said it was for my own edification (I use big words like that). And he rattled off the above, and said I was "welcome to his fucking job" if I wanted it.
So the way I see it Sanders resoundingly trounced Clinton in our precinct, but she goes home with the same prize. Buncha shit. It's like those 40 people don't count (or at least their votes don't).
Then this: Iowa caucus: Hillary Clinton won six delegates by coin toss
By the way, the chances of one candidate winning all 6 coin tosses is about 1.5%.
So now, when Bernie says they more or less tied he fucking means it. I'd love to know how much she and her super PACs outspent Sander's on ad buys in Iowa. Good luck in New Hampshire, Hillary. You're gonna need it.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [36 favorites]
The problem with the "Bernie Bros are a media construction" narrative is that anyone on social media encounters a lot of racism and misogyny from Bernie supporters. The only way to deny that is to gaslight a whole lot of women and PoC who aren't having it.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:37 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
So Hillary wins if she beats expectations but loses NH, but Bernie loses if he beats expectations but virtually ties IA?No, Bernie clearly won this one. It's not clear whether his win is enough to overcome his disadvantages on the national stage.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:37 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
"Bernie has ALL of the youth vote,"
... in Iowa, which is hardly an indicator for other states.
posted by markkraft at 6:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
... in Iowa, which is hardly an indicator for other states.
posted by markkraft at 6:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I just talked to my housemate yesterday, who is a black Bernie supporter... and *she* complained about the Bernie bros. They are, in fact, a real thing.
posted by markkraft at 6:40 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by markkraft at 6:40 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think Clinton's numbers with people under 40 are pretty bad nationwide. We are up for grabs if she is the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:40 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:40 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Hillary becomes President she should issue a commemorative Iowa caucus quarter with her head on both sides.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 6:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [36 favorites]
Arbitrary, I'd never say that Berniebros are solely a media construction. But I do think this, from that link I posted, is a point worth taking seriously:
The left feminist critique of Hillary Clinton is being intentionally ignored by high-profile feminists because its very existence contradicts a thesis they hold dear: that criticism of Hillary Clinton—even from the left—is primarily the domain of misogynistic men who hate to see a strong woman succeed.
posted by mediareport at 6:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
The left feminist critique of Hillary Clinton is being intentionally ignored by high-profile feminists because its very existence contradicts a thesis they hold dear: that criticism of Hillary Clinton—even from the left—is primarily the domain of misogynistic men who hate to see a strong woman succeed.
posted by mediareport at 6:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
Sanders was outspending Clinton on ad buys in Iowa. (Two weeks old, I don't have a link to the final results) Sanders has been doing quite well with money. He is a political outsider, but not a shoestring budget sort of guy. Also, the Republicans have been spending huge amounts in anti-Hillary propaganda which helps Sanders.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
The ‘Bernie Bro’ is a Media Myth
It’s been widely-reported that millennials make up the bulk of Sanders’ base. But the truth is, most polls reflect that the majority of Bernie’s millennial support is actually young women. Bernie is even beating out the former First Lady for their support, enjoying a 20 percent lead among women between 18 and 35 years old over Hillary Clinton.posted by flex at 6:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]
Compare this to his lead among young men, where Sen. Sanders is only beating Hillary Clinton by four percentage points – barely outside the margin of error. Based on these numbers, a young male is actually more likely to support Clinton than a young woman, and her male support is the only thing keeping Clinton’s millennial numbers from being a total disaster...
One reddit user, who identifies herself as a woman of color, explains the Bernie Bro phenomenon as “just basic statistics — There are more young people who support Bernie. More young people use the Internet. So the likelihood of you bumping into a rude Bernie supporter is greater than the likelihood you’ll bump into a Hillary one. Why is it so hard to understand this…”"
Sanders and Clinton are fighting over two different things. Clinton REALLY wants to be President, and Sanders wants to fundamentally after the soul of the Democratic Party.
These goals are not mutually exclusive. I see a future with a drawn out primary fight, where Clinton racks up delegate but Sanders message continues to resonate. So much so, that by the convention the party knows that if they want to win (and Clinton REALLY wants to be president) they'll have to offer some big things to ensure turnout of the young voters.
It's usually ignored, but the party platform could be a huge deal this year. With the die hard Sanders delegates in the convention and a general population finally educated and engaged on true democratic socialism, it's a real possibility that Sanders loses the battle for the Presidency but wins the war for the party's future.
posted by Glibpaxman at 6:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [48 favorites]
These goals are not mutually exclusive. I see a future with a drawn out primary fight, where Clinton racks up delegate but Sanders message continues to resonate. So much so, that by the convention the party knows that if they want to win (and Clinton REALLY wants to be president) they'll have to offer some big things to ensure turnout of the young voters.
It's usually ignored, but the party platform could be a huge deal this year. With the die hard Sanders delegates in the convention and a general population finally educated and engaged on true democratic socialism, it's a real possibility that Sanders loses the battle for the Presidency but wins the war for the party's future.
posted by Glibpaxman at 6:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [48 favorites]
... in Iowa, which is hardly an indicator for other states.
and
Sanders was outspending Clinton on ad buys in Iowa
See, told you that's what the "loser" would say.
posted by eriko at 6:50 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
and
Sanders was outspending Clinton on ad buys in Iowa
See, told you that's what the "loser" would say.
posted by eriko at 6:50 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
So Hillary wins if she beats expectations but loses NH, but Bernie loses if he beats expectations but virtually ties IA?
Kind of, I think? I mean, the superdelegates mean that if the actual caucus-goers and primary voters remain more or less 50-50 split between the two, or even if Sanders has a slight lead (as he may have had in the popular vote at the caucus), Clinton still has more than enough to secure the nomination. So there's a certain heads-I-win-tails-you-lose quality to the whole business.
For my part, I wasn't caucusing for Sanders because I thought he could realistically win the nomination; I caucused for Sanders because I wanted his message to remain part of the election for as long as possible, and Glibpaxman's scenario is basically what I'm hoping will happen.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 6:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kind of, I think? I mean, the superdelegates mean that if the actual caucus-goers and primary voters remain more or less 50-50 split between the two, or even if Sanders has a slight lead (as he may have had in the popular vote at the caucus), Clinton still has more than enough to secure the nomination. So there's a certain heads-I-win-tails-you-lose quality to the whole business.
For my part, I wasn't caucusing for Sanders because I thought he could realistically win the nomination; I caucused for Sanders because I wanted his message to remain part of the election for as long as possible, and Glibpaxman's scenario is basically what I'm hoping will happen.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 6:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
S.C. Rep. Bamberg to switch endorsement from Clinton to Sanders (1/25/2016)
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by audi alteram partem at 6:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think it's better to think of the race without really considering the superdelegates. Any election they tip against the will of the people would lead to some supporters of the opponent really not showing up.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
My reading of the 2008 election is that Clinton had a superdelegate advantage but some of them (enough) shifted allegiance to Obama after he started showing viability in caucuses and primaries. Is that impossible in 2016?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
... in Iowa, which is hardly an indicator for other states.+
If you think she's doing appreciably better with voters 18-29 elsewhere I'd love to see the numbers. All signs point to a huge age gap, with older Dems for Clinton and voters under 30 massively in favor of Bernie. That's a REAL problem when she's going to have to rely on reforming the Obama coalition to win, especially with Rubio doing at least somewhat better with Latinos.
I think Clinton is setting up to blow it. This may be a great opportunity for a unity ticket, she needs SOMETHING to inspire youth turnout if indeed she secures the nomination. Hilary Clinton 2008 transported to 2016 is not going to do it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:57 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you think she's doing appreciably better with voters 18-29 elsewhere I'd love to see the numbers. All signs point to a huge age gap, with older Dems for Clinton and voters under 30 massively in favor of Bernie. That's a REAL problem when she's going to have to rely on reforming the Obama coalition to win, especially with Rubio doing at least somewhat better with Latinos.
I think Clinton is setting up to blow it. This may be a great opportunity for a unity ticket, she needs SOMETHING to inspire youth turnout if indeed she secures the nomination. Hilary Clinton 2008 transported to 2016 is not going to do it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:57 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
There are structural issues that support Sanders in NH and structural issues that support Clinton in regards to other primary and caucuses. The question mark is whether Sanders can take momentum from this tie and grow a GOTV organization equivalent to Obama 08 in a couple of months. Personally I think that is an uphill climb but still possible but I think it relies on Clinton 16 being as somnolence as clinton 08. If that proves true then she deserves to lose.
posted by vuron at 6:58 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by vuron at 6:58 AM on February 2, 2016
I hope I will get apologies from my friends who made fun of me for saying it was ridiculous to fear Trump as President.
posted by agregoli at 6:58 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by agregoli at 6:58 AM on February 2, 2016
There's not a contradiction there, though; criticism of Clinton- even from the left- can be primarily the domain of misogynistic men, while not being entirely the domain of misogynistic men. They both exist, but the misogynist criticism is being considered more important; #notallcriticism and all that.
This can be frustrating if you think the non-misogynist criticism should be taken more seriously on its own merits. It happens all the time- shitty criticism inures people to constructive criticism.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 6:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
This can be frustrating if you think the non-misogynist criticism should be taken more seriously on its own merits. It happens all the time- shitty criticism inures people to constructive criticism.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 6:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think it's better to think of the race without really considering the superdelegates. Any election they tip against the will of the people would lead to some supporters of the opponent really not showing up.
Superdelegates for the Dems is the same as a brokered convention for the Republicans, it's a 24hr talking heads narrative that has zero bearing on the outcome.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Superdelegates for the Dems is the same as a brokered convention for the Republicans, it's a 24hr talking heads narrative that has zero bearing on the outcome.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
You also had over 400 people jammed in a grade school auditorium, and once the process started the Sanders supporters were made to go into the hall. It was stifling hot out there and no on could hear shit. When it came time to do the realignment they would only allow the Sanders "representatives" back in the room to try to sway the Clinton and O'Malley supporters.For what it's worth, the opposite happened at my precinct. The Bernie supporters got to stay in the room with the chairs, and the Hillary people had to go out in the hall. The hall was also right by the door, so it was really easy for our people to leave and really hard for the Bernie people to leave. Also, the Bernie people were overwhelmingly college students, and many of the Hillary people were elderly folks from the old folks home. There was nowhere to sit in the Hillary hall, and we were begging old ladies on walkers to hold out a little longer. We had a couple of them bail on us and go home between the first and second ballot. The way they counted the Hillary people is that we walked down a ramp and they counted us as we walked by. It was really close, so the Bernie people insisted that we do two recounts. So the old ladies on walkers, who had been standing there for literally an hour and a half, had to walk down the ramp three times to be counted.
I complained that they should be made to leave the room as well, and if they wanted to return that was fine, but by having them all stay in the Hillary room they would become default Hillary supporters. The guy running the show said I was th only one complaining (until others complained), then he made an announcement, "Tell it to the Bernie supporter in the hall that just chewed my ass." I didn't chew his ass. I pointed out something that seemed unfair.
It's a shitty, shitty system which I don't think is going to change because First In The Nation and Tradition. But it's indefensible, no matter what candidate you support.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]
Sanders was outspending Clinton on ad buys in Iowa.
As someone that sat through the ads, the reality felt quite different. I think the $4.7 million to $3.7 million for the candidates might be fairly accurate, but how much did the Hillary super PACs spend on top of that? You know the Sanders super PAC money was $0. How much more was poured in on her behalf?
posted by cjorgensen at 7:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
As someone that sat through the ads, the reality felt quite different. I think the $4.7 million to $3.7 million for the candidates might be fairly accurate, but how much did the Hillary super PACs spend on top of that? You know the Sanders super PAC money was $0. How much more was poured in on her behalf?
posted by cjorgensen at 7:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
eriko: The winner will assert it was a mandate.
As long as they don't claim they also have "political capital to spend" I can let it go.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
As long as they don't claim they also have "political capital to spend" I can let it go.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
But it's indefensible, no matter what candidate you support.
Agreed.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:03 AM on February 2, 2016
Agreed.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:03 AM on February 2, 2016
Capt. Renault: "Can I just say this is the first time I've been on television?"
No I'm sorry, there isn't time.
posted by Reverend John at 7:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
No I'm sorry, there isn't time.
posted by Reverend John at 7:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
"the truth is, most polls reflect that the majority of Bernie’s millennial support is actually young women. "
That's not what entrance polls said yesterday, which had Sanders trailing Clinton 53%-42% among women. While they did notice that Sanders had a 10-point lead among single women and unmarried mothers, that's about half what that article suggests. Unmarried men favored Sanders by a whopping 66%-30%.
posted by markkraft at 7:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's not what entrance polls said yesterday, which had Sanders trailing Clinton 53%-42% among women. While they did notice that Sanders had a 10-point lead among single women and unmarried mothers, that's about half what that article suggests. Unmarried men favored Sanders by a whopping 66%-30%.
posted by markkraft at 7:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump buys a string of factories in Iowa. Closes them. Releases statement "LOSERS".
posted by Damienmce at 7:04 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by Damienmce at 7:04 AM on February 2, 2016
ArbitraryAndCapricious: was turnout that much higher than expected, that they didn't have room for everybody to stay in the same place? Or are there just no good large caucus sites in your precinct?
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:05 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:05 AM on February 2, 2016
markkraft, young women != women.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:06 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:06 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
Turnout was massively higher than they expected. It was higher than 2008. Nobody had really focused on the fact that this was the first presidential caucus in a long time when school was going to be in session, which was a pretty big mistake.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hey you guys, just so you know ...
O'Malley just got another delegate! That brings it to eight, count 'em, eight delegates! Victory is in sight! Go team O! Feel the O'urn!
I think you mean "Feel the Optimism!" You can also insert "outlandish" before Optimism.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:11 AM on February 2, 2016
O'Malley just got another delegate! That brings it to eight, count 'em, eight delegates! Victory is in sight! Go team O! Feel the O'urn!
I think you mean "Feel the Optimism!" You can also insert "outlandish" before Optimism.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:11 AM on February 2, 2016
Sanders [...] may have actually won the popular vote
In our little caucus room in Mills County, (one of several rooms) the distribution was 43 for Sanders, 18 for Clinton (0 for 0'Malley). By the rules of the electoral math, each candidate got two delegates from our room. So. there you go. A 70% is a 50%.
I can only presume similar events were happening all across the state. Sanders turnout was remarkable for rural Iowa. Most of the democrats here seem like blue-dog, Clinton democrats. That was not the case.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 7:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
In our little caucus room in Mills County, (one of several rooms) the distribution was 43 for Sanders, 18 for Clinton (0 for 0'Malley). By the rules of the electoral math, each candidate got two delegates from our room. So. there you go. A 70% is a 50%.
I can only presume similar events were happening all across the state. Sanders turnout was remarkable for rural Iowa. Most of the democrats here seem like blue-dog, Clinton democrats. That was not the case.
posted by Xyanthilous P. Harrierstick at 7:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
On the Republican side, the ones who can spin this into a narrative victory are Cruz and Rubio.
You are very wrong about this. Here's just off the cuff how Trump can claim victory:
"This is incredible. Half a year we were nowhere. Noone would have predicted that we get this far on top in Iowa. Better than Rubio. Better than Christie. Better than Paul. Ten times better than Bush. This is the strongest showing ever by a non-establishment candidate. It's a historical first. It also shows that the good people of Iowa and all over America want change and they want a strong leader. And this is just the beginning... Thank you Iowa! Make America great again!"
posted by sour cream at 7:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
You are very wrong about this. Here's just off the cuff how Trump can claim victory:
"This is incredible. Half a year we were nowhere. Noone would have predicted that we get this far on top in Iowa. Better than Rubio. Better than Christie. Better than Paul. Ten times better than Bush. This is the strongest showing ever by a non-establishment candidate. It's a historical first. It also shows that the good people of Iowa and all over America want change and they want a strong leader. And this is just the beginning... Thank you Iowa! Make America great again!"
posted by sour cream at 7:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
“No one remembers who came in second.” - Walter Hagen
posted by cjorgensen at 7:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 7:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
teponaztli: pragmatism is what got Canadians Trudeau, I think (am sure) for better than worse. I was worried that true believers on the left would bail or pull a Nader when it came down to it, but Harper haters got it together on the day, thanks to a strong strategic voting campaign. The variables are different in this case, obviously, but you guys can do the same if you need to.
It's partly my state's horrible experience with John Edwards talking, but I'm totally soured on one-term senators with presidential ambitions that can't wait. Warren is making the smart long-term move by not running, and is exactly where the USA needs her to be for the foreseeable future.
I don't know, but it seems to me both Warren and Sanders might be more useful as critics and mobilizers, in the short term.
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:15 AM on February 2, 2016
It's partly my state's horrible experience with John Edwards talking, but I'm totally soured on one-term senators with presidential ambitions that can't wait. Warren is making the smart long-term move by not running, and is exactly where the USA needs her to be for the foreseeable future.
I don't know, but it seems to me both Warren and Sanders might be more useful as critics and mobilizers, in the short term.
posted by cotton dress sock at 7:15 AM on February 2, 2016
O'Malley just got another delegate! That brings it to eight, count 'em, eight delegates! Victory is in sight! Go team O! Feel the O'urn!
I was saying O-urns
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 7:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
I was saying O-urns
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 7:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think Clinton can work with this result. Now she can claim the underdog spot which is a really useful media narrative.
* Former First Lady of the United States.
* First woman to be elected Senator in New York State (served 8 years)
* In 2008 she won more primaries and delegates than any other woman Presidential candidate, ever.
* 67th US Secretary of State
* A massive donor network.
And she just tied with the longest-serving independent Senator -- the Junior Senator from Vermont. Who ran a grassroots campaign and whose average donation was $27. Who proudly declares himself a radical and a democratic socialist. Labels that are usually anathema to the voting public.
I'm a Hillary supporter. I like Sanders and will vote for him in the general if he wins the nom, even though I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning.
But Clinton's no underdog, Not compared to him.
posted by zarq at 7:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
* Former First Lady of the United States.
* First woman to be elected Senator in New York State (served 8 years)
* In 2008 she won more primaries and delegates than any other woman Presidential candidate, ever.
* 67th US Secretary of State
* A massive donor network.
And she just tied with the longest-serving independent Senator -- the Junior Senator from Vermont. Who ran a grassroots campaign and whose average donation was $27. Who proudly declares himself a radical and a democratic socialist. Labels that are usually anathema to the voting public.
I'm a Hillary supporter. I like Sanders and will vote for him in the general if he wins the nom, even though I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning.
But Clinton's no underdog, Not compared to him.
posted by zarq at 7:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
colie: All the coin tosses going the way of Clinton...
She has a
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
magnetic personality
[Shhh, I know US coins are non-ferrous, but maybe they're using some foreign coinage]
posted by filthy light thief at 7:18 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
She has a
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
magnetic personality
[Shhh, I know US coins are non-ferrous, but maybe they're using some foreign coinage]
posted by filthy light thief at 7:18 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know why people are shocked, the money has been on her side all along.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Sam Kriss (previously) in Vice: Bernie Bros and Momentum Bullies: How the Powerful Use Internet Trolls to Play the Victim
Because online abuse is real and often very damaging, it can be used to allow those who are actually perpetrating violence to claim the mantle of victimhood. In this upended moral cosmology, calling someone names online is a significantly greater sin than starting a war, and only slightly less egregious than holding your wine glass by the bowl. We saw something very similar last year, during the debate over British military intervention in Syria. As the British state whipped itself into another destructive war, the pro-Corbyn campaign group Momentum was met with widespread censure for "bullying" MPs who supported the bombing, employing such insidious tactics as encouraging voters to make use of their right to petition their representatives, or correctly identifying people who were pushing for war as being warmongers. To kill people with airborne explosives is fine, as long as you do so politely; trying to prevent this with undefined uncouthness is unacceptable. The morality of war is no longer an issue, not while there are bullies or Bernie Bros in our midst.posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]
What kills me about the GOP is they are so incredibly two sided. So which is it? American Exceptionalism: USA #1! USA #1! USA #1! or we need to make America great again?
I mean, if you point out that the US doesn't come in first in anything that matters other than blowing shit up and incarcerating people you are a socialist that hates America. If you point out that we suck at healthcare for all except the very wealthy, that our life expectancy, infant morality, and access blow then you are wanting to oppress people with free healthcare. So what would a great America even look like? I bigger military? More God in the schools? What do they even mean by making it great again? When was it great before? Back when there was a robust middle-class and less income inequality? Seriously, nice slogan, but if you really want to make America great again I think you're voting the wrong party.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
I mean, if you point out that the US doesn't come in first in anything that matters other than blowing shit up and incarcerating people you are a socialist that hates America. If you point out that we suck at healthcare for all except the very wealthy, that our life expectancy, infant morality, and access blow then you are wanting to oppress people with free healthcare. So what would a great America even look like? I bigger military? More God in the schools? What do they even mean by making it great again? When was it great before? Back when there was a robust middle-class and less income inequality? Seriously, nice slogan, but if you really want to make America great again I think you're voting the wrong party.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Pater Aletheias: Ezra Klein also mentioned on Twitter last night that he has come to believe that if Warren had entered the race, she would have been the eventual nominee.
Warren in 2020! (?) She may have a better chance then, thanks to this "set-up" from Bernie.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:22 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Warren in 2020! (?) She may have a better chance then, thanks to this "set-up" from Bernie.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:22 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
pragmatism is what got Canadians Trudeau, I think (am sure) for better than worse. I was worried that true believers on the left would bail or pull a Nader when it came down to it, but Harper haters got it together on the day, thanks to a strong strategic voting campaign. The variables are different in this case, obviously, but you guys can do the same if you need to.
Isn't the main problem in Canada that the left was essentially splitting 65% of the total vote, allowing the conservatives to win? The situation in the US is not remotely analogous, there's essentially a 40-40 tie among likely voters, with a huge pool of uninformed citizens who only occasionally turn out, but overwhelming lean Democratic. The battle is for the remaining 20%, but really, it's for either driving or suppressing the 60% of the population that doesn't reliably vote at all. And the Republicans have really stepped up the suppression efforts since 2008 and even since 2012.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:25 AM on February 2, 2016
Isn't the main problem in Canada that the left was essentially splitting 65% of the total vote, allowing the conservatives to win? The situation in the US is not remotely analogous, there's essentially a 40-40 tie among likely voters, with a huge pool of uninformed citizens who only occasionally turn out, but overwhelming lean Democratic. The battle is for the remaining 20%, but really, it's for either driving or suppressing the 60% of the population that doesn't reliably vote at all. And the Republicans have really stepped up the suppression efforts since 2008 and even since 2012.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:25 AM on February 2, 2016
Emotional appeals don't have to make logical sense to work. Probably better if they don't, actually. And the Republicans have been working the simultaneous "we're God's favorite country" / "we've fallen from our former glory and God is punishing us because feminism/gay-rights/etc." combination since at least 1988, so it's not like this is something they've come up with just for this election. Trump just came up with a particularly catchy phrasing for it.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:27 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by Spathe Cadet at 7:27 AM on February 2, 2016
cjorgensen: What do they even mean by making it great again? When was it great before?
Well, The Greatest Generation, as popularized by journalist Tom Brokaw (today I learned...) was the generation who grew up in the US in the Great Depression, then went on to be involved in WWII, at home and abroad.
But "great again" is a short way of saying "I wish things were like they were before," which reflects a fear of change and bitterness at how things are now. The US (and the world) have changed a lot, and people still cling to American exceptionalism as if the US is supposed to be King of the World, often paired with the vision of the US as a Great Christian Nation (ignoring the whole desire for religious freedom that drove early settlers to America).
In summary: people want a better lot in life, and think they had it (or had a shot at it) in some time before.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:29 AM on February 2, 2016
Well, The Greatest Generation, as popularized by journalist Tom Brokaw (today I learned...) was the generation who grew up in the US in the Great Depression, then went on to be involved in WWII, at home and abroad.
But "great again" is a short way of saying "I wish things were like they were before," which reflects a fear of change and bitterness at how things are now. The US (and the world) have changed a lot, and people still cling to American exceptionalism as if the US is supposed to be King of the World, often paired with the vision of the US as a Great Christian Nation (ignoring the whole desire for religious freedom that drove early settlers to America).
In summary: people want a better lot in life, and think they had it (or had a shot at it) in some time before.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:29 AM on February 2, 2016
So what would a great America even look like?
Frustratingly (and certainly deliberately) politicians never define what success looks like.
I would vote for almost any candidate that said, My policy is X; I hope to achieve Y; I will measure that success by Z.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 7:33 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Frustratingly (and certainly deliberately) politicians never define what success looks like.
I would vote for almost any candidate that said, My policy is X; I hope to achieve Y; I will measure that success by Z.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 7:33 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
How the Powerful Use Internet Trolls to Play the Victim
Remember that part up above about gas-lighting women and PoC? Characterizing any complaints about misogyny or racism among progressive supporters to "oh that's just the oppressors crying wolf about bullying" is so messed up. Maybe the media itself is using the "Bernie bro" name for sinister purposes, but seriously, people are giving them fodder to do so.
We're not all on some Clinton payroll, here. Seriously, all Bernie needs to do to convince me to cast my swing-state vote for him is demonstrate convincingly in the coming debates how he'll enact his policy plans from the executive branch. I imagine he'll be able to do that. But his supporters who talk like everyone who likes Clinton is just a slavering dead-eyed robot crying "abuse" so we can just get back to waging war on Iraq, or whatever, are really making any greater engagement in his campaign very hostile to a big group of people. The best thing these guys could do for Bernie would be calling out the vocal minority of their peers who like to use gendered slurs, not lashing out at undecideds who feel unwelcome or talking about how our experiences are just a creation of the media. Several people in this thread have been really clear in drawing a line against misogynistic language, and that's awesome. That kind of action is what's going to win you supporters, not posting more articles claiming bad faith.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [17 favorites]
Remember that part up above about gas-lighting women and PoC? Characterizing any complaints about misogyny or racism among progressive supporters to "oh that's just the oppressors crying wolf about bullying" is so messed up. Maybe the media itself is using the "Bernie bro" name for sinister purposes, but seriously, people are giving them fodder to do so.
We're not all on some Clinton payroll, here. Seriously, all Bernie needs to do to convince me to cast my swing-state vote for him is demonstrate convincingly in the coming debates how he'll enact his policy plans from the executive branch. I imagine he'll be able to do that. But his supporters who talk like everyone who likes Clinton is just a slavering dead-eyed robot crying "abuse" so we can just get back to waging war on Iraq, or whatever, are really making any greater engagement in his campaign very hostile to a big group of people. The best thing these guys could do for Bernie would be calling out the vocal minority of their peers who like to use gendered slurs, not lashing out at undecideds who feel unwelcome or talking about how our experiences are just a creation of the media. Several people in this thread have been really clear in drawing a line against misogynistic language, and that's awesome. That kind of action is what's going to win you supporters, not posting more articles claiming bad faith.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [17 favorites]
If you think she's doing appreciably better with voters 18-29 elsewhere I'd love to see the numbers. All signs point to a huge age gap, with older Dems for Clinton and voters under 30 massively in favor of Bernie.
Most likely-voter polls won't report crosstabs for 18-29 because, well, they're not likely to vote. The only recent national poll I can quickly find with crosstabs for youngsters is one from Investor's Business Daily, which... well. The error bars for any of the age groups will be really big, and those for young voters especially so.
But anyway it has 18-24 at 61-87% Sanders / 10-34% Clinton. 25-44 were at 33-53% Sanders / 36-56% Clinton.
Crappy data but they don't suggest a problem except with very young people. Even if all the 18-24 year olds who support Sanders stay home in the general election, it's unlikely to affect the outcome of the race.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Most likely-voter polls won't report crosstabs for 18-29 because, well, they're not likely to vote. The only recent national poll I can quickly find with crosstabs for youngsters is one from Investor's Business Daily, which... well. The error bars for any of the age groups will be really big, and those for young voters especially so.
But anyway it has 18-24 at 61-87% Sanders / 10-34% Clinton. 25-44 were at 33-53% Sanders / 36-56% Clinton.
Crappy data but they don't suggest a problem except with very young people. Even if all the 18-24 year olds who support Sanders stay home in the general election, it's unlikely to affect the outcome of the race.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Twitter tells me Politico is now running an "Hours since Donald Trump last tweeted" clock. Also, this autopsy of Trump's (non-existent?) Iowa ground game is worth a look, if only for this quote from an anonymous Trump ally:
“Can’t wait to get to the South.”
posted by mediareport at 7:43 AM on February 2, 2016
“Can’t wait to get to the South.”
posted by mediareport at 7:43 AM on February 2, 2016
Not wanting to base your worldview on anecdotes is not gaslighting.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:43 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:43 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
Telling someone their personal experience isn't real is.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [22 favorites]
Sanders and Clinton are fighting over two different things. Clinton REALLY wants to be President, and Sanders wants to fundamentally after the soul of the Democratic Party.
These goals are not mutually exclusive. I see a future with a drawn out primary fight, where Clinton racks up delegate but Sanders message continues to resonate. So much so, that by the convention the party knows that if they want to win (and Clinton REALLY wants to be president) they'll have to offer some big things to ensure turnout of the young voters.
Fingers fucking crossed, man.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:45 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
These goals are not mutually exclusive. I see a future with a drawn out primary fight, where Clinton racks up delegate but Sanders message continues to resonate. So much so, that by the convention the party knows that if they want to win (and Clinton REALLY wants to be president) they'll have to offer some big things to ensure turnout of the young voters.
Fingers fucking crossed, man.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:45 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
My fear is that Sanders seems way more likely than Clinton, upon theoretically reaching the presidency, to get his ass totally Ned Stark'd by the intransigence of the Republican congress. I agree with Clinton less, but I believe in her ability to accomplish stuff in this horrifying gridlock more.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [16 favorites]
Fingers fucking crossed, man.
Yeah. Mine too. We can't take too much more of this shit. But defeating an entrenched oligarchy pretty much requires deftly convincing it to attack itself.
posted by Glibpaxman at 7:50 AM on February 2, 2016
Yeah. Mine too. We can't take too much more of this shit. But defeating an entrenched oligarchy pretty much requires deftly convincing it to attack itself.
posted by Glibpaxman at 7:50 AM on February 2, 2016
I think that an 18-24-year-old who is enthusiastic about anyone is more likely to vote than an 18-to-24-year-old who is checked out. Even if some of them would stay home if the eventual nominee were Hillary, I think their enthusiasm for Bernie is a net win for the Democrats no matter who the eventual nominee will be.
Another net win from my very local perspective: when you checked in to the caucus last night, the Democrats asked for your email address. I didn't see anyone refuse to give theirs. Student precincts are a massive pain in the ass to do Get Out the Vote in, because everyone moves in August, so voter registration rolls are out-of-date leading up to November and door-knocking is not effective. (Iowa has election-day voter registration, which is great but means that you never have a final list of potential voters in advance.) I'm hoping that we can start thinking about ways to do GOTV that are more effective with a highly-mobile population like you have in student precincts, and having email addresses rather than just residential addresses should help with that.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Another net win from my very local perspective: when you checked in to the caucus last night, the Democrats asked for your email address. I didn't see anyone refuse to give theirs. Student precincts are a massive pain in the ass to do Get Out the Vote in, because everyone moves in August, so voter registration rolls are out-of-date leading up to November and door-knocking is not effective. (Iowa has election-day voter registration, which is great but means that you never have a final list of potential voters in advance.) I'm hoping that we can start thinking about ways to do GOTV that are more effective with a highly-mobile population like you have in student precincts, and having email addresses rather than just residential addresses should help with that.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
And she just tied with the longest-serving independent Senator -- the Junior Senator from Vermont. Who ran a grassroots campaign and whose average donation was $27. Who proudly declares himself a radical and a democratic socialist.
Don't look now, but I think we just accidentally made America great again.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:52 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
Don't look now, but I think we just accidentally made America great again.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:52 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm hoping that we can start thinking about ways to do GOTV that are more effective with a highly-mobile population like you have in student precincts, and having email addresses rather than just residential addresses should help with that.
Unfortunately, I've found that mostly what they do is spam the shit out of you with fundraising emails until you send everything political to the spam folder.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:53 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Unfortunately, I've found that mostly what they do is spam the shit out of you with fundraising emails until you send everything political to the spam folder.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:53 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
All Donald Trump does is win – until he doesn't. Now what happens?
posted by Artw at 7:53 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by Artw at 7:53 AM on February 2, 2016
Has anyone seen any good reporting about JEB! this morning?
posted by OmieWise at 7:58 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by OmieWise at 7:58 AM on February 2, 2016
Not too much substance, but: Jeb Spends $2,884 Per Iowa Vote
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:00 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:00 AM on February 2, 2016
[…] they'll have to offer some big things to ensure turnout of the young voters.
But once in office she'll pull an Obama and say, "Thanks for all the help. I've got it from here." Seriously, that's my biggest complaint of the Obama administration. He built a fucking engine of change, mustered an amazing grass roots swell of support, then once in office when radio silent. He could have used the people to do so much more than just come up with a decision on whether or not to get a dog.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [22 favorites]
But once in office she'll pull an Obama and say, "Thanks for all the help. I've got it from here." Seriously, that's my biggest complaint of the Obama administration. He built a fucking engine of change, mustered an amazing grass roots swell of support, then once in office when radio silent. He could have used the people to do so much more than just come up with a decision on whether or not to get a dog.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [22 favorites]
Most likely-voter polls won't report crosstabs for 18-29 because, well, they're not likely to vote.
Very true.
The only recent national poll I can quickly find with crosstabs for youngsters is one from Investor's Business Daily, which... well.
Right now, you cannot trust *any* poll, because the pollsters have a real problem.
1) They used to use phone calls on landlines (to make sure they were calling the right area.) What is the landline? This is a *huge* age bias -- the older you are, the more likely you are to have a landline. Plus, with cellphones, you don't really know if you're sampling me. If you call my cellphone based on my area code and exchange, you're sampling someone who lives 300 miles away, in a completely different city/state, and I am far from the only one like this (why change a cell number when you move?)
2) With the rise of the push poll, more and more people simply hang up on pollsters. It used to be that getting polled was a kind of a big deal -- people treated it almost as a civic duty. Nowadays, the last thing anybody wants to do is answer questions and wonder how that information is going to be used.
3) In general, more and more people don't answer their phone unless they know who is calling. This is a also an age bias, the younger you are, the more likely you are to do so.
4) Gated communities? Can't survey. Immigrants? Many first gen have trouble with the language, plus you need to establish if they're citizens or residents, and many first generation immigrants *will not talk to you* about that status, because they remember dealing with immigration.
5) You can't do automated phone polls -- you can autodial, but a human has to do the talking. Well, legally you can't.
6) The change in the political climate has made neutral questions really hard. We see this time and time again. Poll A asks about an administration policy. Poll B asks a group about Obama's policy. Poll B shows significantly more people against Obama's policy than against the Administration's policy, even though it's Obama's Administration!
This means that their models, predicated on X people answering neutral questions, have real problems. They used to call, oh, 2000 people to find 1000 willing to answer. Nowadays, they have to call far many more numbers to get that, typical response rates are under 5%.
All polls have bias -- that is, they know that they're not getting a representative sample -- and they have to try to model that and adjust the actual numbers from the poll to try to get an accurate representation of the entire population. And, with most of the under 50 set taking themselves out of the polling system completely, the well studied and modeled biases are basically completely wrong. It's also making "likely to vote" very hard, because there's no evidence that likely to vote models are correct for the population who answers polls vs. the population who doesn't.
The biggest example recently of how bad it has gotten was the UK General Election last year. Labour was projected to win by, oh 5%. They *lost*. The only poll to get it right was the BBC poll that was taken during the election at polling places, and they held the result until the polls closed, and announced Conservative 3.1%. They -- and only they -- were close. Everybody else was way off the mark.
But it happens more and more. Polls are becoming unreliable. You tell me a poll says X is done, I don't believe it, unless it's saying something like 85%-15%. And even then, if 75% of your responders are 65 and older, even that could be wrong.
The pollsters are desperately trying to find a way to get better samples, but the core problem is the younger you are, the less willing you are to be polled and the harder it is to even get a hold of you to try and ask.
posted by eriko at 8:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [30 favorites]
Very true.
The only recent national poll I can quickly find with crosstabs for youngsters is one from Investor's Business Daily, which... well.
Right now, you cannot trust *any* poll, because the pollsters have a real problem.
1) They used to use phone calls on landlines (to make sure they were calling the right area.) What is the landline? This is a *huge* age bias -- the older you are, the more likely you are to have a landline. Plus, with cellphones, you don't really know if you're sampling me. If you call my cellphone based on my area code and exchange, you're sampling someone who lives 300 miles away, in a completely different city/state, and I am far from the only one like this (why change a cell number when you move?)
2) With the rise of the push poll, more and more people simply hang up on pollsters. It used to be that getting polled was a kind of a big deal -- people treated it almost as a civic duty. Nowadays, the last thing anybody wants to do is answer questions and wonder how that information is going to be used.
3) In general, more and more people don't answer their phone unless they know who is calling. This is a also an age bias, the younger you are, the more likely you are to do so.
4) Gated communities? Can't survey. Immigrants? Many first gen have trouble with the language, plus you need to establish if they're citizens or residents, and many first generation immigrants *will not talk to you* about that status, because they remember dealing with immigration.
5) You can't do automated phone polls -- you can autodial, but a human has to do the talking. Well, legally you can't.
6) The change in the political climate has made neutral questions really hard. We see this time and time again. Poll A asks about an administration policy. Poll B asks a group about Obama's policy. Poll B shows significantly more people against Obama's policy than against the Administration's policy, even though it's Obama's Administration!
This means that their models, predicated on X people answering neutral questions, have real problems. They used to call, oh, 2000 people to find 1000 willing to answer. Nowadays, they have to call far many more numbers to get that, typical response rates are under 5%.
All polls have bias -- that is, they know that they're not getting a representative sample -- and they have to try to model that and adjust the actual numbers from the poll to try to get an accurate representation of the entire population. And, with most of the under 50 set taking themselves out of the polling system completely, the well studied and modeled biases are basically completely wrong. It's also making "likely to vote" very hard, because there's no evidence that likely to vote models are correct for the population who answers polls vs. the population who doesn't.
The biggest example recently of how bad it has gotten was the UK General Election last year. Labour was projected to win by, oh 5%. They *lost*. The only poll to get it right was the BBC poll that was taken during the election at polling places, and they held the result until the polls closed, and announced Conservative 3.1%. They -- and only they -- were close. Everybody else was way off the mark.
But it happens more and more. Polls are becoming unreliable. You tell me a poll says X is done, I don't believe it, unless it's saying something like 85%-15%. And even then, if 75% of your responders are 65 and older, even that could be wrong.
The pollsters are desperately trying to find a way to get better samples, but the core problem is the younger you are, the less willing you are to be polled and the harder it is to even get a hold of you to try and ask.
posted by eriko at 8:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [30 favorites]
No, not much substance, but it's sure interesting it's in The Weekly Standard. Thanks.
posted by OmieWise at 8:02 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by OmieWise at 8:02 AM on February 2, 2016
"by the convention the party knows that if they want to win (and Clinton REALLY wants to be president) they'll have to offer some big things to ensure turnout of the young voters"
I don't think many Clinton voters have a problem with this, with the exception of Bernie being VP... which, frankly, is probably not a job he should want anyway.
What I do have a problem with is wasting huge sums of money that could actually do the Democrats some good in the general election, tearing down people and left-wing organizations, rather than being aware of what the real threat is.
If there was a clear winner in the caucus, frankly, it was the Republican establishment, which showed itself to be credible, even in a caucus that tends to give extremism more credibility than a popular vote would support. There are signs that they could put Trump behind them... and that leads to the real threat of a candidate like Rubio, who lately has been doing very well against both Clinton and Sanders in head-to-head polling.
We all want a Democratic majority, rather than a bigoted homophobic candidate from the billionaire party, right? Maybe we need to start acting like it, and realize that there will probably be a clear indication of a winner after Super Tuesday, and that maybe a protracted, costly division is not the best alternative for everyone concerned.
posted by markkraft at 8:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think many Clinton voters have a problem with this, with the exception of Bernie being VP... which, frankly, is probably not a job he should want anyway.
What I do have a problem with is wasting huge sums of money that could actually do the Democrats some good in the general election, tearing down people and left-wing organizations, rather than being aware of what the real threat is.
If there was a clear winner in the caucus, frankly, it was the Republican establishment, which showed itself to be credible, even in a caucus that tends to give extremism more credibility than a popular vote would support. There are signs that they could put Trump behind them... and that leads to the real threat of a candidate like Rubio, who lately has been doing very well against both Clinton and Sanders in head-to-head polling.
We all want a Democratic majority, rather than a bigoted homophobic candidate from the billionaire party, right? Maybe we need to start acting like it, and realize that there will probably be a clear indication of a winner after Super Tuesday, and that maybe a protracted, costly division is not the best alternative for everyone concerned.
posted by markkraft at 8:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
My fear is that Sanders seems way more likely than Clinton, upon theoretically reaching the presidency, to get his ass totally Ned Stark'd by the intransigence of the Republican congress
This is a great point, and, back to sweetkid's point about midterm apathy, highlights the central issue of our messed-up government, which is that no one individual gets things done, no matter how brilliant or impassioned - it's about party discipline and being able to get the support in Congress to move your agenda forward. The general tendency of Americans to focus on the individual personalities and messages of the Presidential candidates tends to overlook this reality, and that's one reason that Republicans, despite ostensibly being led and represented by the string of idiots that have served in most prominent roles, still maintain the power to strangle the government. They know it's about ground game, midterms, Reps, and Senators and if you hold onto that, you can write your own ticket, no matter who's in the White House. To get anything done, a President needs support in Congress, and a Democratic President in particular needs to be tough on reinforcing party discipline, because it's really not Democrats' strong suit. I could have killed the majority Democratic Congress that Obama had during the first part of his first term for frittering away their short moment of power infighting and grandstanding - it was disgusting. That kind of thing sucks royally, and it needs to be managed strategically and with political skill.
posted by Miko at 8:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
This is a great point, and, back to sweetkid's point about midterm apathy, highlights the central issue of our messed-up government, which is that no one individual gets things done, no matter how brilliant or impassioned - it's about party discipline and being able to get the support in Congress to move your agenda forward. The general tendency of Americans to focus on the individual personalities and messages of the Presidential candidates tends to overlook this reality, and that's one reason that Republicans, despite ostensibly being led and represented by the string of idiots that have served in most prominent roles, still maintain the power to strangle the government. They know it's about ground game, midterms, Reps, and Senators and if you hold onto that, you can write your own ticket, no matter who's in the White House. To get anything done, a President needs support in Congress, and a Democratic President in particular needs to be tough on reinforcing party discipline, because it's really not Democrats' strong suit. I could have killed the majority Democratic Congress that Obama had during the first part of his first term for frittering away their short moment of power infighting and grandstanding - it was disgusting. That kind of thing sucks royally, and it needs to be managed strategically and with political skill.
posted by Miko at 8:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
Trump has tweeted.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 1 minute ago
My experience in Iowa was a great one. I started out with all of the experts saying I couldn't do well there and ended up in 2nd place. Nice
posted by Sophie1 at 8:05 AM on February 2, 2016
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 1 minute ago
My experience in Iowa was a great one. I started out with all of the experts saying I couldn't do well there and ended up in 2nd place. Nice
posted by Sophie1 at 8:05 AM on February 2, 2016
Laughing out loud at that "nice." I can hear it in his voice. What a tool.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:07 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:07 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
This piece at The Baffler about the erasure of the left feminist critique of Hillary (and the erasure of left feminist women from the "Berniebros" discussion in general), linked early in this thread, is probably worth linking again.
posted by mediareport at 8:24 AM on February 2 [6 favorites +] [!]
I also want to link this again, it's a great read.
posted by werkzeuger at 8:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
ended up in 2nd place.
It must have hurt so much to type that. Not that he typed it, but.
posted by Miko at 8:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
It must have hurt so much to type that. Not that he typed it, but.
posted by Miko at 8:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
He built a fucking engine of change, mustered an amazing grass roots swell of support, then once in office when radio silent.
Huh? I've gotten emails from Obama since his campaign on. He frequently has called upon citizens to help with his initiatives. This is just plain false.
posted by agregoli at 8:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Huh? I've gotten emails from Obama since his campaign on. He frequently has called upon citizens to help with his initiatives. This is just plain false.
posted by agregoli at 8:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
"My fear is that Sanders seems way more likely than Clinton, upon theoretically reaching the presidency, to get his ass totally Ned Stark'd by the intransigence of the Republican congress"
What makes you think that it's the Republicans and not the Democratic congress that would Ned Stark him?
Most people who work in Democratic politics really do want to accomplish some meaningful changes. They just know it's not easy to do, and you have to play stupid games in order to do it.
Sanders is an outsider independent who basically declared the entire party as the enemy... and he has a platform which is arguably even more divisive and dangerous for their careers than supporting Obamacare was for so many Democrats in congress.
So why would they support his policies? They probably wouldn't. They'd try to come up with their own legislation instead, and let him screw himself politically, if he finds himself unwilling to compromise in order to help people. If they feel that Sanders is trying to shame them, they'll find ways to embarrass him. Anything he tells anyone in confidence would be used against him, or possibly even used out of context. It would be a mess, because he ultimately would lack the kind of levers of pressure on them that many other Democratic presidents tend to have.
All this is kind of a moot point anyway, as the superdelegates are a huge margin of victory in this election, and they are stacked on Hillary's side by about a 40-1 margin. He would literally need to rack up a 10-15 point margin nationwide to reverse that.
Really, I want Hillary to work together with Sanders on ideas and policies, but I find the idea of running a $250M campaign without a real chance of winning wasteful to the extreme. Hopefully, we won't really have to do that.
posted by markkraft at 8:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
What makes you think that it's the Republicans and not the Democratic congress that would Ned Stark him?
Most people who work in Democratic politics really do want to accomplish some meaningful changes. They just know it's not easy to do, and you have to play stupid games in order to do it.
Sanders is an outsider independent who basically declared the entire party as the enemy... and he has a platform which is arguably even more divisive and dangerous for their careers than supporting Obamacare was for so many Democrats in congress.
So why would they support his policies? They probably wouldn't. They'd try to come up with their own legislation instead, and let him screw himself politically, if he finds himself unwilling to compromise in order to help people. If they feel that Sanders is trying to shame them, they'll find ways to embarrass him. Anything he tells anyone in confidence would be used against him, or possibly even used out of context. It would be a mess, because he ultimately would lack the kind of levers of pressure on them that many other Democratic presidents tend to have.
All this is kind of a moot point anyway, as the superdelegates are a huge margin of victory in this election, and they are stacked on Hillary's side by about a 40-1 margin. He would literally need to rack up a 10-15 point margin nationwide to reverse that.
Really, I want Hillary to work together with Sanders on ideas and policies, but I find the idea of running a $250M campaign without a real chance of winning wasteful to the extreme. Hopefully, we won't really have to do that.
posted by markkraft at 8:14 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Obamacare comparison is way off base, because neither Sanders or Hillary are actually passing anything significant with this Congress. You don't need to fight with your own party when you know you don't have the votes for anything anyway. You just let people vote how they need to.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:18 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 8:18 AM on February 2, 2016
What really happened in Iowa? The myths and the takeaways
posted by Kabanos at 8:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 8:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
My fear is that Sanders seems way more likely than Clinton, upon theoretically reaching the presidency, to get his ass totally Ned Stark'd by the intransigence of the Republican congress. I agree with Clinton less, but I believe in her ability to accomplish stuff in this horrifying gridlock more.
http://ilikeberniebut.com/
http://ilikeberniebut.com/
Bernie is actually well-known for his ability to compromise to get things done without sacrificing his values. In the House, he was known as the Amendment King, and passed more amendments -- addressing exclusively progressive goals -- than any other legistlator, by forging cross-party coalitions.posted by Foosnark at 8:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [36 favorites]
He has earned respect from Republicans ranging from John McCain to the ultra-conservative Jim Inhofe. If any Democratic president can reach across the aisle to work with a stubborn Republican Congress, it's Bernie Sanders.
Yeah, the demographic split with Hillary is a real problem. Bernie can overcome his early optics with minority voters with a carefully chosen running mate, but I can't see Hillary doing the same to turn out the youth/hard-left vote in November.
If Trump is the GOP pick, Julian Castro gets the nod to lock up the Latino vote for the Dems. A great campaigner with solid credentials. If Cruz or Rubio gets the nod, identity politics are going to bite the Dems in a bad way, especially with religious conservative Latinos, and they will need the African American and youth vote to turn out to win. Corey Booker, maybe? He'd be a natural counterpart for Sanders, his youth and energy and polish matching nicely with Sanders' rough-hewn experience and wisdom, will go a long way to bring in centrists, and the man does know how to campaign.
I don't know if he'd be exciting enough to energize the youth vote for Clinton - he's to the right of Sanders on economic issues that matter most to Bernie supporters.
Also, Trump's known for a few weeks now he was going to lose Iowa. He's been openly insulting the state for at least that long (He had a statement last week sneering at how Iowans haven't picked the winning GOP nominee in 16 years, exhorting them to "pick the winner for a change" and that Iowa was a "big, fat waste of time") - I don't think it will impact his campaign much.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
If Trump is the GOP pick, Julian Castro gets the nod to lock up the Latino vote for the Dems. A great campaigner with solid credentials. If Cruz or Rubio gets the nod, identity politics are going to bite the Dems in a bad way, especially with religious conservative Latinos, and they will need the African American and youth vote to turn out to win. Corey Booker, maybe? He'd be a natural counterpart for Sanders, his youth and energy and polish matching nicely with Sanders' rough-hewn experience and wisdom, will go a long way to bring in centrists, and the man does know how to campaign.
I don't know if he'd be exciting enough to energize the youth vote for Clinton - he's to the right of Sanders on economic issues that matter most to Bernie supporters.
Also, Trump's known for a few weeks now he was going to lose Iowa. He's been openly insulting the state for at least that long (He had a statement last week sneering at how Iowans haven't picked the winning GOP nominee in 16 years, exhorting them to "pick the winner for a change" and that Iowa was a "big, fat waste of time") - I don't think it will impact his campaign much.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Donald J. Trump’s campaign spent more on hats — at least $1.2 million — than on voter data and outreach.
posted by saul wright at 8:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by saul wright at 8:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
So he literally blew it all on hats?
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:26 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 8:26 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sanders is an outsider independent who basically declared the entire party as the enemy... and he has a platform which is arguably even more divisive and dangerous for their careers than supporting Obamacare was for so many Democrats in congress. So why would they support his policies? They probably wouldn't.
What a bizarre framing. Single-payer healthcare is hugely popular. Raising the minimum wage is hugely popular. That there are conservative Democrats in Congress who care more about corporate money than serving Democrat voters is true, for sure, but defending them while painting the most eloquent voice for the majority opinions of Democrat voters as some sort of dangerous pariah is just so freakishly off-base it's kind of astonishing.
posted by mediareport at 8:27 AM on February 2, 2016 [37 favorites]
What a bizarre framing. Single-payer healthcare is hugely popular. Raising the minimum wage is hugely popular. That there are conservative Democrats in Congress who care more about corporate money than serving Democrat voters is true, for sure, but defending them while painting the most eloquent voice for the majority opinions of Democrat voters as some sort of dangerous pariah is just so freakishly off-base it's kind of astonishing.
posted by mediareport at 8:27 AM on February 2, 2016 [37 favorites]
What really happened in Iowa? The myths and the takeaways
That's a good read, thanks Kabanos.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:29 AM on February 2, 2016
That's a good read, thanks Kabanos.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:29 AM on February 2, 2016
pragmatism is what got Canadians Trudeau
There was strategic voting in the last election, absolutely, but Trudeau was the strategic choice not Mulcair. The NDP blew it this time by responding to Harper's games. Trudeau won by saying to voters, "We're better than this. We can do better than this." This was nowhere clearer than in the various parties responses to the refugee crisis.
It was hearts Trudeau won first, not the heads. And I say this as a life-long NDP voter, from a whole clan of NDP voters. I think we mostly all voted Liberal this time. Optimism is the way to beat suppression, not grim middling through. Obama proved that first, and Trudeau largely copied his strategy.
posted by bonehead at 8:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
There was strategic voting in the last election, absolutely, but Trudeau was the strategic choice not Mulcair. The NDP blew it this time by responding to Harper's games. Trudeau won by saying to voters, "We're better than this. We can do better than this." This was nowhere clearer than in the various parties responses to the refugee crisis.
It was hearts Trudeau won first, not the heads. And I say this as a life-long NDP voter, from a whole clan of NDP voters. I think we mostly all voted Liberal this time. Optimism is the way to beat suppression, not grim middling through. Obama proved that first, and Trudeau largely copied his strategy.
posted by bonehead at 8:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
What makes you think that it's the Republicans and not the Democratic congress that would Ned Stark him?
The Republicans can't even manage to not Ned Stark their own people. And they do it often.
Also I'd think you'd usually keep your enemies from participating in your debates. I mean, seriously proposing that Sanders and the Democrats see one another as enemies makes me question everything you've said in this thread.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Republicans can't even manage to not Ned Stark their own people. And they do it often.
Also I'd think you'd usually keep your enemies from participating in your debates. I mean, seriously proposing that Sanders and the Democrats see one another as enemies makes me question everything you've said in this thread.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 8:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Really, I want Hillary to work together with Sanders on ideas and policies, but I find the idea of running a $250M campaign without a real chance of winning wasteful to the extreme. Hopefully, we won't really have to do that.
So the way Obama did that was by offering Clinton the State department. She got a stage to show just how good she could be, and the US greatly benefited from that as a country. Win-win.
What cabinet post is Clinton going to offer to Sanders? Will she at all?
posted by bonehead at 8:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
So the way Obama did that was by offering Clinton the State department. She got a stage to show just how good she could be, and the US greatly benefited from that as a country. Win-win.
What cabinet post is Clinton going to offer to Sanders? Will she at all?
posted by bonehead at 8:34 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
How far we came in a year. Really think Sanders could have won this primary if he didn't have a few key stumbles before he really got himself in gear and if he didn't start out with so little name recognition compared to his opponent. He's the sort of candidate I would love to see run again if age wasn't a potential roadblock, because he is improving as he goes. Personally, I think a longer campaign season is a good thing. Helps you to really get to know people. In our system you are stuck with a President for four years barring something crazy, so you might as well be sure.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:35 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 8:35 AM on February 2, 2016
Painting Sanders as a radical who would upend the entire system works for his supporters, who would like him to do so. It works for Clinton supporters, who would like to claim that he can't carry moderate states and therefore can't win the general, and even if he did, Democrats won't work with him. It works for Republicans, who think that by painting him as a crazy person, he'll be easier to beat. (As if Ted Cruz or Donald Trump are sane.....) And that narrative also works for the media, because from Day One they've done their best to set him up to fail.
The reality is that Clinton and Sanders are pretty closely aligned on most major political issues. Deeper looks at Clinton and Sanders don't show all that much distance between them.
Right now, Sanders is pushing perhaps 5 or 6 issues where he differs from Clinton. Education. Taxes. Warfare. These serve him well for the moment because his current opponent is a more moderate Democrat. If he were to get into the general, the divide between his positions and a Republican would be more stark. As would Clinton's, or any other Democratic candidate.
Democrats who become President tend to campaign as left-wingers. Then when they get into office, they become more conservative. At best, they become moderates. Look at Obama's record. For Democrats, that's what governing is. Contemporary Republicans don't govern the same way.
What candidates promise to do when elected and what they actually accomplish once they're in office are two different animals. But it seems silly to assume Sanders would be unable to work with his own party.
posted by zarq at 8:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
The reality is that Clinton and Sanders are pretty closely aligned on most major political issues. Deeper looks at Clinton and Sanders don't show all that much distance between them.
Right now, Sanders is pushing perhaps 5 or 6 issues where he differs from Clinton. Education. Taxes. Warfare. These serve him well for the moment because his current opponent is a more moderate Democrat. If he were to get into the general, the divide between his positions and a Republican would be more stark. As would Clinton's, or any other Democratic candidate.
Democrats who become President tend to campaign as left-wingers. Then when they get into office, they become more conservative. At best, they become moderates. Look at Obama's record. For Democrats, that's what governing is. Contemporary Republicans don't govern the same way.
What candidates promise to do when elected and what they actually accomplish once they're in office are two different animals. But it seems silly to assume Sanders would be unable to work with his own party.
posted by zarq at 8:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
saul wright: Donald J. Trump’s campaign spent more on hats — at least $1.2 million — than on voter data and outreach.
Jpfed: So he literally blew it all on hats?
Well, he really doesn't want another Scotland incident.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:35 AM on February 2, 2016
Jpfed: So he literally blew it all on hats?
Well, he really doesn't want another Scotland incident.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:35 AM on February 2, 2016
barring Corey Booker or Deval Patrick as the veep.
Wow would that be a depressing waste of either of them.
posted by phearlez at 8:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow would that be a depressing waste of either of them.
posted by phearlez at 8:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Robin: I like Bernie but he can't wi...
Batman: *slap* Vote for him and he will win!
posted by filthy light thief at 8:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Batman: *slap* Vote for him and he will win!
posted by filthy light thief at 8:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Right now, Sanders is pushing perhaps 5 or 6 issues where he differs from Clinton. Education. Taxes. Warfare.
And Health care, banking, and criminal justice reform.
That sounds like profound differences on the key features of the United States goverment: its taxation, its regulation of finance, its warmaking, its welfare apparatus and its justice system. Are there even any really important issues besides those? If Clinton and Sanders differ on these issues as much as they do, then they are starkly different, not basically the same.
posted by dis_integration at 8:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
And Health care, banking, and criminal justice reform.
That sounds like profound differences on the key features of the United States goverment: its taxation, its regulation of finance, its warmaking, its welfare apparatus and its justice system. Are there even any really important issues besides those? If Clinton and Sanders differ on these issues as much as they do, then they are starkly different, not basically the same.
posted by dis_integration at 8:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
Corey Booker as VP would mean an NY/NJ Democrat ticket. Seems doubtful.
posted by mediareport at 8:41 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by mediareport at 8:41 AM on February 2, 2016
But once in office she'll pull an Obama and say, "Thanks for all the help. I've got it from here." Seriously, that's my biggest complaint of the Obama administration. He built a fucking engine of change, mustered an amazing grass roots swell of support, then once in office when radio silent. He could have used the people to do so much more than just come up with a decision on whether or not to get a dog.
In the month and a half between Obama's election and inauguration, I went to, by my memory, at least three (there may have been a fourth, but I remember three) separate meetings arranged by the still-moving Obama campaign. There was a really strong grassroots feeling for a strong economic recovery plan (i.e. a jobs program) and single payer healthcare. I particularly remember one of the meetings getting basically shut down from the top by the organizers, who were totally appalled. There was an attempt to line people up behind Obama's rather lackluster stimulus package, but it became clear that the single payer thing just wasn't going to be supported by the top, and that the rank and file wanted it badly.
You really can't have an effective organization that works like this. What it meant was that when the Tea Party really went nuts and took over the political conversation, the same people couldn't be mobilized, because Obama had taken Single Payer out of the conversation. He couldn't let it back in, and instead we got the debacle of the Obamacare debate. This taught me a lesson in using the Democratic Party to organize mass action, namely that you can't do it. The political commitments of the candidates pretty much make it impossible for them to do anything but tack well right of their base.
Sanders, despite his pretensions, would actually find himself in a similar bind if elected, namely that he would either have to surrender his agenda to the right wing of the Democrats in order to get key votes to accomplish anything, and couldn't keep his forces mobilized long term. This is by design in American politics.
posted by graymouser at 8:42 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
In the month and a half between Obama's election and inauguration, I went to, by my memory, at least three (there may have been a fourth, but I remember three) separate meetings arranged by the still-moving Obama campaign. There was a really strong grassroots feeling for a strong economic recovery plan (i.e. a jobs program) and single payer healthcare. I particularly remember one of the meetings getting basically shut down from the top by the organizers, who were totally appalled. There was an attempt to line people up behind Obama's rather lackluster stimulus package, but it became clear that the single payer thing just wasn't going to be supported by the top, and that the rank and file wanted it badly.
You really can't have an effective organization that works like this. What it meant was that when the Tea Party really went nuts and took over the political conversation, the same people couldn't be mobilized, because Obama had taken Single Payer out of the conversation. He couldn't let it back in, and instead we got the debacle of the Obamacare debate. This taught me a lesson in using the Democratic Party to organize mass action, namely that you can't do it. The political commitments of the candidates pretty much make it impossible for them to do anything but tack well right of their base.
Sanders, despite his pretensions, would actually find himself in a similar bind if elected, namely that he would either have to surrender his agenda to the right wing of the Democrats in order to get key votes to accomplish anything, and couldn't keep his forces mobilized long term. This is by design in American politics.
posted by graymouser at 8:42 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
This piece at The Baffler about the erasure of the left feminist critique of Hillary (and the erasure of left feminist women from the "Berniebros" discussion in general), linked early in this thread, is probably worth linking again.
posted by mediareport at 8:24 AM on February 2 [6 favorites +] [!]
I also want to link this again, it's a great read.
posted by werkzeuger at 10:08 AM on February 2 [1 favorite +] [!]
The article titled "My Kind of Misogyny: I Don’t Care If They Call a Warhawk 'Cankles' "? Wow, I can't imagine why some women might feel uncomfortable about that. Amber A'Lee makes many good points, but I disagree firmly with the whole framing conceit that we don't need to care about sexist attacks as long as they're used against problematic people. I don't think it's an extreme demand to say categorically that any misogynistic language is not acceptable, no matter who it's used against: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Megyn Kelly, anyone. Conceding that it's not a big deal if people call Hillary "cankles", because she's bad for poor women, is not doing any women any favors. It's feeding a wildfire that burns ALL us women. If people want to earn my vote, they'll agree with that, period, instead of explaining why I shouldn't care. It's not asking a lot.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 8:24 AM on February 2 [6 favorites +] [!]
I also want to link this again, it's a great read.
posted by werkzeuger at 10:08 AM on February 2 [1 favorite +] [!]
The article titled "My Kind of Misogyny: I Don’t Care If They Call a Warhawk 'Cankles' "? Wow, I can't imagine why some women might feel uncomfortable about that. Amber A'Lee makes many good points, but I disagree firmly with the whole framing conceit that we don't need to care about sexist attacks as long as they're used against problematic people. I don't think it's an extreme demand to say categorically that any misogynistic language is not acceptable, no matter who it's used against: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Megyn Kelly, anyone. Conceding that it's not a big deal if people call Hillary "cankles", because she's bad for poor women, is not doing any women any favors. It's feeding a wildfire that burns ALL us women. If people want to earn my vote, they'll agree with that, period, instead of explaining why I shouldn't care. It's not asking a lot.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [28 favorites]
It's like people going on about "taking America back". Back from whom? Why isn't America great now?
Well, we all know what the Republicans mean when they say those things, even if they strenuously deny it. It's the reason why guys like Trump or Cruz are winning.
Jill Sobule knows exactly what they mean when they say they want their America back.
posted by phearlez at 8:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, we all know what the Republicans mean when they say those things, even if they strenuously deny it. It's the reason why guys like Trump or Cruz are winning.
Jill Sobule knows exactly what they mean when they say they want their America back.
posted by phearlez at 8:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
But once in office she'll pull an Obama and say, "Thanks for all the help. I've got it from here."
Realistically Obama was super inexperienced and had no idea what he was doing. Imagine that dog in the chemistry lab meme, but with real nuclear missiles and the entire wold economy depending on you. Being President is about more than making decisions. You also have to know everyone else who makes decisions and anticipate them. The guy is awesome today (I think), after leveling up for the last 8 years. He showed amazing potential that has indeed paid off.
Also his coalition (aka us) failed him. In 2010 we just didn't show up to vote, and the Republicans destroyed him. He also never promised to be a true leftist. His most basic promise was to run the government with some compassion and do things that make sense. Which compared to the Bush years seemed like Jesus but was actually just... pretty boring. So don't be that surprised by what we got.
This taught me a lesson in using the Democratic Party to organize mass action, namely that you can't do it.
That's half true. I mean, we did get something. The ACA, the stimulus, and financial reform are not "nothing". True, they were all problematic in one way or another and if I was emperor I wouldn't have enacted any of them in the same way.
But we are all equal citizen living in a democracy. And in democracy the fight to enact reform never ends. You fight you whole life and inch by inch you build coalitions to inhabit the structures of power to enact laws to incrementally work towards utopia. But there will never be a "magic moment" when anyone gets everything they want and they other people get nothing they want. You go to the table, you trade and compromise. Whoever has the upper hand gets a little bit more than the one who comes to the table in weaker position. And then everyone goes back to build their position again.
We all want a Democratic majority, rather than a bigoted homophobic candidate from the billionaire party, right?
I don't believe that getting a Democratic majority requires us to be less demanding. Quite the opposite actually. There is a built in demographic advantage for the Democrats, and its huge. The problem is that old white people are significantly more likely to vote (and the difference isn't even sort of close) than young people or minorities. So what we need is a message that resonates with this built in demographic advantage and encourages them to show up to the polls to vote in numbers far in excess of what they usually do. If instead the Democrats offer a candidate and platform of "more of the same" I would be more worried about electing the bigoted homophobe. "More of the same" is why a majority of the country is voting for various anti-establishment candidates. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats should use that energy instead of fighting it.
I am not saying they HAVE TO nominate Sanders. But they should do something to generate the same kind of energy he is.
posted by Glibpaxman at 8:57 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
Realistically Obama was super inexperienced and had no idea what he was doing. Imagine that dog in the chemistry lab meme, but with real nuclear missiles and the entire wold economy depending on you. Being President is about more than making decisions. You also have to know everyone else who makes decisions and anticipate them. The guy is awesome today (I think), after leveling up for the last 8 years. He showed amazing potential that has indeed paid off.
Also his coalition (aka us) failed him. In 2010 we just didn't show up to vote, and the Republicans destroyed him. He also never promised to be a true leftist. His most basic promise was to run the government with some compassion and do things that make sense. Which compared to the Bush years seemed like Jesus but was actually just... pretty boring. So don't be that surprised by what we got.
This taught me a lesson in using the Democratic Party to organize mass action, namely that you can't do it.
That's half true. I mean, we did get something. The ACA, the stimulus, and financial reform are not "nothing". True, they were all problematic in one way or another and if I was emperor I wouldn't have enacted any of them in the same way.
But we are all equal citizen living in a democracy. And in democracy the fight to enact reform never ends. You fight you whole life and inch by inch you build coalitions to inhabit the structures of power to enact laws to incrementally work towards utopia. But there will never be a "magic moment" when anyone gets everything they want and they other people get nothing they want. You go to the table, you trade and compromise. Whoever has the upper hand gets a little bit more than the one who comes to the table in weaker position. And then everyone goes back to build their position again.
We all want a Democratic majority, rather than a bigoted homophobic candidate from the billionaire party, right?
I don't believe that getting a Democratic majority requires us to be less demanding. Quite the opposite actually. There is a built in demographic advantage for the Democrats, and its huge. The problem is that old white people are significantly more likely to vote (and the difference isn't even sort of close) than young people or minorities. So what we need is a message that resonates with this built in demographic advantage and encourages them to show up to the polls to vote in numbers far in excess of what they usually do. If instead the Democrats offer a candidate and platform of "more of the same" I would be more worried about electing the bigoted homophobe. "More of the same" is why a majority of the country is voting for various anti-establishment candidates. Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats should use that energy instead of fighting it.
I am not saying they HAVE TO nominate Sanders. But they should do something to generate the same kind of energy he is.
posted by Glibpaxman at 8:57 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
Most people who work in Democratic politics really do want to accomplish some meaningful changes. They just know it's not easy to do, and you have to play stupid games in order to do it.
I know someone who has worked for the Clintons since Bill's first term, and has been in elite Democratic politics in DC his entire career. The "Clintons," by which I mean the "new Democrats", etc. are people who were young republicans in high school but couldn't stomach Nixon's "Southern" strategy and the turn of the Republican party away from, say, the Rockefellers and towards social reactionaries, racists, and scum o' the earth.
Their political project is to make the Democratic party safe for big business and the banks and they have been wildly successful. That's the "meaningful change" they want to accomplish. And, a Republican party of Cruz or Trump: the religious right or the lumpen brownshirts, would cement the Democratic Party as the new party of money in the US.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [16 favorites]
I know someone who has worked for the Clintons since Bill's first term, and has been in elite Democratic politics in DC his entire career. The "Clintons," by which I mean the "new Democrats", etc. are people who were young republicans in high school but couldn't stomach Nixon's "Southern" strategy and the turn of the Republican party away from, say, the Rockefellers and towards social reactionaries, racists, and scum o' the earth.
Their political project is to make the Democratic party safe for big business and the banks and they have been wildly successful. That's the "meaningful change" they want to accomplish. And, a Republican party of Cruz or Trump: the religious right or the lumpen brownshirts, would cement the Democratic Party as the new party of money in the US.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:59 AM on February 2, 2016 [16 favorites]
Bernie can overcome his early optics with minority voters with a carefully chosen running mate, but I can't see Hillary doing the same to turn out the youth/hard-left vote in November.
Unless you mean "under 50" by "youth," the youth vote will probably be as nonexistent as it always is no matter who the nominees are. There aren't enough youth or hard-left voters to affect an election that's not already as close as 2000.
If Cruz or Rubio gets the nod, identity politics are going to bite the Dems in a bad way, especially with religious conservative Latinos
Rubio, maybe but probably not. When push comes to shove the latino electorate is still something like two-thirds or three-quarters Mexican-American, and Rubio is still a lily-white cubano. Cruz is a lily-white cubano who by all accounts speaks Spanish for shit, so it's hard to imagine latinos for whom being latino is important flocking to him.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unless you mean "under 50" by "youth," the youth vote will probably be as nonexistent as it always is no matter who the nominees are. There aren't enough youth or hard-left voters to affect an election that's not already as close as 2000.
If Cruz or Rubio gets the nod, identity politics are going to bite the Dems in a bad way, especially with religious conservative Latinos
Rubio, maybe but probably not. When push comes to shove the latino electorate is still something like two-thirds or three-quarters Mexican-American, and Rubio is still a lily-white cubano. Cruz is a lily-white cubano who by all accounts speaks Spanish for shit, so it's hard to imagine latinos for whom being latino is important flocking to him.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
http://ilikeberniebut.com/
This site is sort of ridiculous on some topics while being right on others.
While Bernie's main focus is on domestic issues, he has shown remarkable foresight when it comes to foreign policy decisions. He was a member of a small minority voting against the War in Iraq in 2003, arguing in an impassioned speech that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in "disaster". He was right.
That's the foreign policy talking point? 2003? Plus the whole tone of the site is so condescending.
I feel like a lot of Bernie supporters bear out the saying, "You're right, but you don't have to be such a jerk about it."
posted by sweetkid at 9:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
This site is sort of ridiculous on some topics while being right on others.
While Bernie's main focus is on domestic issues, he has shown remarkable foresight when it comes to foreign policy decisions. He was a member of a small minority voting against the War in Iraq in 2003, arguing in an impassioned speech that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in "disaster". He was right.
That's the foreign policy talking point? 2003? Plus the whole tone of the site is so condescending.
I feel like a lot of Bernie supporters bear out the saying, "You're right, but you don't have to be such a jerk about it."
posted by sweetkid at 9:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
And Health care, banking, and criminal justice reform.
That sounds like profound differences on the key features of the United States goverment: its taxation, its regulation of finance, its warmaking, its welfare apparatus and its justice system. Are there even any really important issues besides those? If Clinton and Sanders differ on these issues as much as they do, then they are starkly different, not basically the same.
When compared to the Republican platform, yes, there are quite a few difference between Clinton and Sanders vs. the GOP. Immigration. The makeup of the future Supreme Court, whether current laws that affect the rights of millions of Americans will be revoked, including ACA health care (which the Republicans have tried to eliminate entirely, the right for all consenting adults to marry regardless of sexual orientation, and a number of women's rights including abortion. Not to mention huge differences between the Republicans and Democrats on separation of Church and state. Energy dependence. Foreign trade. Goverment regulation and oversight of businesses, banks and other finance industry entities. Gun control. Climate change. Water and air protection/quality. Unemployment benefits. Medicare. Social Security. With all of these, their positions are very similar compared to any Republican candidate.
The differences Sanders is espousing on taxes and health care (compared to Hillary's positions) will be constrained by what he can push through Congress. His ability to oppose or wage war will be constrained by realpolitik, public opinion and yes, Congress. His power to "break up the banks" is going to be limited by Congress as well. He wouldn't be able to simply sign executive orders without limit.
posted by zarq at 9:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
That sounds like profound differences on the key features of the United States goverment: its taxation, its regulation of finance, its warmaking, its welfare apparatus and its justice system. Are there even any really important issues besides those? If Clinton and Sanders differ on these issues as much as they do, then they are starkly different, not basically the same.
When compared to the Republican platform, yes, there are quite a few difference between Clinton and Sanders vs. the GOP. Immigration. The makeup of the future Supreme Court, whether current laws that affect the rights of millions of Americans will be revoked, including ACA health care (which the Republicans have tried to eliminate entirely, the right for all consenting adults to marry regardless of sexual orientation, and a number of women's rights including abortion. Not to mention huge differences between the Republicans and Democrats on separation of Church and state. Energy dependence. Foreign trade. Goverment regulation and oversight of businesses, banks and other finance industry entities. Gun control. Climate change. Water and air protection/quality. Unemployment benefits. Medicare. Social Security. With all of these, their positions are very similar compared to any Republican candidate.
The differences Sanders is espousing on taxes and health care (compared to Hillary's positions) will be constrained by what he can push through Congress. His ability to oppose or wage war will be constrained by realpolitik, public opinion and yes, Congress. His power to "break up the banks" is going to be limited by Congress as well. He wouldn't be able to simply sign executive orders without limit.
posted by zarq at 9:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
How Both Parties Lost the White Middle Class
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:02 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Right now, Sanders is pushing perhaps 5 or 6 issues where he differs from Clinton. Education. Taxes. Warfare.
A Sanders primary victory would mean a profound difference in *who* makes decisions in the Democratic Party, regardless of policy. Which is why it won't happen. People who have worked their whole lives to make the Dems what they are today are not going to roll over for some whack-o hippie from Vermont just because of an election or two.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
A Sanders primary victory would mean a profound difference in *who* makes decisions in the Democratic Party, regardless of policy. Which is why it won't happen. People who have worked their whole lives to make the Dems what they are today are not going to roll over for some whack-o hippie from Vermont just because of an election or two.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
While Bernie's main focus is on domestic issues, he has shown remarkable foresight when it comes to foreign policy decisions. He was a member of a small minority voting against the War in Iraq in 2003, arguing in an impassioned speech that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in "disaster". He was right.
That's the foreign policy talking point? 2003?
If you want to know why we're talking about ISIS in 2016....2003 is a decent time to start thinking about.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]
That's the foreign policy talking point? 2003?
If you want to know why we're talking about ISIS in 2016....2003 is a decent time to start thinking about.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]
I'm not saying they HAVE TO nominate Sanders. But they should do something to generate the same kind of energy he is.
I think this is spot on. I would be happy with Sanders or Clinton at the end of the day, but you can't deny that Bernie's supporters really bring an elevated energy to the arena. That is so important. Clinton just seems like establishment politics, which is hardly something to get excited about. But I'm open to her proving me wrong. I donate to Bernie, but mostly just to keep the race fair.
posted by pwally at 9:05 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think this is spot on. I would be happy with Sanders or Clinton at the end of the day, but you can't deny that Bernie's supporters really bring an elevated energy to the arena. That is so important. Clinton just seems like establishment politics, which is hardly something to get excited about. But I'm open to her proving me wrong. I donate to Bernie, but mostly just to keep the race fair.
posted by pwally at 9:05 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
If you want to know why we're talking about ISIS in 2016....2003 is a decent time to start thinking about.
We should be looking forward not backwards, blah, blah, blah twirling towards freedom.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:05 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
We should be looking forward not backwards, blah, blah, blah twirling towards freedom.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:05 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've gotten emails from Obama since his campaign on. He frequently has called upon citizens to help with his initiatives. This is just plain false.
Revisionist history.
You can go back and see for yourself if you care to scroll back through his twitter stream. Some of this was actually mandated by rules on how the President can communicate:
But a lot of it was him just abandoning the platforms that put him in office.
Sanders levying the same criticism.
Even Obama himself says he failed to utilize his followers effectively after he got into office. Of course that's impossible to find a cite for, since all I get are right wing blogs.
Wikipedia on his use of social media states he did a reddit AMA while campaigning. Did he do one as President?
Some of the platforms literally went into read only, so if you were a forum participant or had a profile on barackobama.com once he was in office your voice was no more. I would be surprised if his YouTube or Facebook page was much different. His podcast went dark, so literally radio silence.
I could go on, but you're forgetting a lot. Even the emails pretty much dried up. I honestly don't remember unsubscribing, but I haven't gotten one in years.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:06 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Revisionist history.
You can go back and see for yourself if you care to scroll back through his twitter stream. Some of this was actually mandated by rules on how the President can communicate:
Did you know that when this president took office, it was illegal for the President to end a tweet with a question mark without a six month approval process from the economists across the street at the “Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.” cite
But a lot of it was him just abandoning the platforms that put him in office.
Sanders levying the same criticism.
Even Obama himself says he failed to utilize his followers effectively after he got into office. Of course that's impossible to find a cite for, since all I get are right wing blogs.
Wikipedia on his use of social media states he did a reddit AMA while campaigning. Did he do one as President?
Some of the platforms literally went into read only, so if you were a forum participant or had a profile on barackobama.com once he was in office your voice was no more. I would be surprised if his YouTube or Facebook page was much different. His podcast went dark, so literally radio silence.
I could go on, but you're forgetting a lot. Even the emails pretty much dried up. I honestly don't remember unsubscribing, but I haven't gotten one in years.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:06 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've been watching Hillary for 25 years now. I was in Little Rock on November 3, 1992, when Bill gave his victory speech. Hillary blows with the wind. She is a master of political calculation. Time and again, she and Bill have taken support from the left wing for granted, and tacked to the right. She made the political calculation that the left can be ignored. But as of last night, the wind is blowing from the left. This is a good outcome.
posted by vibrotronica at 9:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by vibrotronica at 9:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]
If you want to know why we're talking about ISIS in 2016....2003 is a decent time to start thinking about.
Yes, I understand destabilization in the region and what caused it. But making the big talking point on foreign policy 2003 is not a great idea. Clinton has done a lot more.
posted by sweetkid at 9:12 AM on February 2, 2016
Clinton has done a lot more.
Like lobbying hard for "intervening" in Libya? Nothing she has done since then has indicated she is anything but a hawk with respect to escalating intervention in the Middle East.
posted by dialetheia at 9:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Like lobbying hard for "intervening" in Libya? Nothing she has done since then has indicated she is anything but a hawk with respect to escalating intervention in the Middle East.
posted by dialetheia at 9:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
But making the big talking point on foreign policy 2003 is not a great idea. Clinton has done a lot more.
Honestly kind of reminds me of the Bush family line on W. "He always kept us safe. If you don't count that one little thing that happened first."
posted by Drinky Die at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Honestly kind of reminds me of the Bush family line on W. "He always kept us safe. If you don't count that one little thing that happened first."
posted by Drinky Die at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Something just occurred to me. Has a Latino ever won a state Presidential primary? I can't think of any. Is Cruz the first to do so?
posted by zarq at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
saul wright: Donald J. Trump’s campaign spent more on hats — at least $1.2 million — than on voter data and outreach.
Hey, Trump hats are the finest, most luxurious, best hats around. They're hyuuuge.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hey, Trump hats are the finest, most luxurious, best hats around. They're hyuuuge.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 9:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Realistically Obama was super inexperienced and had no idea what he was doing.
If I can play DC-area knows-machine-insiders here, this is not a trivial thing. The most significant story I heard (and all these tales came from lefty friends who'd voted for him and would do so again in 2012, even if they thought his administration was disorganized) was one from early on, where a friend of mine took a call from a WH staffer who was peeved at the budget estimate they had been sent for closing Guantanamo. The quote was "why does it cost anything to just turn off the lights?" They were marginally mollified by "well, do you intend to just leave all the prisoners and workers there?" but still fought the process of organizing and paying for operations.
It's somewhat surprising given that we all assumed he was going to pull in a lot of the old Clinton machine and from some perspectives it seems like he did. But somehow it took them a long time to get the hang of governing beyond the passing of legislation. Which some might argue they didn't do well at either.
That's not enough reason for me not to support Sanders and his pushing lefty issues (though I'll vote for any non-R in the general) but I am a lot less sanguine about how much it matters to know how to run an executive office than I was before 2009.
posted by phearlez at 9:18 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
If I can play DC-area knows-machine-insiders here, this is not a trivial thing. The most significant story I heard (and all these tales came from lefty friends who'd voted for him and would do so again in 2012, even if they thought his administration was disorganized) was one from early on, where a friend of mine took a call from a WH staffer who was peeved at the budget estimate they had been sent for closing Guantanamo. The quote was "why does it cost anything to just turn off the lights?" They were marginally mollified by "well, do you intend to just leave all the prisoners and workers there?" but still fought the process of organizing and paying for operations.
It's somewhat surprising given that we all assumed he was going to pull in a lot of the old Clinton machine and from some perspectives it seems like he did. But somehow it took them a long time to get the hang of governing beyond the passing of legislation. Which some might argue they didn't do well at either.
That's not enough reason for me not to support Sanders and his pushing lefty issues (though I'll vote for any non-R in the general) but I am a lot less sanguine about how much it matters to know how to run an executive office than I was before 2009.
posted by phearlez at 9:18 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Something just occurred to me. Has a Latino ever won a state Presidential primary? I can't think of any. Is Cruz the first to do so?
Ditto, but Canadian by birth?
posted by Wordshore at 9:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ditto, but Canadian by birth?
posted by Wordshore at 9:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
What the media never really talks about is that the activist base of the Republican party, the guys who set up the catering and tell you where the bathroom is at the speech venue, is dominated by racists and religious extremists, particularly the latter. The people who make Republican elections work at the local level are the scum 'o the earth that Nixon courted and married the party to with his "Southern" strategy. The reason why the Republican party hates Cruz isn't because he's an asshole or weird, but because he's a true believer. A Cruz primary victory would be a coup for the religious right, which has acted as a servant to the traditional "money" side of the party for too long. Bush wasn't destroyed in Iowa just because he sucks, but because the religious right revolted against the party elite decision to anoint Bush as "the one." This is why they pray for Rubio, but would rather have a Trump than have the top and bottom of the Republican Party controlled by mouth-breathing Jesus freaks.
Politics is ultimately about *who* rather than *what*. Candidates are just individuals and policies are just words: it's the people they bring into power with an election victory that are important.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Politics is ultimately about *who* rather than *what*. Candidates are just individuals and policies are just words: it's the people they bring into power with an election victory that are important.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder when the era of 'buy one, get one free' ended.
TED KOPPEL (VO): Meet the new political wife. She has a career, she has opinions. A partner in every way.
GOV BILL CLINTON, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And my slogan might well be, "Buy one, get one free".
I have felt for a long time that the Clinton era pushed the Democratic party rightward. And the past year has felt like the New Deal Democrats taking back a party occupied by Wall Street. I don't think this Clinton-Sanders competition would have elements of acrimony if it weren't for FPTP plus a marginalization of the left for decades.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
TED KOPPEL (VO): Meet the new political wife. She has a career, she has opinions. A partner in every way.
GOV BILL CLINTON, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: And my slogan might well be, "Buy one, get one free".
I have felt for a long time that the Clinton era pushed the Democratic party rightward. And the past year has felt like the New Deal Democrats taking back a party occupied by Wall Street. I don't think this Clinton-Sanders competition would have elements of acrimony if it weren't for FPTP plus a marginalization of the left for decades.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, I know we're variously in the throes of one of the weird cathartic moments of this already long-lived election cycle but please try to keep it a little bit cool in here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:22 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:22 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have to admit to loving the Canadian anchor baby line though. He kind of was, in a way.
posted by bonehead at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by bonehead at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2016
cjorgensen, don't tell me I'm forgetting things. We disagree on Obama's outreach, but you don't need to make it personal. I didn't forget anything and I am offended that my experence is categorized by you as revisionist history.
posted by agregoli at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by agregoli at 9:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ditto, but Canadian by birth?
Yeah. But still, if he is the first that's pretty damned ground-breaking. I haven't seen any mainstream media outlets report it -- which may mean I'm wrong.
I was thinking Ben Fernandez might have won a primary, but no.
posted by zarq at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2016
Yeah. But still, if he is the first that's pretty damned ground-breaking. I haven't seen any mainstream media outlets report it -- which may mean I'm wrong.
I was thinking Ben Fernandez might have won a primary, but no.
posted by zarq at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2016
That article about both parties and the white middle class really speaks to a lot of the Sanders/Trump support that has been puzzling - the percentage of Sanders voters who say they would vote for Trump in the general if Sanders got knocked out and vice versa, which is otherwise incomprehensible.
posted by corb at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by corb at 9:25 AM on February 2, 2016
The really interesting thing will be what happens if Cruz wins another primary. There are many Constitutional scholars who believe he is not eligible for the presidency.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:26 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:26 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
corb, that's what I was trying to say upthread. The assumption that Sanders voters will become Clinton voters is not correct.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:27 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:27 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yep. I googled "cruz first latino primary" and spotted two tweets acknowledging his achievement. One from Jake Tapper of CNN and the other from Charlie Kirk of Turning Point.
posted by zarq at 9:28 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 9:28 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am just shocked, honestly shocked, at what a poor candidate for President Hillary Clinton really seems to be. I thought maybe she was just caught off guard in 2008 but no, she's about as bad this time around. Her campaign has been all over the place: attacking Sanders while sidling up to his policy positions, throwing shade on perennial liberal dream policies, arguing that No We Can't! is the rallying cry we really need on the left. In the debates she's constantly going on and on about our enemies the Republicans, but then she turns around and says she'll be able to work with them best? Even as she remains one of the most hated figures in all conservative history? Her message to Democrats is "dream small, it's pointless"?
She doesn't even make a full-throated argument for liberal values and policies the way that Sanders does; instead, she makes an argument for herself, how she's the best, how no one but her is experienced enough, yadda yadda yadda. The closest she comes is rattling off a list of constituencies she thinks should be hers. If you contrast the number of times she says "I" with the number of times Sanders says "we" in their respective speeches, it's pretty staggering. It's the opposite of inspiring to me. I don't understand how anyone could think that she would be any better at building the political movement we need to get any of these policies through Congress. Where's her political revolution? If her big message is that policies supported by the broad majority of American people have no hope of being enacted, she should have an answer for fixing that system beyond "just keep taking corporate money and hope it gets better."
Hillary Clinton has a huge enthusiasm problem. She has a huge youth problem, both among men and women. 84% of people under 29 voted for Sanders last night. Everyone has done their best to construe Sanders' support and enthusiasm as a liability - the media's "Bernie Bro" focus is part of that - but getting 20,000 people out to rallies in multiple states before the first primary vote has even been cast is no small feat, especially for a barely-known 74 year old socialist. Nor is raising tons of money from 3 million small donations (a record by far). In the same sense that everyone is asking Sanders how he intends to address his shortfalls in PoC votes, I would love to see Clinton pressed on how she is going to win votes from Sanders' coalition.
Why are so many Democrats trying to squash this wave of enthusiasm for liberal policies? "Sorry kids, better give up on ever getting secure access to health care unless you're middle class!" is not the rallying cry I expected from Democrats this year. There are still 29 million people without insurance and many more drowning in medical debt and bankruptcy - those people can't wait, either.
posted by dialetheia at 9:32 AM on February 2, 2016 [73 favorites]
She doesn't even make a full-throated argument for liberal values and policies the way that Sanders does; instead, she makes an argument for herself, how she's the best, how no one but her is experienced enough, yadda yadda yadda. The closest she comes is rattling off a list of constituencies she thinks should be hers. If you contrast the number of times she says "I" with the number of times Sanders says "we" in their respective speeches, it's pretty staggering. It's the opposite of inspiring to me. I don't understand how anyone could think that she would be any better at building the political movement we need to get any of these policies through Congress. Where's her political revolution? If her big message is that policies supported by the broad majority of American people have no hope of being enacted, she should have an answer for fixing that system beyond "just keep taking corporate money and hope it gets better."
Hillary Clinton has a huge enthusiasm problem. She has a huge youth problem, both among men and women. 84% of people under 29 voted for Sanders last night. Everyone has done their best to construe Sanders' support and enthusiasm as a liability - the media's "Bernie Bro" focus is part of that - but getting 20,000 people out to rallies in multiple states before the first primary vote has even been cast is no small feat, especially for a barely-known 74 year old socialist. Nor is raising tons of money from 3 million small donations (a record by far). In the same sense that everyone is asking Sanders how he intends to address his shortfalls in PoC votes, I would love to see Clinton pressed on how she is going to win votes from Sanders' coalition.
Why are so many Democrats trying to squash this wave of enthusiasm for liberal policies? "Sorry kids, better give up on ever getting secure access to health care unless you're middle class!" is not the rallying cry I expected from Democrats this year. There are still 29 million people without insurance and many more drowning in medical debt and bankruptcy - those people can't wait, either.
posted by dialetheia at 9:32 AM on February 2, 2016 [73 favorites]
DINOs gonna DINO.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:34 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by entropicamericana at 9:34 AM on February 2, 2016
Her slogan is basically "No, we can't" - that's the basis of both her appeal and her lack of appeal.
posted by Artw at 9:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Corey Booker as VP would mean an NY/NJ Democrat ticket. Seems doubtful.
Or VT/NJ - but he's urban New Jersey, with a lot of urban politicians in his network from his time as Mayor. Pennsylvania and Ohio will vote for a ticket featuring a centrist black VP with experience running a large city, ditto VA and FL.
Obama did just swell with a senator from MD - Biden was the establishment brawler Obama needed as the slick outsider. Personality, experience and positions on policy matter as much as zipcode, if you have the right candidates.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:43 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or VT/NJ - but he's urban New Jersey, with a lot of urban politicians in his network from his time as Mayor. Pennsylvania and Ohio will vote for a ticket featuring a centrist black VP with experience running a large city, ditto VA and FL.
Obama did just swell with a senator from MD - Biden was the establishment brawler Obama needed as the slick outsider. Personality, experience and positions on policy matter as much as zipcode, if you have the right candidates.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:43 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Joe Biden is from Delaware.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Biden's from DE.
posted by ob at 9:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ob at 9:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Joe Biden is from Delaware.
MD upside down doesn't actually look like DW, which is OK as DW totally doesn't stand for Delaware, which is DE. Study it out and unskew your polls! Cough.
(gimme a minute to use the change window, next time! Geeeeeze...)
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
MD upside down doesn't actually look like DW, which is OK as DW totally doesn't stand for Delaware, which is DE. Study it out and unskew your polls! Cough.
(gimme a minute to use the change window, next time! Geeeeeze...)
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Biden would be an excellent VP pick for Hillary too.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:48 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:48 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anything that keeps Diamond Joe and his Trans-Am around for another 4-8 years is okay with me.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 9:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
She could pick Obama as VP to really get the other side going.
posted by localhuman at 9:49 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by localhuman at 9:49 AM on February 2, 2016
She could pick Obama as VP to really get the other side going.
I believe that's unconstitutional, but fun idea.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:51 AM on February 2, 2016
I believe that's unconstitutional, but fun idea.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:51 AM on February 2, 2016
Obama is ineligible, VP has to meet the qualifications to be President. The Supreme Court nomination idea is very interesting though.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I believe that's unconstitutional, but fun idea.
Yes indeed. Can't be done, but it's fun to imagine the apoplectic fits the right wing would have.
posted by Fleebnork at 9:52 AM on February 2, 2016
Yes indeed. Can't be done, but it's fun to imagine the apoplectic fits the right wing would have.
posted by Fleebnork at 9:52 AM on February 2, 2016
cjorgensen: "Some of the platforms literally went into read only, so if you were a forum participant or had a profile on barackobama.com once he was in office your voice was no more."
That's likely a consequence of the fact that elected officials need to keep their campaign platforms very separate from the tools that they use to carry out their office. It only very recently became OK for congresspeople to use the same cellphone for work and campaigning.
posted by schmod at 9:55 AM on February 2, 2016
That's likely a consequence of the fact that elected officials need to keep their campaign platforms very separate from the tools that they use to carry out their office. It only very recently became OK for congresspeople to use the same cellphone for work and campaigning.
posted by schmod at 9:55 AM on February 2, 2016
He can't be elected to VP. But what if the acting VP were to resign—could Obama be appointed to the office?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:57 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:57 AM on February 2, 2016
Could Obama be vice president? I think the answer is clearly yes. You can not be elected more than twice to be president (or more than once plus two years). If he is not being elected president, then he can still serve as president should the case arise.
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:58 AM on February 2, 2016
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 9:58 AM on February 2, 2016
The article titled "My Kind of Misogyny: I Don’t Care If They Call a Warhawk 'Cankles' "? Wow, I can't imagine why some women might feel uncomfortable about that.
Yes, that title is very unfortunate, which is probably why it was first linked in this thread with the caveat that it was the "more acerbic" version of "Rejecting Bourgeois Feminism," a sharp anti-Hillary piece by Roqayah Chamseddine from a couple of weeks ago:
Their works in defense of Clinton hinge on emotion and a prospective future that has no basis in reality, especially when one examines her history as Secretary of State. Their arguments are bolstered by superficial social justice performances and liberal neologisms, wherein policy is simply an aside rather than the very heart of the matter. When faced with policy issues their critics are often told that Clinton is “problematic”, that she “has some issues”, or something similar. They refuse to engage with material concerns, reject internationalism almost outright, and rummage through a laundry list of accusations against “Berniebros” even when vocal detractors are women. Setting up the Berniebro straw-man has become their knee-jerk response to any critique, no matter how tempered and thorough—if they can’t formulate any kind of refutation they fall back on a ritual: ignore critics and tweet something against “bros” to thousands of followers who will laugh and throw forward some support...
Clinton’s acceptance of campaign donations from private prison lobbyists, one of which “is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit”, is rarely discussed as being harmful to women. According to a report by The Sentencing Project (2013), “the rate of increase of women continued to outpace that of men, as it has for several decades. From 2000 to 2009 the number of women incarcerated in state or federal prisons rose by 21.6%, compared to a 15.6% increase for men.” The rate of growth of women in prison has climbed 646% from 1980 to 2010, compared to a 419% increase for men, and in 2010 there were 112,000 women in state and federal prison and 205,000 women overall in prison or jail.
The prison-industrial complex has grown exceedingly powerful thanks to the Clinton dynasty, and the alarming reception prison lobbyists received from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the silence of certain high-platform feminists in response, underlines the type of women they find worthy of their brand of feminism.
There's much more, from other left feminist women as well, and the consistent theme is the refusal of mainstream feminist Hillary supporters to honor the voices of women who have legitimate concerns about Hillary's record, instead seeming to solely prefer engaging with the issue of sexist criticisms of their candidate. I'm glad we can talk about this calmly here; regardless of the unfortunate framing of Amber Frost's Baffler piece, both she and Chamseddine raise good points, as you note.
posted by mediareport at 10:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [22 favorites]
Yes, that title is very unfortunate, which is probably why it was first linked in this thread with the caveat that it was the "more acerbic" version of "Rejecting Bourgeois Feminism," a sharp anti-Hillary piece by Roqayah Chamseddine from a couple of weeks ago:
Their works in defense of Clinton hinge on emotion and a prospective future that has no basis in reality, especially when one examines her history as Secretary of State. Their arguments are bolstered by superficial social justice performances and liberal neologisms, wherein policy is simply an aside rather than the very heart of the matter. When faced with policy issues their critics are often told that Clinton is “problematic”, that she “has some issues”, or something similar. They refuse to engage with material concerns, reject internationalism almost outright, and rummage through a laundry list of accusations against “Berniebros” even when vocal detractors are women. Setting up the Berniebro straw-man has become their knee-jerk response to any critique, no matter how tempered and thorough—if they can’t formulate any kind of refutation they fall back on a ritual: ignore critics and tweet something against “bros” to thousands of followers who will laugh and throw forward some support...
Clinton’s acceptance of campaign donations from private prison lobbyists, one of which “is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit”, is rarely discussed as being harmful to women. According to a report by The Sentencing Project (2013), “the rate of increase of women continued to outpace that of men, as it has for several decades. From 2000 to 2009 the number of women incarcerated in state or federal prisons rose by 21.6%, compared to a 15.6% increase for men.” The rate of growth of women in prison has climbed 646% from 1980 to 2010, compared to a 419% increase for men, and in 2010 there were 112,000 women in state and federal prison and 205,000 women overall in prison or jail.
The prison-industrial complex has grown exceedingly powerful thanks to the Clinton dynasty, and the alarming reception prison lobbyists received from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the silence of certain high-platform feminists in response, underlines the type of women they find worthy of their brand of feminism.
There's much more, from other left feminist women as well, and the consistent theme is the refusal of mainstream feminist Hillary supporters to honor the voices of women who have legitimate concerns about Hillary's record, instead seeming to solely prefer engaging with the issue of sexist criticisms of their candidate. I'm glad we can talk about this calmly here; regardless of the unfortunate framing of Amber Frost's Baffler piece, both she and Chamseddine raise good points, as you note.
posted by mediareport at 10:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [22 favorites]
She could pick Obama as VP to really get the other side going.
I believe that's unconstitutional, but fun idea.
If it's good enough for Putin...
posted by ennui.bz at 10:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I believe that's unconstitutional, but fun idea.
If it's good enough for Putin...
posted by ennui.bz at 10:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
But making the big talking point on foreign policy 2003 is not a great idea. Clinton has done a lot more.
Honestly kind of reminds me of the Bush family line on W. "He always kept us safe. If you don't count that one little thing that happened first."
Yes, she has been mostly hawkish, but she was also Secretary of State and had an actual foreign policy role. I like Sanders' take on the Middle East much better, but I don't like how some volunteers phrased it on a site called "I like Bernie but" which I find really offputting.
That doesn't make me the same as a Bush supporter, but it sure feels like it in this thread. Not 100% Bernie - you're dumb, super Pro Clinton, or a conservative. Probably all three.
posted by sweetkid at 10:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Honestly kind of reminds me of the Bush family line on W. "He always kept us safe. If you don't count that one little thing that happened first."
Yes, she has been mostly hawkish, but she was also Secretary of State and had an actual foreign policy role. I like Sanders' take on the Middle East much better, but I don't like how some volunteers phrased it on a site called "I like Bernie but" which I find really offputting.
That doesn't make me the same as a Bush supporter, but it sure feels like it in this thread. Not 100% Bernie - you're dumb, super Pro Clinton, or a conservative. Probably all three.
posted by sweetkid at 10:03 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Sorry kids, better give up on ever getting secure access to health care unless you're middle class!"
Sanders is attracting the youth vote, but even with all the enthusiasm generated the turnout for the Democratic Caucus was down from 2008, youth vote as a percentage of the Democratic Caucus turnout is also down from 2008. I think whoever is chosen to run on the Dem side this year is going to have a tougher time, because their party is the one in power.
I'm actually a little disappointed that immigration reform has fallen off the radar again and the focus is on health care again (which, yes, is also important). There are still 11 million folks out there without documentation, and there has been no real attempt at reform since 2007, and it's starting to look like 2007 was the best chance we had.
posted by FJT at 10:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders is attracting the youth vote, but even with all the enthusiasm generated the turnout for the Democratic Caucus was down from 2008, youth vote as a percentage of the Democratic Caucus turnout is also down from 2008. I think whoever is chosen to run on the Dem side this year is going to have a tougher time, because their party is the one in power.
I'm actually a little disappointed that immigration reform has fallen off the radar again and the focus is on health care again (which, yes, is also important). There are still 11 million folks out there without documentation, and there has been no real attempt at reform since 2007, and it's starting to look like 2007 was the best chance we had.
posted by FJT at 10:04 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
You know, I know it's partially an issue just because of Clinton now, but one thing that's being raised was also raised ten years ago and I think it's still valid. At what point can we decree that if a member of your immediate family was President, you are ineligible? Bush gave rise to W, gave rise to Jeb running for the Presidency. Clinton gave rise to Hillary running, with think pieces popping about Chelsea's future ambitions. I mean, wasn't one of the points of the presidency being to avoid fucking dynasties?
posted by corb at 10:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by corb at 10:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
Definitely hate the trend.
Lessig for VP!!
posted by Trochanter at 10:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Lessig for VP!!
posted by Trochanter at 10:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I also am not a huge fan of dynasties but I think it's up to the American people to decide if they want a spouse/sibling/child of a former president to be elected or not.
I don't see why Hillary or Jeb! (or RFK, or John Quincy Adams) should be legally barred from the office just because of who they're related to.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't see why Hillary or Jeb! (or RFK, or John Quincy Adams) should be legally barred from the office just because of who they're related to.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:12 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
If the founders wanted to explicitly ban any sort of family connection, they would have done so. Bush 43 was unqualified, but that had nothing to do with the fact that his dad was President first. Likewise, Hillary's qualifications or lack thereof have nothing to do with anything her husband did.
Blame the voters if you don't like it, not the candidates.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Blame the voters if you don't like it, not the candidates.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Blame the voters if you don't like it, not the candidates.
Or, blame the dynastic money. Blame campaign finance laws.
(Old leftie yells at cloud)
posted by Trochanter at 10:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
Or, blame the dynastic money. Blame campaign finance laws.
(Old leftie yells at cloud)
posted by Trochanter at 10:17 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
The only way to be fair is to require all families with presidential ambition to give up their newborns. It'll be like how the jedis do it.
posted by FJT at 10:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by FJT at 10:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
FJT, that's a valiant attempt at a mega-thread pair crossover. Don't cross the streams!
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Good morning, NetaFilter. I had surgery about an hour ago and the first thing I asked when I woke up was if they had a declared a winner in Iowa and said Feel the burn, winning me the best question asked after surgery award. No prize but I got some Saltines. That is all.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:26 AM on February 2, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 10:26 AM on February 2, 2016 [24 favorites]
Iowa Caucuses 2016 results
Clinton, Hillary 701
Sanders, Bernie 697
If you were to take the 6 coin toss delegates, and split them in a more statistically probable manner, and instead of giving them all to Clinton, split them 50/50, the score would be:
Clinton, Hillary 698
Sanders, Bernie 700
The rules are the rules, and I am sure that's the way the flips landed, but it's is why Sanders is wanting the total votes released. There's a good chance he'll have taken the popular vote. I honestly don't see how Hillary can color this as anything more than a technical win.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:30 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
Clinton, Hillary 701
Sanders, Bernie 697
If you were to take the 6 coin toss delegates, and split them in a more statistically probable manner, and instead of giving them all to Clinton, split them 50/50, the score would be:
Clinton, Hillary 698
Sanders, Bernie 700
The rules are the rules, and I am sure that's the way the flips landed, but it's is why Sanders is wanting the total votes released. There's a good chance he'll have taken the popular vote. I honestly don't see how Hillary can color this as anything more than a technical win.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:30 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
An Elegy for Martin O’Malley
'The former Maryland governor’s love of Irish poetry provides a fitting send off to his candidacy.'
posted by readery at 10:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
'The former Maryland governor’s love of Irish poetry provides a fitting send off to his candidacy.'
posted by readery at 10:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I honestly don't see how Hillary can color this as anything more than a technical win.
Al Gore's on the line, he says he'd have taken a "technical win."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:32 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Al Gore's on the line, he says he'd have taken a "technical win."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:32 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
How Both Parties Lost the White Middle Class
"The populism we're seeing stems entirely from the collision of whites who flourish in the global economy — and amid the cultural changes of the last 50 years — with those who don't." /rings true! (but keep in mind it's by the editor of _first things_ ;)
also btw...
"The populism we're seeing stems entirely from the collision of whites who flourish in the global economy — and amid the cultural changes of the last 50 years — with those who don't." /rings true! (but keep in mind it's by the editor of _first things_ ;)
also btw...
- Why the Outer Party hates Trump & will waste this opportunity for reform - "Summary: The reaction of our upper classes to the rise of Trump reveals much about 21st century America — a society divided by class, with blinkered elites, and an opportunity to unify and make reforms (which we'll almost certainly squander). 2016 will be a big year for America, a bad one if we do not try to understand what is happening."
- Jobs Are Under Attack, But Not by Robots - "The problem created by the computer age isn't mass unemployment but the gradual disappearance of good, steady, mid-level jobs that have been lost to robots and algorithms and also to globalization and outsourcing... Slower productivity growth and low-wage jobs are leading to the unequal distribution of productivity gains. Those are the real headwinds that America faces."
- Is 'Secular Stagnation' a Monetary-Financial Problem or a Fundamental-Technological Problem? The Long View - "Range of adaptation refers to how comprehensively economic activity must be reorganized before positive impacts on output and productivity occur. Eichengreen reasons that the greater the required range of adaptation, the higher the likelihood that growth may slow in the short run, as costly investments in adaptation must be made and existing technology must be disrupted."
- Economic Problems in the Age of Abundance - "As labor becomes a less important part of the economy, and working-age men, in particular, become a smaller proportion of the workforce, problems related to social inclusion are bound to become both more chronic and more acute."
- Are Economists in Denial About What's Driving the Inequality Trainwreck? "What's really causing the growing gap between haves and have-nots? Is it mechanical market forces? Outsourcing? Real estate? ... Worker exploitation and outsized business profits are factors, but even more key are the unjustified payments to the wealthy generated by our outsized financial sector. This hasn't just 'happened'. Flawed economic theory and politicians beholden to the rich lead to policies that make it happen."
- Will Hillary Clinton rein in Wall Street? (spoiler: no) - "I owe almost my entire Wall Street career to the Clintons. I am not alone; most bankers owe their careers, and their wealth, to them. Over the last 25 years they – with the Clintons it is never just Bill or Hillary – implemented policies that placed Wall Street at the center of the Democratic economic agenda, turning it from a party against Wall Street to a party of Wall Street."
- Robert Reich: Who Lost the White Working Class? - "They've done nothing to change the vicious cycle of wealth and power that has rigged the economy for the benefit of those at the top, and undermined the working class. In some respects, Democrats have been complicit."
- Conservatives, wake up: The tax code is not your biggest problem - "Men of prime working age — too old to be in school and too young to be retired — are in flight from the labor force. The average labor force participation rate of prime-aged men in 1980 was 94.3 percent. The rate last month? Just 88 percent. Only 83 prime-aged men out of every 100 have a job today... Public policy can help."
- What Bernie Sanders Has Already Won - "With uncomplicated language and simple sincerity, Sanders has rallied millions of Democrats under the banner of 'democratic socialism'—a kind of neo–New Deal liberalism, set against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's attempted synthesis of Great Society policies and Third Way politics—and moved 'socialist' from the realm of epithet to legitimate label."
"Her slogan is basically "No, we can't""
No, it isn't. It's more like "let's do what is possible".
posted by markkraft at 10:33 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
No, it isn't. It's more like "let's do what is possible".
posted by markkraft at 10:33 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
Which is what?
posted by Artw at 10:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Let's do what is possible
One shifts left to right...
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:36 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
One shifts left to right...
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:36 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which is what?
1. Nominate Supreme Court Justices
2. Negotiate deals to not close the government down or default on the national debt.
3. Decide where to bomb.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:37 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
1. Nominate Supreme Court Justices
2. Negotiate deals to not close the government down or default on the national debt.
3. Decide where to bomb.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:37 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
Does anyone understand how, given the results, Clinton ended up with 23 delegates and Sanders 21? That lead of two delegates is hard to grasp.
posted by crazy with stars at 10:37 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by crazy with stars at 10:37 AM on February 2, 2016
The coin tosses were for county delegates and did not directly figure in the state delegate total.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:37 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:37 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
4. Keep dismantling the middle class.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 10:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
1. SERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST
2. PROTECT THE INNOCENT
3. UPHOLD THE LAW
4. [CLASSIFIED]
posted by FJT at 10:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]
2. PROTECT THE INNOCENT
3. UPHOLD THE LAW
4. [CLASSIFIED]
posted by FJT at 10:41 AM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]
Clinton loudly claiming Iowa as a "win" would simply confirm how out little she cares about being straight with the people in this election, and how very much she is counting on voters who don't pay attention to carry her over the top. It (in my opinion) would wholly undermines her posture as a moderate, stay-the-course candidate; you can't trust an opportunist to stay on any particular course, whether the one we're on, or any other.
The one thing I'm certain of is that she won't become President courtesy of super-delegates if Sanders has more elected delegates. Either he, or another strong progressive, will run as an independent in that case and split the vote. Far more likely, she will, in a repeat of 2008, be forced to relinquish her super-delegates or see them stripped from her by defections or rules changes.
posted by MattD at 10:43 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
The one thing I'm certain of is that she won't become President courtesy of super-delegates if Sanders has more elected delegates. Either he, or another strong progressive, will run as an independent in that case and split the vote. Far more likely, she will, in a repeat of 2008, be forced to relinquish her super-delegates or see them stripped from her by defections or rules changes.
posted by MattD at 10:43 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Al Gore's on the line, he says he'd have taken a "technical win."
Difference here is this isn't an election. This is only one contest among many.
I know it's spin to say, A tie is a loss, but a race this close wasn't what Hillary was going to want coming out of Iowa. Sanders can spin it as a win "No one expected…" "I took the popular vote…" "Just two months ago…" etc. Hillary will lose bad in NH. Not an auspicious beginning. Personally, I don't think it will change the final outcome, but she sure didn't shut Sanders down.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Difference here is this isn't an election. This is only one contest among many.
I know it's spin to say, A tie is a loss, but a race this close wasn't what Hillary was going to want coming out of Iowa. Sanders can spin it as a win "No one expected…" "I took the popular vote…" "Just two months ago…" etc. Hillary will lose bad in NH. Not an auspicious beginning. Personally, I don't think it will change the final outcome, but she sure didn't shut Sanders down.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's more like "let's do what is possible".
Or, "let's do what is possible, without changing how campaign finance or lobbying works."
vs. "what is possible is bounded only by the breadth of public participation" (i.e. a political revolution)
Nothing progressive is possible in the current political climate. Absent fundamental change to the political system, the best Clinton can do is prevent the GOP from pushing us closer to Gilead. I'll absolutely vote for that, if it's my only option. But it's a vote of despair, a vote of resignation, a vote under duress.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [25 favorites]
Or, "let's do what is possible, without changing how campaign finance or lobbying works."
vs. "what is possible is bounded only by the breadth of public participation" (i.e. a political revolution)
Nothing progressive is possible in the current political climate. Absent fundamental change to the political system, the best Clinton can do is prevent the GOP from pushing us closer to Gilead. I'll absolutely vote for that, if it's my only option. But it's a vote of despair, a vote of resignation, a vote under duress.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:44 AM on February 2, 2016 [25 favorites]
Al Gore's on the line, he says he'd have taken a "technical win."
They came out with the numbers years ago. Al Gore /did/ have a technical win. For all the good it did him.
posted by corb at 10:45 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
They came out with the numbers years ago. Al Gore /did/ have a technical win. For all the good it did him.
posted by corb at 10:45 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
No, it isn't. It's more like "let's do what is possible".
Despair the dreamers. Think small. No, smaller.
posted by bonehead at 10:46 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
Despair the dreamers. Think small. No, smaller.
posted by bonehead at 10:46 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
No, it isn't. It's more like "let's do what is possible".
aka the status quo which always benefits those with privilege and power at the expense of the vulnerable. Same as it's always been.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
aka the status quo which always benefits those with privilege and power at the expense of the vulnerable. Same as it's always been.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
Never mind election strategy, "Let's do what is possible" is not the way to move the Overton window to actually accomplish anything either, btw. You miss 100% of the opportunities you don't create.
Has the Clinton camp really learned nothing from 30+ years of conservative political successes?
posted by bonehead at 10:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Has the Clinton camp really learned nothing from 30+ years of conservative political successes?
posted by bonehead at 10:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Why are so many Democrats trying to squash this wave of enthusiasm for liberal policies?
Because I think he'll get absolutely demolished in the general. We don't elect cranky old guys to the presidency anymore.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:57 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Because I think he'll get absolutely demolished in the general. We don't elect cranky old guys to the presidency anymore.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:57 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
"[...] Sanders has rallied millions of Democrats under the banner of 'democratic socialism'[...]"
I have to wonder, given the relatively muted disdain for Sanders on American right-winger sites like Free Republic, compared for their outright hatred for Obama, the Clintons, etc., if it's because they regard him at least an honest enemy. In their worldview, he makes no pretensions about being anything other than a socialist. Maybe this is the true shift we're seeing with this election- regardless if Sanders gets nominated, much less elected, he can make socialism no longer a dirty word in America.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
I have to wonder, given the relatively muted disdain for Sanders on American right-winger sites like Free Republic, compared for their outright hatred for Obama, the Clintons, etc., if it's because they regard him at least an honest enemy. In their worldview, he makes no pretensions about being anything other than a socialist. Maybe this is the true shift we're seeing with this election- regardless if Sanders gets nominated, much less elected, he can make socialism no longer a dirty word in America.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:00 AM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
Tweet: @StevenTDennis
Coin flips to join hanging chads in annals of how Americans select presidents.
posted by nickyskye at 11:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Coin flips to join hanging chads in annals of how Americans select presidents.
posted by nickyskye at 11:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because I think he'll get absolutely demolished in the general. We don't elect cranky old guys to the presidency anymore.
Yes, by all means, then let's elect youthful tokens, which is why we should vote for Rubio this year and Governor Haley in 2020.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, by all means, then let's elect youthful tokens, which is why we should vote for Rubio this year and Governor Haley in 2020.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:01 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm seeing conservatives on Facebook mourning the idea that "kids today" don't remember what it was like to be afraid of the Soviets maybe coming here to kill us in the streets and they are voting for Sanders because they never learned about Communism in schools.
I'm the same age as some of these people (30s) and don't remember worrying about the Cold War or soviets. By the time I had even a baby political consciousness the wall was down.
posted by sweetkid at 11:03 AM on February 2, 2016
I'm the same age as some of these people (30s) and don't remember worrying about the Cold War or soviets. By the time I had even a baby political consciousness the wall was down.
posted by sweetkid at 11:03 AM on February 2, 2016
Because I think he'll get absolutely demolished in the general. We don't elect cranky old guys to the presidency anymore.
1)This seems similar to what they tell me the BernieBros do.
2)I think this election is a free play for the dems. You want to talk unelectable?
You're running against Cruz or Trump, and you STILL want to play defense?
posted by Trochanter at 11:06 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
1)This seems similar to what they tell me the BernieBros do.
2)I think this election is a free play for the dems. You want to talk unelectable?
You're running against Cruz or Trump, and you STILL want to play defense?
posted by Trochanter at 11:06 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
I have to wonder, given the relatively muted disdain for Sanders on American right-winger sites like Free Republic, compared for their outright hatred for Obama, the Clintons, etc., if it's because they regard him at least an honest enemy. In their worldview, he makes no pretensions about being anything other than a socialist.
Some of it's that - he says everything he's for, so you don't have to worry about hidden agendas. Some of it is also that he hails from a rural state, so they feel if he did get elected, he'd be at least somewhat sympathetic to their concerns. Some of it is that he has a pretty good record on guns, so people aren't afraid of him coming for them. Some of it is that they don't think he can get it done because his ideas are so far out there.
One thing I note while looking at Sander's site to doublecheck something on a policy - both him and Clinton are promising, "I won't wait for Congress to act. I will use executive orders." I am really, really uncomfortable with this being the new direction of the Presidency.
posted by corb at 11:07 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Some of it's that - he says everything he's for, so you don't have to worry about hidden agendas. Some of it is also that he hails from a rural state, so they feel if he did get elected, he'd be at least somewhat sympathetic to their concerns. Some of it is that he has a pretty good record on guns, so people aren't afraid of him coming for them. Some of it is that they don't think he can get it done because his ideas are so far out there.
One thing I note while looking at Sander's site to doublecheck something on a policy - both him and Clinton are promising, "I won't wait for Congress to act. I will use executive orders." I am really, really uncomfortable with this being the new direction of the Presidency.
posted by corb at 11:07 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
That said, it is kinda sad-funny that the sheer novelty of a Trump v. Sanders v. Bloomberg election died last night.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2016
The most scared I was in HS was the day some half-senile old white guy forgot a mic was on and made an ill-considered joke about starting a nuclear war.
It wasn't just, or even mostly the Soviets that we were frightened by during the cold war.
posted by bonehead at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
It wasn't just, or even mostly the Soviets that we were frightened by during the cold war.
posted by bonehead at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
Either he, or another strong progressive, will run as an independent in that case and split the vote
This seems like the least likely thing that Sanders would do at this point - He's vowed not to, and I see him being true to his word on that.... I don't think this is the point where he would suddenly break a vow of that magnitude.
I also don't think there's anyone else that could pick up that momentum out of nowhere.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
This seems like the least likely thing that Sanders would do at this point - He's vowed not to, and I see him being true to his word on that.... I don't think this is the point where he would suddenly break a vow of that magnitude.
I also don't think there's anyone else that could pick up that momentum out of nowhere.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:08 AM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Story is still changing on the ground with the Democrats pretending they are the Iowa GOP in from 2008:
Missing precinct scrambles to report Sanders won (headline refers to just that precinct)
posted by cjorgensen at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2016
Missing precinct scrambles to report Sanders won (headline refers to just that precinct)
posted by cjorgensen at 11:10 AM on February 2, 2016
I am really, really uncomfortable with this being the new direction of the Presidency.
I get the sentiment, but if you actually look back at EOs throughout history, I don't think there's any way we can call this new - What's new is the whole mythos of Obama as some sort of dictator beyond historical precedent through EOs.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
I get the sentiment, but if you actually look back at EOs throughout history, I don't think there's any way we can call this new - What's new is the whole mythos of Obama as some sort of dictator beyond historical precedent through EOs.
posted by MysticMCJ at 11:11 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think this election is a free play for the dems. You want to talk unelectable?
I honestly don't see it as free play. The Democrats are in the White House right now, and the whole "throw the old guard out" is always a factor. I know of at least one Bernie supporter that hates Obama, so I'm kind of wondering if seeing Obama, Sanders, and Clinton (!) on the stage together will just totally turn people off on Democrats in general.
posted by FJT at 11:14 AM on February 2, 2016
I honestly don't see it as free play. The Democrats are in the White House right now, and the whole "throw the old guard out" is always a factor. I know of at least one Bernie supporter that hates Obama, so I'm kind of wondering if seeing Obama, Sanders, and Clinton (!) on the stage together will just totally turn people off on Democrats in general.
posted by FJT at 11:14 AM on February 2, 2016
I am really, really uncomfortable with this being the new direction of the Presidency.
Yes, clearly it has grown with every administration of late.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yes, clearly it has grown with every administration of late.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [9 favorites]
I am an independent, not a Democrat or Republican, so I am not interested in the ongoing willingness of Democrats to tear into their own candidates.
Here's what I like about Hillary, although I do not trust her the way I have always trusted Barack Obama. She is very, very smart. She has a long, solid track record of effective advocacy for women, children and families, and she's actually passed major legislation on these topics with bipartisan support. She knows how to work across the aisle. She draws deep loyalty in the Democratic party, which is the best hope of seeing party discipline translate into social change. She is respected overseas and deeply knowledgeable. She is a woman who has broken down barriers all her life. She is no elitist: she has always understood that this country is about regular people, not corporations and the elite. She is absolutely steely and fearless.
I.e., we finally have the chance to vote for a strong, capable woman president with longstanding political convictions that are indeed progressive, and a proven ability to get things done and work across the aisle, as well as strong, rooted party support.
Anyway, that's why I'm on board for Hillary this time, speaking as someone who strongly supported Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012.
posted by bearwife at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
Here's what I like about Hillary, although I do not trust her the way I have always trusted Barack Obama. She is very, very smart. She has a long, solid track record of effective advocacy for women, children and families, and she's actually passed major legislation on these topics with bipartisan support. She knows how to work across the aisle. She draws deep loyalty in the Democratic party, which is the best hope of seeing party discipline translate into social change. She is respected overseas and deeply knowledgeable. She is a woman who has broken down barriers all her life. She is no elitist: she has always understood that this country is about regular people, not corporations and the elite. She is absolutely steely and fearless.
I.e., we finally have the chance to vote for a strong, capable woman president with longstanding political convictions that are indeed progressive, and a proven ability to get things done and work across the aisle, as well as strong, rooted party support.
Anyway, that's why I'm on board for Hillary this time, speaking as someone who strongly supported Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012.
posted by bearwife at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
I think this election is a free play for the dems.
Pretty sure that people were this confident about the same thing in 2004 (and the opposite way in 2012). Don't ever bet on a Presidential election being a free play, especially when there's no incumbent. There's been one two-term President whose party kept the White House for a third term since the 22nd Amendment was passed. One out of seven.
posted by Etrigan at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
Pretty sure that people were this confident about the same thing in 2004 (and the opposite way in 2012). Don't ever bet on a Presidential election being a free play, especially when there's no incumbent. There's been one two-term President whose party kept the White House for a third term since the 22nd Amendment was passed. One out of seven.
posted by Etrigan at 11:15 AM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
Yes, by all means, then let's elect youthful tokens, which is why we should vote for Rubio this year and Governor Haley in 2020.
I'm answering a question, not giving prescriptive advice about who the Dems should nominate. I'm not enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders' candidacy because in my subjective opinion, I think he'll have a hell of a time winning the general.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm answering a question, not giving prescriptive advice about who the Dems should nominate. I'm not enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders' candidacy because in my subjective opinion, I think he'll have a hell of a time winning the general.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:16 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's been one two-term President whose party kept the White House for a third term since the 22nd Amendment was passed.
And that was the Republicans.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
And that was the Republicans.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:19 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
markkraft: No, it isn't. It's more like "let's do what is possible".
I found the news that she was giving up on single payer health care and painting it as "to do that we'd have to trash the whole system and start over because people can't wait for coverage" absolutely infuriating. A total reversal to her position on the need for universal coverage throughout her political career, including during the 2008 Presidential campaign. She attacked Obama over it in 2008! Literally said: "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?"
The other problem is, her "waiting for coverage" premise is a lie. It should be perfectly possible to work on creating additions for and changes to the ACA while it still functions. Without stopping everyone's coverage. It's fearmongering to suggest otherwise.
Setting realistic goals is important. One of the primary reasons I'm voting for her is I think she's better positioned to beat a Republican challenger in the general election.
But the Democrats controlled a 60-vote Senate supermajority in the latter half of 2009. They have never treated single payer health care as a viable option. If they had, the ACA might look very different today. And to suggest that we can't afford to even try is bullshit.
posted by zarq at 11:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [24 favorites]
I found the news that she was giving up on single payer health care and painting it as "to do that we'd have to trash the whole system and start over because people can't wait for coverage" absolutely infuriating. A total reversal to her position on the need for universal coverage throughout her political career, including during the 2008 Presidential campaign. She attacked Obama over it in 2008! Literally said: "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?"
The other problem is, her "waiting for coverage" premise is a lie. It should be perfectly possible to work on creating additions for and changes to the ACA while it still functions. Without stopping everyone's coverage. It's fearmongering to suggest otherwise.
Setting realistic goals is important. One of the primary reasons I'm voting for her is I think she's better positioned to beat a Republican challenger in the general election.
But the Democrats controlled a 60-vote Senate supermajority in the latter half of 2009. They have never treated single payer health care as a viable option. If they had, the ACA might look very different today. And to suggest that we can't afford to even try is bullshit.
posted by zarq at 11:20 AM on February 2, 2016 [24 favorites]
I think he'll have a hell of a time winning the general.
Even though all polls show him doing better than Hillary in the general?
posted by cjorgensen at 11:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
Even though all polls show him doing better than Hillary in the general?
posted by cjorgensen at 11:21 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
I get the sentiment, but if you actually look back at EOs throughout history, I don't think there's any way we can call this new
I mean more - they're openly campaigning on using executive power, which would have been unheard of ten years ago. Presidents have always used them, to various extents, but they've always been somewhat quiet about it. This is more "Fuck yeah, this is awesome!" which is new and weird. Obama may or may not have expanded the actual power, but I think his usage of it made it "okay" socially, at least.
posted by corb at 11:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean more - they're openly campaigning on using executive power, which would have been unheard of ten years ago. Presidents have always used them, to various extents, but they've always been somewhat quiet about it. This is more "Fuck yeah, this is awesome!" which is new and weird. Obama may or may not have expanded the actual power, but I think his usage of it made it "okay" socially, at least.
posted by corb at 11:23 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Truthiness!
posted by entropicamericana at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by entropicamericana at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's been one two-term President whose party kept the White House for a third term since the 22nd Amendment was passed.
To divorce the quality of the candidates from that statement is like gambler's logic.
Just to speak to Gore: He was not then what he is now. He was running a "more of the same" campaign. He was Clinton redux. And he was not an exiting candidate. He was boring. He was "Coathanger Gore."
Surely by your logic Clinton is the dangerous candidate. She's the "more of the same" one.
posted by Trochanter at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
To divorce the quality of the candidates from that statement is like gambler's logic.
Just to speak to Gore: He was not then what he is now. He was running a "more of the same" campaign. He was Clinton redux. And he was not an exiting candidate. He was boring. He was "Coathanger Gore."
Surely by your logic Clinton is the dangerous candidate. She's the "more of the same" one.
posted by Trochanter at 11:24 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Even though all polls show him doing better than Hillary in the general?
Most of the Iowa polls, including the one run by the Des Moines paper which was considered the gold standard for public opinion, said Trump would win last night. You can't trust polls.
Sanders is an independent, democratic socialist Jewish guy from the northeast. I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.
posted by zarq at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Most of the Iowa polls, including the one run by the Des Moines paper which was considered the gold standard for public opinion, said Trump would win last night. You can't trust polls.
Sanders is an independent, democratic socialist Jewish guy from the northeast. I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.
posted by zarq at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
But the Democrats controlled a 60-vote Senate supermajority in the latter half of 2009.
One of those "Democrats" was Joe Lieberman, so that 'supermajority' has no relevance to single payer.
posted by delfin at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
One of those "Democrats" was Joe Lieberman, so that 'supermajority' has no relevance to single payer.
posted by delfin at 11:25 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Another SC endorsement: Sanders gets third black state representative endorsement in two weeks
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:29 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by audi alteram partem at 11:29 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Conservatives, wake up: The tax code is not your biggest problem - "Men of prime working age — too old to be in school and too young to be retired — are in flight from the labor force. The average labor force participation rate of prime-aged men in 1980 was 94.3 percent. The rate last month? Just 88 percent. Only 83 prime-aged men out of every 100 have a job today... Public policy can help."
There is simply no way the modern Republican party can accept that last line as true. For anything.
Just to speak to Gore: He was not then what he is now. He was running a "more of the same" campaign. He was Clinton redux.
That's really very much not true, at least the way he came across to me as a voter in 2000. My issue with him was the way he kept divorcing himself from Clinton, including keeping Clinton from campaigning for him. What I said at the time was "why am I being asked to pick between a real republican and a fake one?" The end result of that may make the difference clear but for this voter I felt he did not make the case of himself as an actual democrat/progressive at all.
Which, I mean, fair enough - B Clinton wasn't much of a progressive. But I found Gore to be selling himself as a more conservative version of Clinton, not at all 'more of the same.'
posted by phearlez at 11:30 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
There is simply no way the modern Republican party can accept that last line as true. For anything.
Just to speak to Gore: He was not then what he is now. He was running a "more of the same" campaign. He was Clinton redux.
That's really very much not true, at least the way he came across to me as a voter in 2000. My issue with him was the way he kept divorcing himself from Clinton, including keeping Clinton from campaigning for him. What I said at the time was "why am I being asked to pick between a real republican and a fake one?" The end result of that may make the difference clear but for this voter I felt he did not make the case of himself as an actual democrat/progressive at all.
Which, I mean, fair enough - B Clinton wasn't much of a progressive. But I found Gore to be selling himself as a more conservative version of Clinton, not at all 'more of the same.'
posted by phearlez at 11:30 AM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Has the Clinton camp really learned nothing from 30+ years of conservative political successes?
They reached the heights of political power and earned over $100 million dollars giving speeches to rich people... that's a pretty positive lesson.
posted by ennui.bz at 11:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
They reached the heights of political power and earned over $100 million dollars giving speeches to rich people... that's a pretty positive lesson.
posted by ennui.bz at 11:31 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.
from a fark comment:
1. Sanders wins D nom.
2. Bloomberg runs because Clinton not nom.
3. Due to chaos candidate mucking things up, R's enter brokered convention, settle on a politically-connected man not currently in Congress w/ decent conservative track record: Eric Cantor.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2016
from a fark comment:
1. Sanders wins D nom.
2. Bloomberg runs because Clinton not nom.
3. Due to chaos candidate mucking things up, R's enter brokered convention, settle on a politically-connected man not currently in Congress w/ decent conservative track record: Eric Cantor.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2016
Surely by your logic Clinton is the dangerous candidate.
The only danger I was talking about was your idea that this election is going to go to whichever Democrat wins the nomination.
posted by Etrigan at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2016
The only danger I was talking about was your idea that this election is going to go to whichever Democrat wins the nomination.
posted by Etrigan at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2016
I am really, really uncomfortable with this being the new direction of the Presidency.
I'm more uncomfortable with the fact that both parties have loudly and enthusiastically cheered on the Executive as it has bombed countries across the world (most recently in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan.
Doing policy through executive orders is not as great as doing policy based on legislation. But it's way better than waging war without the consent of our elected representatives (or as seems to be the case, because they're too chicken to bring a war to a vote, so they prefer to tacitly endorse whatever the hell the White House wants to bomb this week).
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm more uncomfortable with the fact that both parties have loudly and enthusiastically cheered on the Executive as it has bombed countries across the world (most recently in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan.
Doing policy through executive orders is not as great as doing policy based on legislation. But it's way better than waging war without the consent of our elected representatives (or as seems to be the case, because they're too chicken to bring a war to a vote, so they prefer to tacitly endorse whatever the hell the White House wants to bomb this week).
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:35 AM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.
We elected a black dude. Twice. I don't think that is a real concern.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
We elected a black dude. Twice. I don't think that is a real concern.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
Another question that occurs to me - how much could the email thing actually hurt her? It seems pretty clear that she broke the law on classified material, but if the Justice Department under a Democratic president doesn't want to prosecute her, can she essentially skate?
And bonus question: if she does get arrested or what have you for the email fiasco after she is made the nominee, does the nomination then go to her veep pick or can Sanders jump back in?
posted by corb at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2016
And bonus question: if she does get arrested or what have you for the email fiasco after she is made the nominee, does the nomination then go to her veep pick or can Sanders jump back in?
posted by corb at 11:38 AM on February 2, 2016
Which, I mean, fair enough - B Clinton wasn't much of a progressive. But I found Gore to be selling himself as a more conservative version of Clinton, not at all 'more of the same.'
He moved away from the Clinton image, the sex scandals and stuff. That's why he got a moral crusader like Lieberman for his VP. But politics wise, he was viewed as a more of the same, very boring Democrat. That's my recollection anyway.
I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.
We elected a black dude. Twice. I don't think that is a real concern.
Eh...it's not that simple.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:40 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
He moved away from the Clinton image, the sex scandals and stuff. That's why he got a moral crusader like Lieberman for his VP. But politics wise, he was viewed as a more of the same, very boring Democrat. That's my recollection anyway.
I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.
We elected a black dude. Twice. I don't think that is a real concern.
Eh...it's not that simple.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:40 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
> It seems pretty clear that she broke the law on classified material
Sorry, but [Citation Needed].
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:41 AM on February 2, 2016
Sorry, but [Citation Needed].
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:41 AM on February 2, 2016
The only danger I was talking about was your idea that this election is going to go to whichever Democrat wins the nomination.
Okay, maybe "theirs to lose" is better.
posted by Trochanter at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2016
Okay, maybe "theirs to lose" is better.
posted by Trochanter at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2016
And bonus question: if she does get arrested or what have you for the email fiasco after she is made the nominee, does the nomination then go to her veep pick or can Sanders jump back in?
Nothing in the Constitution that disqualifies a person under indictment, on trial, or even in prison from being President; and you can't impeach a candidate.
posted by Etrigan at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2016
Nothing in the Constitution that disqualifies a person under indictment, on trial, or even in prison from being President; and you can't impeach a candidate.
posted by Etrigan at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2016
> It seems pretty clear that she broke the law on classified material
Sorry, but [Citation Needed].
Yeah. It's not actually that clear, I think. I find the defenses based on the law to be kind of missing the point, this was scandalous behavior even if legal in my view, but I haven't seen a convincing argument she has broken the law yet. Not a lawyer though so what do I know?
posted by Drinky Die at 11:43 AM on February 2, 2016
Sorry, but [Citation Needed].
Yeah. It's not actually that clear, I think. I find the defenses based on the law to be kind of missing the point, this was scandalous behavior even if legal in my view, but I haven't seen a convincing argument she has broken the law yet. Not a lawyer though so what do I know?
posted by Drinky Die at 11:43 AM on February 2, 2016
Eh...it's not that simple.
It's not that complicated. We've had a Catholic and a black President.
A Muslim, that would be tough right now.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not that complicated. We've had a Catholic and a black President.
A Muslim, that would be tough right now.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 11:47 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Corb -- there's really no evidence the e-mail thing has hurt her among Democratic primary or caucus voters, in no small part because Sanders (and this might be changing) has refused to pile on, probably for good reason about not wanting his race to be negative. I think that it makes no difference at all until and unless she's actually indicted.
If Clinton is indicted, Obama will certainly be able to procure nominating process rule changes from the DNC designed to permit Biden, Kerry or someone else (Gore?) to come in and prevent Sanders from being nominated by default. But will he actually choose to do that? Probably driven by Sanders' polling at the time, who the Republican nominee is looking to be, and when this were to occur. And in any event you'd have to give Sanders a good chance on any Process 2.0 even against Biden; the original fighter has a strong appeal over the last-ditch substitute.
posted by MattD at 11:48 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Clinton is indicted, Obama will certainly be able to procure nominating process rule changes from the DNC designed to permit Biden, Kerry or someone else (Gore?) to come in and prevent Sanders from being nominated by default. But will he actually choose to do that? Probably driven by Sanders' polling at the time, who the Republican nominee is looking to be, and when this were to occur. And in any event you'd have to give Sanders a good chance on any Process 2.0 even against Biden; the original fighter has a strong appeal over the last-ditch substitute.
posted by MattD at 11:48 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
how much could the email thing actually hurt her?
I actually think that's a fair question at this point, now that the State Department is also classifying things in a way that could create a lot of problems for her, and not just the CIA. Her defense before was that it was wild CIA overclassification, but now State has classified things the same way, and some of the emails they were going to release are now top-secret. People are already leaking all kinds of stories for what information was in those emails - CIA agents' names, Benghazi stand-down orders, you name it.
It's not a big issue for me personally, but the email scandal is certainly something that needs to be addressed squarely if we're going to have the electability conversation. Just saying "no one should care" won't do it if there are new stories every two weeks about her email server and all we do all season is defend from Republican attacks instead of making a case for liberal policy.
posted by dialetheia at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
I actually think that's a fair question at this point, now that the State Department is also classifying things in a way that could create a lot of problems for her, and not just the CIA. Her defense before was that it was wild CIA overclassification, but now State has classified things the same way, and some of the emails they were going to release are now top-secret. People are already leaking all kinds of stories for what information was in those emails - CIA agents' names, Benghazi stand-down orders, you name it.
It's not a big issue for me personally, but the email scandal is certainly something that needs to be addressed squarely if we're going to have the electability conversation. Just saying "no one should care" won't do it if there are new stories every two weeks about her email server and all we do all season is defend from Republican attacks instead of making a case for liberal policy.
posted by dialetheia at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
The other problem is, her "waiting for coverage" premise is a lie. It should be perfectly possible to work on creating additions for and changes to the ACA while it still functions. Without stopping everyone's coverage. It's fearmongering to suggest otherwise.
Absolutely. HHS has authority to grant waivers to states as long as the state's plan for coverage will cover at least as many people, with benefits at least equivalent to existing coverage levels, as are covered under the current system. This authority has mostly been used to cajole recalcitrant reddish-purple states such as Arkansas into expanding coverage. There's no reason that it can't also be used in blue states to implement more progressive reforms at the state level. (As I noted way above, VT was considering doing so but backed out last year.)
I'm sure there are other tools that the ACA and other legislation have put in the hands of the administrative agencies to move the ball forward.
And of course, pressure can and should be put on Congress to implement some fixes to the law -- for instance, a poorly written section that means that people who are eligible for coverage through their spouse's employer generally can't get tax credits to buy plans on the Exchanges if the coverage for their spouse alone isn't unaffordable. (So if your spouse could get insurance through work for a $50/pay period premium, you probably have to go with their coverage even if it costs $500/pay period to get added on -- or go pay full price on the exchange.) That is the kind of thing that hopefully the next President can work with Speaker Ryan on. Or how about increasing subsidy levels for deductibles and copays? Right now, if you're making 251% of the poverty line you get no help with that. Congress could authorize more money, find offsets elsewhere for it, and fix to some extent the issue of high deductibles that everyone on the right is screaming about.
Maybe -- MAYBE -- if the White House and Congressional Democrats would start pushing for single-payer, Republicans would start to defend the relatively conservative ACA and work with the Democrats on making fixes to it. That's how we move the damn Overton window. What Democrats are doing now sure isn't working, and I don't know how Sec. Clinton is offering anything but the same strategy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Absolutely. HHS has authority to grant waivers to states as long as the state's plan for coverage will cover at least as many people, with benefits at least equivalent to existing coverage levels, as are covered under the current system. This authority has mostly been used to cajole recalcitrant reddish-purple states such as Arkansas into expanding coverage. There's no reason that it can't also be used in blue states to implement more progressive reforms at the state level. (As I noted way above, VT was considering doing so but backed out last year.)
I'm sure there are other tools that the ACA and other legislation have put in the hands of the administrative agencies to move the ball forward.
And of course, pressure can and should be put on Congress to implement some fixes to the law -- for instance, a poorly written section that means that people who are eligible for coverage through their spouse's employer generally can't get tax credits to buy plans on the Exchanges if the coverage for their spouse alone isn't unaffordable. (So if your spouse could get insurance through work for a $50/pay period premium, you probably have to go with their coverage even if it costs $500/pay period to get added on -- or go pay full price on the exchange.) That is the kind of thing that hopefully the next President can work with Speaker Ryan on. Or how about increasing subsidy levels for deductibles and copays? Right now, if you're making 251% of the poverty line you get no help with that. Congress could authorize more money, find offsets elsewhere for it, and fix to some extent the issue of high deductibles that everyone on the right is screaming about.
Maybe -- MAYBE -- if the White House and Congressional Democrats would start pushing for single-payer, Republicans would start to defend the relatively conservative ACA and work with the Democrats on making fixes to it. That's how we move the damn Overton window. What Democrats are doing now sure isn't working, and I don't know how Sec. Clinton is offering anything but the same strategy.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:49 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
The last-minute delay on thousands of those emails ('due to the snow storm' even though they were ordered to release months ago) is also somewhat alarming, given that it pushes all of this back past the most important primaries.
posted by dialetheia at 11:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 11:51 AM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
An indictment coming after the nomination is pretty unlikely. The DOJ public corruption prosecution guidelines set a very strong bias against interfering with elections; the professional prosecutor corps is going to demand the final FBI report on a time-frame long enough to make a decision on presentment (going to the grand jury) and have the grand jury consider in order to indict or no-true-bill before the Convention.
posted by MattD at 11:52 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MattD at 11:52 AM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eh...it's not that simple.
It's not that complicated. We've had a Catholic and a black President.
Advances for one outgroup don't necessarily insure advances for other outgroups. All of this bigotry can be expressed in different ways depending on the target.
Atheists might be at an even bigger disadvantage than Muslims in American politics.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not that complicated. We've had a Catholic and a black President.
Advances for one outgroup don't necessarily insure advances for other outgroups. All of this bigotry can be expressed in different ways depending on the target.
Atheists might be at an even bigger disadvantage than Muslims in American politics.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:54 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
We elected a black dude. Twice. I don't think that is a real concern.
The level of overt antisemitism in this country is pretty damned bad. The level of casual antisemitism is unmeasurable, but in my experience it's off the damned charts especially in more rural areas. Hell, people on Mefi have recently insinuated (among other things) that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than this country.
We sure as hell haven't entered a post-antisemitism world. So yeah, I think its a real concern.
posted by zarq at 11:55 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
The level of overt antisemitism in this country is pretty damned bad. The level of casual antisemitism is unmeasurable, but in my experience it's off the damned charts especially in more rural areas. Hell, people on Mefi have recently insinuated (among other things) that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than this country.
We sure as hell haven't entered a post-antisemitism world. So yeah, I think its a real concern.
posted by zarq at 11:55 AM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
That's really very much not true, at least the way [Gore] came across to me as a voter in 2000. My issue with him was the way he kept divorcing himself from Clinton, including keeping Clinton from campaigning for him. What I said at the time was "why am I being asked to pick between a real republican and a fake one?" The end result of that may make the difference clear but for this voter I felt he did not make the case of himself as an actual democrat/progressive at all.
And this is one reason why Hillary makes me itch.
Hillary, once she is the nominee, has political cover to tack as far to the right as she likes because of that precedent -- her team will scream about THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER and SUPREME COURT JUSTICES and NADER NADER NADER as to why she should be able to take every progressive's vote for granted and how the only way to win is to be a New Democrat, or as I prefer to describe them, "Old Republican."
And, yes, it _is_ important to win this election. It _is_ important to keep the Supreme Court from becoming a subsidiary of Trump Enterprises. It _is_ a fallacy to believe that much of anything that is truly progressive would get through this Congress under any circumstances. But responding to a strong Sanders showing by disdaining them and going after mythical 'moderate' Republicans is a great way to blow an election, just as Gore's hard right turn turned a slam-dunk election into one close enough for the courts to snatch away.
posted by delfin at 11:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
And this is one reason why Hillary makes me itch.
Hillary, once she is the nominee, has political cover to tack as far to the right as she likes because of that precedent -- her team will scream about THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER and SUPREME COURT JUSTICES and NADER NADER NADER as to why she should be able to take every progressive's vote for granted and how the only way to win is to be a New Democrat, or as I prefer to describe them, "Old Republican."
And, yes, it _is_ important to win this election. It _is_ important to keep the Supreme Court from becoming a subsidiary of Trump Enterprises. It _is_ a fallacy to believe that much of anything that is truly progressive would get through this Congress under any circumstances. But responding to a strong Sanders showing by disdaining them and going after mythical 'moderate' Republicans is a great way to blow an election, just as Gore's hard right turn turned a slam-dunk election into one close enough for the courts to snatch away.
posted by delfin at 11:56 AM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Her defense before was that it was wild CIA overclassification, but now State has classified things the same way, and some of the emails they were going to release are now top-secret. People are already leaking all kinds of stories for what information was in those emails - CIA agents' names, Benghazi stand-down orders, you name it.
Yeah, honestly I have a lot of sympathy for her as a human - she didn't work in a NSA or military-intelligence type culture where the dangers of practically even thinking about classified material while not inside a secure facility are pretty much hammered home every day. I don't think she thought, when wanting a private email server that would maintain a database at home, "hey what if some of this stuff is classified and I am thus removing classified material without authorization from a classifying official". From a legal standpoint, it doesn't actually matter what was in the emails - the mere fact that classified information was removed and stored is enough to damn her.
posted by corb at 11:58 AM on February 2, 2016
Yeah, honestly I have a lot of sympathy for her as a human - she didn't work in a NSA or military-intelligence type culture where the dangers of practically even thinking about classified material while not inside a secure facility are pretty much hammered home every day. I don't think she thought, when wanting a private email server that would maintain a database at home, "hey what if some of this stuff is classified and I am thus removing classified material without authorization from a classifying official". From a legal standpoint, it doesn't actually matter what was in the emails - the mere fact that classified information was removed and stored is enough to damn her.
posted by corb at 11:58 AM on February 2, 2016
From a legal standpoint, it doesn't actually matter what was in the emails - the mere fact that classified information was removed and stored is enough to damn her.
And from a practical standpoint... David Petraeus.
The rules are for the little people. You know that.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:00 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
And from a practical standpoint... David Petraeus.
The rules are for the little people. You know that.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:00 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean more - they're openly campaigning on using executive power, which would have been unheard of ten years ago.
That makes more sense, and I'm uncomfortable with that as well. At the same time, there's some reason for this stance - the Congress majority openly declared that they would work against Obama from day one - McConnell stated that his number one goal was to make Obama a one term president - and there's no reason to believe that things will suddenly be different this time around. I think that's something that was equally unheard of 10 years ago, but I may be mistaken on that - the majority of my first-hand political history only goes back so far.
In this particular case, campaigning on the use of EOs makes me a bit unsettled, but I'm also not sure if that is just a symptom of the overall combative political environment. I'm really not sure how a democratic president could promise much effective direct action otherwise, unless they could somehow convince a very skeptical populace that the senate will be more open to working with as opposed to against the president this time around. I feel as if there's is an expectation that whoever is in play must wage war with the opposition party and treat them as hostile - I'm fairly sure that if the parties were reversed, we'd be seeing the same thing happening with different party names behind them.
All of this is to say that I don't like it either, but I'm not sure if the answer to that lays either within campaigning or within the executive branch. With a presidential candidate running against an opposition controlled house, it would take a dramatic change in how the houses work with the president to be able to promise any sort of action otherwise. Of course, the promises of direct action are part of the problem. Peoples perceptions of what the executive branch should be doing vs. the realities of the executive branch seem to be horribly misaligned... We put a lot of weight on a president as a solver of all problems, at the expense of seeing the power of all of the other elected officials.
Unfortunately, "I'm here to cast a veto vote, appoint judges, act out diplomatic functions with foreign heads of state, and generally try to convince other lawmakers that they should support the ideas I have" isn't much of a campaign platform at this point.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
That makes more sense, and I'm uncomfortable with that as well. At the same time, there's some reason for this stance - the Congress majority openly declared that they would work against Obama from day one - McConnell stated that his number one goal was to make Obama a one term president - and there's no reason to believe that things will suddenly be different this time around. I think that's something that was equally unheard of 10 years ago, but I may be mistaken on that - the majority of my first-hand political history only goes back so far.
In this particular case, campaigning on the use of EOs makes me a bit unsettled, but I'm also not sure if that is just a symptom of the overall combative political environment. I'm really not sure how a democratic president could promise much effective direct action otherwise, unless they could somehow convince a very skeptical populace that the senate will be more open to working with as opposed to against the president this time around. I feel as if there's is an expectation that whoever is in play must wage war with the opposition party and treat them as hostile - I'm fairly sure that if the parties were reversed, we'd be seeing the same thing happening with different party names behind them.
All of this is to say that I don't like it either, but I'm not sure if the answer to that lays either within campaigning or within the executive branch. With a presidential candidate running against an opposition controlled house, it would take a dramatic change in how the houses work with the president to be able to promise any sort of action otherwise. Of course, the promises of direct action are part of the problem. Peoples perceptions of what the executive branch should be doing vs. the realities of the executive branch seem to be horribly misaligned... We put a lot of weight on a president as a solver of all problems, at the expense of seeing the power of all of the other elected officials.
Unfortunately, "I'm here to cast a veto vote, appoint judges, act out diplomatic functions with foreign heads of state, and generally try to convince other lawmakers that they should support the ideas I have" isn't much of a campaign platform at this point.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I fully support not voting for whatever candidate, including in the general. Candidates earn our votes, they are not owed them. I've voted green party before specifically to send a message to the Democratic party to move to the left.
What I don't support is pretending, or insisting, that it is an action without consequences or that said consequences are not potentially devastating. The Supreme Court nominees alone will shape not just this future presidency, but the next 30-40 years of American politics. It is not disingenuous to point this out.
posted by lydhre at 12:19 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
What I don't support is pretending, or insisting, that it is an action without consequences or that said consequences are not potentially devastating. The Supreme Court nominees alone will shape not just this future presidency, but the next 30-40 years of American politics. It is not disingenuous to point this out.
posted by lydhre at 12:19 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
I haven't seen a convincing argument she has broken the law yet.
I think you are right here. I hate to agree with this, as her actions here go against everything that I see as fundamental to the health of a government that is there for the people. I'm of the mindset that governance should act in as accountable and transparent of a fashion as possible. The less transparency and accountability you have, the less that the governance is acting in the interest of the people, and the closer you get to facism. I realize that the sort of transparency and accountability I want is very far removed from the political reality, but I also feel that we should ALWAYS fight for more accountability and against secrecy - That's one of the largest (theoretical) differentiators between public and private operations, that the public side should be more transparent and accountable when it comes down to it. Should.
The only reason to act in the way that she did with her email was if you want to remove all traces of accountability, and operate in the shadows. This wasn't an accidental "oops, I keep using my gmail account on my phone" sort of thing, she specifically went to the effort of having a private email server out of any sort of public view control put into place - and it was an entirely deliberate move. To me, that's more damning than if any actual top secret info flowed through it or not - She made an intentional decision that her email would be outside of any accountable system.
What she did may be legal on a technicality, but it's still a corruption of the office. Her attitude towards it at first really didn't do her any favors, and it's only better now out of necessity. I think that this did a good job of realizing much of the narrative against her regarding "trustworthiness" - She had an opportunity to counter that directly, and did not do so.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:30 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think you are right here. I hate to agree with this, as her actions here go against everything that I see as fundamental to the health of a government that is there for the people. I'm of the mindset that governance should act in as accountable and transparent of a fashion as possible. The less transparency and accountability you have, the less that the governance is acting in the interest of the people, and the closer you get to facism. I realize that the sort of transparency and accountability I want is very far removed from the political reality, but I also feel that we should ALWAYS fight for more accountability and against secrecy - That's one of the largest (theoretical) differentiators between public and private operations, that the public side should be more transparent and accountable when it comes down to it. Should.
The only reason to act in the way that she did with her email was if you want to remove all traces of accountability, and operate in the shadows. This wasn't an accidental "oops, I keep using my gmail account on my phone" sort of thing, she specifically went to the effort of having a private email server out of any sort of public view control put into place - and it was an entirely deliberate move. To me, that's more damning than if any actual top secret info flowed through it or not - She made an intentional decision that her email would be outside of any accountable system.
What she did may be legal on a technicality, but it's still a corruption of the office. Her attitude towards it at first really didn't do her any favors, and it's only better now out of necessity. I think that this did a good job of realizing much of the narrative against her regarding "trustworthiness" - She had an opportunity to counter that directly, and did not do so.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:30 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I agree and, not to beat a dead horse here, but everyone that I've seen in the thread who was talking about voting third-party is from a deep blue state. If the Republican nominee is polling near 50% in New York or Illinois or California, they've already locked in the South, Midwest and interior West and there would be no chance for a Democratic presidency anyway.
The only way that might change is if there were a centrist (Bloomberg or similar) third-party candidate who was changing the electoral math in unpredictable ways. For instance, Bloomberg might be polling on 40% in NY with the Democrat at 35% and the Republican at 30%. In that case it would be strategically dumb to vote for a left-wing third party, it'd just be handing the state to Bloomberg and (depending on how the other states went) throwing the election into the GOP-controlled House.
Weird realignments like that aside, I'll continue to cast protest votes (i.e. vote for the person I most want to be elected) in any election where I think the outcome is pretty well set. An election that goes 30% Republican / 55% Democratic / 15% Green sends a message to the Democrats that a 30% Republican / 70% Democratic vote does not, with identical electoral outcomes.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:31 PM on February 2, 2016
The only way that might change is if there were a centrist (Bloomberg or similar) third-party candidate who was changing the electoral math in unpredictable ways. For instance, Bloomberg might be polling on 40% in NY with the Democrat at 35% and the Republican at 30%. In that case it would be strategically dumb to vote for a left-wing third party, it'd just be handing the state to Bloomberg and (depending on how the other states went) throwing the election into the GOP-controlled House.
Weird realignments like that aside, I'll continue to cast protest votes (i.e. vote for the person I most want to be elected) in any election where I think the outcome is pretty well set. An election that goes 30% Republican / 55% Democratic / 15% Green sends a message to the Democrats that a 30% Republican / 70% Democratic vote does not, with identical electoral outcomes.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:31 PM on February 2, 2016
Unfortunately, "I'm here to cast a veto vote, appoint judges, act out diplomatic functions with foreign heads of state, and generally try to convince other lawmakers that they should support the ideas I have" isn't much of a campaign platform at this point.
As Elizabeth Warren pointed out this week, nominations to executive branch agencies are huge. The difference between a Clinton appointed US Attorney, and one appointed by Rubio is massive, and is the literally the difference between having agencies like the FCC, FEC and NLRB that function at all, or do nothing, or worse actively work to undermine their own missions because the Republican president doesn't believe they should exist.
A Democratic vote at this point is literally a vote to keep the government functioning.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:32 PM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]
As Elizabeth Warren pointed out this week, nominations to executive branch agencies are huge. The difference between a Clinton appointed US Attorney, and one appointed by Rubio is massive, and is the literally the difference between having agencies like the FCC, FEC and NLRB that function at all, or do nothing, or worse actively work to undermine their own missions because the Republican president doesn't believe they should exist.
A Democratic vote at this point is literally a vote to keep the government functioning.
posted by T.D. Strange at 12:32 PM on February 2, 2016 [26 favorites]
Don't get me wrong, I actually think it's a realistic campaign platform, and it's exactly why you should vote for Clinton if you are remotely Democratic - Veto and appointments are HUGE. My real point is that these functions don't really capture the publics attention as much.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:36 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:36 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
What she did may be legal on a technicality, but it's still a corruption of the office.
Right, look, you can tell me there was no law that made it illegal to receive emails that weren't yet marked as classified. What you can't tell me is that anybody would be less than 100% certain that the e-mail account of the Secretary of State would involve emails that would contain information that would at some point be marked as classified. She is the boss of American foriegn policy, of course her communications will involve material that the government would want to keep secret. Not marked yet, sure, but you knew damn well that private server was going to end up storing classified information.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:36 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Right, look, you can tell me there was no law that made it illegal to receive emails that weren't yet marked as classified. What you can't tell me is that anybody would be less than 100% certain that the e-mail account of the Secretary of State would involve emails that would contain information that would at some point be marked as classified. She is the boss of American foriegn policy, of course her communications will involve material that the government would want to keep secret. Not marked yet, sure, but you knew damn well that private server was going to end up storing classified information.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:36 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders is an independent, democratic socialist Jewish guy from the northeast. I highly doubt this country will vote someone who is Jewish into the Oval Office any time soon.
I am not Jewish, so I am not about to remark about the levels of anti-Semitism in America or pretend I am remotely qualified to do so. But I've been interested to see just how much of a non-issue Sanders' Jewishness has been so far. If it gets mentioned, it's just in passing. Compare that to Lieberman, where his Jewishness was front-and-center everywhere. Part of that, I'm sure, is that Lieberman was observant, so his religion was an active dynamic in the conversation, whereas Sanders is pretty secular. But still--it's striking how little attention Sanders' background gets.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:39 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
I am not Jewish, so I am not about to remark about the levels of anti-Semitism in America or pretend I am remotely qualified to do so. But I've been interested to see just how much of a non-issue Sanders' Jewishness has been so far. If it gets mentioned, it's just in passing. Compare that to Lieberman, where his Jewishness was front-and-center everywhere. Part of that, I'm sure, is that Lieberman was observant, so his religion was an active dynamic in the conversation, whereas Sanders is pretty secular. But still--it's striking how little attention Sanders' background gets.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 12:39 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Charles Pierce, yesterday and today:
What We're Seeing with Bernie Sanders Was a Long Time Coming: The deep progressive roots have finally surfaced in Iowa.
Two Words That Explain What Happened in Iowa Last Night - At least on the Democratic side. You already know what they are.
The Rubio Narrative Has Been Established. It's a Three-Man Race Now. A first take on the Iowa caucuses.
What Happens to Farmers' Interests After Everyone Packs Up and Leaves Iowa? We've heard more here about heroin abuse in New Hampshire than we have about the economic troubles that continue to bedevil Iowa's farmers.
posted by homunculus at 12:40 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
What We're Seeing with Bernie Sanders Was a Long Time Coming: The deep progressive roots have finally surfaced in Iowa.
Two Words That Explain What Happened in Iowa Last Night - At least on the Democratic side. You already know what they are.
The Rubio Narrative Has Been Established. It's a Three-Man Race Now. A first take on the Iowa caucuses.
What Happens to Farmers' Interests After Everyone Packs Up and Leaves Iowa? We've heard more here about heroin abuse in New Hampshire than we have about the economic troubles that continue to bedevil Iowa's farmers.
posted by homunculus at 12:40 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Re: the emails, I'm more concerned about some of the stuff coming out about Clinton Foundation donors simultaneously lobbying the State Department while paying them both huge speaking fees than I am about the emails, but it sounds like it's possible that the FBI is looking into both the classification issues and any alleged corruption as part of their investigation (though that last part is still based on unnamed sources in the FBI so take it with a grain of salt). Either way, the 'optics' here aren't great, and I don't think Democrats should be so quick to dismiss the possibility that the scandal will continue to linger and could be a real negative for her.
posted by dialetheia at 12:42 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:42 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
> As Elizabeth Warren pointed out this week
The 2016 Campaign Is a Mess. Elizabeth Warren Is Playing This Thing Just Right: Shrewd politics from the Massachusetts senator.
posted by homunculus at 12:43 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
The 2016 Campaign Is a Mess. Elizabeth Warren Is Playing This Thing Just Right: Shrewd politics from the Massachusetts senator.
posted by homunculus at 12:43 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
it's exactly why you should vote for Clinton
(I left out "if she's the eventual nominee" - I'd much rather see Sanders there, personally)
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:45 PM on February 2, 2016
(I left out "if she's the eventual nominee" - I'd much rather see Sanders there, personally)
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:45 PM on February 2, 2016
I am not Jewish, so I am not about to remark about the levels of anti-Semitism in America or pretend I am remotely qualified to do so. But I've been interested to see just how much of a non-issue Sanders' Jewishness has been so far. If it gets mentioned, it's just in passing. Compare that to Lieberman, where his Jewishness was front-and-center everywhere. Part of that, I'm sure, is that Lieberman was observant, so his religion was an active dynamic in the conversation, whereas Sanders is pretty secular. But still--it's striking how little attention Sanders' background gets.
That's because he's not overt about it. His religious affiliation will become a more important issue if and when he's running against a Republican.
Imagine if Sanders had stood up last night and said something along the lines of, "Let me first of all say, to Hashem be the glory. I thank Hashem for allowing me the opportunity to come this far with each of you. Thanks be to Hashem for allowing me to be his messenger on Earth." I would bet real money that evangelicals would go ape shit. Never mind that in Judaism "Hashem" is simply a synonym for G-d. Pretty much the only thing that would be worse in their minds would be if he substituted "Allah."
posted by zarq at 12:58 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's because he's not overt about it. His religious affiliation will become a more important issue if and when he's running against a Republican.
Imagine if Sanders had stood up last night and said something along the lines of, "Let me first of all say, to Hashem be the glory. I thank Hashem for allowing me the opportunity to come this far with each of you. Thanks be to Hashem for allowing me to be his messenger on Earth." I would bet real money that evangelicals would go ape shit. Never mind that in Judaism "Hashem" is simply a synonym for G-d. Pretty much the only thing that would be worse in their minds would be if he substituted "Allah."
posted by zarq at 12:58 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's because he's not overt about it. His religious affiliation will become a more important issue if and when he's running against a Republican.
I don't think this is true. Sanders speaks like a Brooklyn Jewish man. He doesn't have to recite a bracha for people to be reminded of his religion.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:01 PM on February 2, 2016
I don't think this is true. Sanders speaks like a Brooklyn Jewish man. He doesn't have to recite a bracha for people to be reminded of his religion.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:01 PM on February 2, 2016
Bernie Sanders Won Iowa Because the Media Says He Did
The fact is, not much is usually at stake in Iowa except for the media narrative that its results generate. Which isn’t to say that a lot isn’t at stake — if cable news decides that you made a weird noise after coming in third place, it can decide to put a hit on your campaign. While Donald Trump didn’t emerge victorious Monday night, the fact that he came in second despite spending less than all of his rivals is a testament to the power of free media.posted by flex at 1:07 PM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
By producing an effective tie, Iowa Democrats gave journalists the opportunity to choose the narrative they wanted...
There’s a strong argument that, on paper, Monday night’s narrow victory increased Clinton’s chances of securing her party’s nomination. Clinton has nearly unanimous support from the party’s superdelegates, so Sanders would have needed a large victory to put himself on pace for the nomination. Clinton still has the overwhelming support of her party’s Establishment and a double-digit lead in national polls... But Sanders performed well enough to give the media a choice — and media bias tends to favor the more interesting narrative. As the Post’s Ruth Marcus wrote, “Between Sanders and Clinton, tie goes to the underdog.”
In the pundit class's defense, it is a damn good story. A septuagenarian socialist, who trailed by 40 points in Iowa at the race’s start, takes on his party’s handpicked candidate with absolutely zero Establishment support and builds a million Millennial movement that propels him to a virtual tie? Who doesn’t want to see the next episode of this drama? Not a certain former New York senator, of course.
Sanders is incredibly well funded for an insurgent without a super-pac. He has a giant army of small-dollar donors who are far from being maxed out and committed volunteers across the country. He still doesn’t have a great chance of actually winning, but all he needed to keep the political revolution rolling was to impress the media with his showing in Iowa. Today’s front pages suggest he has done so.
I don't think this is true. Sanders speaks like a Brooklyn Jewish man. He doesn't have to recite a bracha for people to be reminded of his religion.
He speaks Brooklynese, period. There's very little in his accent or vocabulary that should scream "Jewish stereotype" to non-Jews. It's not as if he's constantly peppering his speech with yiddishisms.
posted by zarq at 1:07 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
He speaks Brooklynese, period. There's very little in his accent or vocabulary that should scream "Jewish stereotype" to non-Jews. It's not as if he's constantly peppering his speech with yiddishisms.
posted by zarq at 1:07 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
As someone who still identifies as a Brooklynite, let me tell you Sanders uses less yiddish in public speaking than I do. I can't see this as being a hindrance, but that may be New York eyeglasses.
posted by corb at 1:15 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 1:15 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think Sanders will get more flack for being borderline atheist than for being raised Jewish. I also think that the fact that he had family members die in the Holocaust is important when juxtaposed against deport-all-Muslims and other white supremacist rhetoric from the GOP (and even vs Clinton's support from institutions that benefit from systemic oppression).
posted by melissasaurus at 1:22 PM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 1:22 PM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think Sanders will get more flack for being borderline atheist than for being raised Jewish.
The right's attack on Obama have gone in so many different directions and so many contradictions that I think it's conceivable he'll be labeled as both an Atheist and Jewish. And more, who knows?
posted by FJT at 1:32 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
The right's attack on Obama have gone in so many different directions and so many contradictions that I think it's conceivable he'll be labeled as both an Atheist and Jewish. And more, who knows?
posted by FJT at 1:32 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders speaks like a Brooklyn Jewish man
what does this even mean? this is such an odd assertion.
posted by sweetkid at 1:37 PM on February 2, 2016
what does this even mean? this is such an odd assertion.
posted by sweetkid at 1:37 PM on February 2, 2016
And do you know who else was a radical Jewish socialist who wanted to give everybody free health care?
posted by entropicamericana at 1:38 PM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 1:38 PM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]
sweetkid, to be honest, we haven't really had civil conversation in this thread, so I'm going to let my point stand, and people can figure it out themselves if they want to.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:39 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:39 PM on February 2, 2016
As I understand it there is going to be a lot of "Spread the money around" with Sanders if the Republicans ever do start really talking about him. They're still on Hillary. And more than that, Obama.
posted by sweetkid at 1:41 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 1:41 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
WaPo: The initial 6-for-6 report, from the Des Moines Register missed a few Sanders coin-toss wins. (There were a lot of coin tosses!) The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:43 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 1:43 PM on February 2, 2016
What about the amount of ties? Just asking. Is the amount of ties what we'd expect?
posted by Trochanter at 1:45 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 1:45 PM on February 2, 2016
Sooo...
WaPo: Our story was bullshit!
posted by Justinian at 1:46 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
WaPo: Our story was bullshit!
posted by Justinian at 1:46 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
WaPo: We blame the Des Moines Register.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:49 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:49 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
this coin-toss thing is fucking weird
posted by angrycat at 2:03 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 2:03 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't actually think it's going to happen, but I am going to laugh my ass off if anyone is caught using a double-headed or double-tailed coin.
I personally use the double-tailed coin when I want to load bets because nobody expects it
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:07 PM on February 2, 2016
I personally use the double-tailed coin when I want to load bets because nobody expects it
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:07 PM on February 2, 2016
What about the amount of ties? Just asking. Is the amount of ties what we'd expect?There are approximately 11,000 county delegates, so yeah, I think some ties are probably to be expected. Usually it doesn't matter, because usually the race isn't this close.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:07 PM on February 2, 2016
As a senator, Secretary of State John Kerry sent at least one email to Hillary Clinton from his personal account that has now been classified as secret, the State Department confirmed on Tuesday.
The largely redacted May 19, 2011, email from Kerry — then the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee — “was sent from a non-official account,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday.
That account, Kirby added “is no longer active.”
The message referenced India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and was classified for containing information about foreign governments and U.S. foreign relations.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:14 PM on February 2, 2016
The largely redacted May 19, 2011, email from Kerry — then the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee — “was sent from a non-official account,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday.
That account, Kirby added “is no longer active.”
The message referenced India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and was classified for containing information about foreign governments and U.S. foreign relations.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:14 PM on February 2, 2016
Spoiler: We find out that everyone at the deputy cabinet level or above has been regularly sending classified material over insecure channels for a couple of decades, because the classification system is antithetical to the kind of information sharing policymakers need to do their jobs.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 2:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
WaPo: The initial 6-for-6 report, from the Des Moines Register missed a few Sanders coin-toss wins. (There were a lot of coin tosses!) The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.
Way to bury the correction at the bottom behind a bunch of ads, bullshit videos, and the dorky coin-toss applet, WaPo. I can easily imagine readers skimming the first half of the article and not knowing the 6-6 thing is incorrect.
posted by aught at 2:17 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Way to bury the correction at the bottom behind a bunch of ads, bullshit videos, and the dorky coin-toss applet, WaPo. I can easily imagine readers skimming the first half of the article and not knowing the 6-6 thing is incorrect.
posted by aught at 2:17 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
> The ratio of Clinton to Sanders wins was closer to 50-50, which is what we'd expect.
Nobody expects the Binomial Distribution!
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:20 PM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]
Nobody expects the Binomial Distribution!
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:20 PM on February 2, 2016 [18 favorites]
Especially since a bunch of people are implying they think Clinton people rigged the coin tosses, and now everyone's still reporting that "Clinton only won because of coin tosses" narrative. That's a big mistake to make and then bury.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:20 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:20 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
We sure as hell haven't entered a post-antisemitism world. So yeah, I think its a real concern.
Take this, for instance: Zachary Levi loses work over being ‘too Jewish’
There are lots of Jewish actors, but being perceived as Jewish typecasts you in a way that being (e.g.) Lutheran doesn't. That doesn't mean Sanders can't get the nomination, but it will inevitably affect his campaign.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:29 PM on February 2, 2016
Take this, for instance: Zachary Levi loses work over being ‘too Jewish’
There are lots of Jewish actors, but being perceived as Jewish typecasts you in a way that being (e.g.) Lutheran doesn't. That doesn't mean Sanders can't get the nomination, but it will inevitably affect his campaign.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:29 PM on February 2, 2016
Spoiler: We find out that everyone at the deputy cabinet level or above has been regularly sending classified material over insecure channels for a couple of decades, because the classification system is antithetical to the kind of information sharing policymakers need to do their jobs.
And that a lot of stuff is classified for stupid reasons or otherwise really pointlessly. ISTR that some of the later-classified stuff is newspaper articles.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:30 PM on February 2, 2016
And that a lot of stuff is classified for stupid reasons or otherwise really pointlessly. ISTR that some of the later-classified stuff is newspaper articles.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:30 PM on February 2, 2016
I don't have a really good sense of how much Sanders's Jewishness is going to matter. I didn't see any signs that anyone in Iowa cared at all, and I was looking for it. I also am not sure that everyone in Iowa realizes he's Jewish, and I don't think that anyone was particularly focused on it. I think it will be a bigger issue among general election voters than it would be among Iowa Democratic caucus-goers, and I think the Republicans would definitely make it an issue if he got the nomination.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:35 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:35 PM on February 2, 2016
where is the discussion of antisemitism w/r/t sanders' chances going here? i'm having trouble telling if this is dispassionate forecasting or persuasive/personal speech about how folks should/the writer will vote, and that makes one hell of a difference in how to interpret things.
posted by The Gaffer at 2:37 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by The Gaffer at 2:37 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I cannot help but recall the exact same kind of concern...er...sharing, heartfelt or not, was a big part of the Clinton-supporter theories about how unelectable Barack Hussein Obama was back in 2008. I mean, if our country can elect a (relatively) unknown black guy with the same name as our nation's arch enemy, then perhaps prognostications of who's "electable" may not really hold as much water as they once did?
posted by darkstar at 2:45 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by darkstar at 2:45 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
I think it's mostly a bunch of Jewish people trying to sort through what this means for the Tribe, to be honest. Because if you had told me ten years ago that someone with Bernie Sanders's profile would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting votes in middle America, I would have laughed in your face. And I am a Jewish person who is happily, comfortably ensconced in middle America.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:46 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:46 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
My feeling (note: I'm Australian, I can't vote, and what the hell do I know) is that there will be some delegates who will think that anti-Semitism would harm Sanders' campaign, and will therefore support Hillary. I don't know whether that position is at all reasonable; I don't know whether fear of a Republican administration justifies that sort of pragmatism; it wouldn't be the first time that well-meaning liberals asked minorities to subordinate their interests for the greater good.
Will there be enough of those well-meaning liberals to harm Sanders' chances? Reply hazy, try again.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:48 PM on February 2, 2016
Will there be enough of those well-meaning liberals to harm Sanders' chances? Reply hazy, try again.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:48 PM on February 2, 2016
where is the discussion of antisemitism w/r/t sanders' chances going here? i'm having trouble telling if this is dispassionate forecasting or persuasive/personal speech about how folks should/the writer will vote, and that makes one hell of a difference in how to interpret things.
I was voicing my personal opinion. It's my assessment of an obstacle I think that he will have to deal with if he reaches the general election. It's not meant to persuade anyone regarding how they should vote.
posted by zarq at 2:49 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
I was voicing my personal opinion. It's my assessment of an obstacle I think that he will have to deal with if he reaches the general election. It's not meant to persuade anyone regarding how they should vote.
posted by zarq at 2:49 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
a bunch of people are implying they think Clinton people rigged the coin tosses
That's just silly. Everyone knows it's the money that controls Hillary, not vice versa!
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:52 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
That's just silly. Everyone knows it's the money that controls Hillary, not vice versa!
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:52 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
We find out that everyone at the deputy cabinet level or above has been regularly sending classified material over insecure channels for a couple of decades, because the classification system is antithetical to the kind of information sharing policymakers need to do their jobs
The dirty secret in government is that everyone who handles classified material has to bend the rules to get work done. There are draconian and largely unworkable procedures for data handling that absolutely no one follows. IT security is notorious for coming up with completely impractical solutions which promptly get ignored.
And that's a huge problem. Clinton's rather extreme form of abuse of that is rooted in the strong belief that IT doesn't know its head from its backside when it comes to real-world use of operational security protocols. This attitude is exacerbated by the fact that no one thinks they're a security risk, especially if it's with new technologies that they haven't used much.
Solutions to this kind of problem are not easy. Data needs to be secure (and its not like people are cowboys; most everyone cares about security), but it also needs to be usable. IT nerds too often prefer perfect security that makes data inaccessible. Users want to have all the access they want. Most of the time this is "solved" by compromising on (multiple) old-school physical security barriers and careful allowance of what can go off site. Basically, go nuts in a secured area.
So, breaking that physical layer, taking an email server home, as Clinton did, is pretty egregious even by typical look-the-other-way government standards.
posted by bonehead at 3:17 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
The dirty secret in government is that everyone who handles classified material has to bend the rules to get work done. There are draconian and largely unworkable procedures for data handling that absolutely no one follows. IT security is notorious for coming up with completely impractical solutions which promptly get ignored.
And that's a huge problem. Clinton's rather extreme form of abuse of that is rooted in the strong belief that IT doesn't know its head from its backside when it comes to real-world use of operational security protocols. This attitude is exacerbated by the fact that no one thinks they're a security risk, especially if it's with new technologies that they haven't used much.
Solutions to this kind of problem are not easy. Data needs to be secure (and its not like people are cowboys; most everyone cares about security), but it also needs to be usable. IT nerds too often prefer perfect security that makes data inaccessible. Users want to have all the access they want. Most of the time this is "solved" by compromising on (multiple) old-school physical security barriers and careful allowance of what can go off site. Basically, go nuts in a secured area.
So, breaking that physical layer, taking an email server home, as Clinton did, is pretty egregious even by typical look-the-other-way government standards.
posted by bonehead at 3:17 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
The other thing is that 6 wins in a row isn't that unusual. It's a 1/64 chance. Oh sure, you don't expect that to happen, 1/64 is only 1.6% or so but that's not crazy unlikely just normal unlikely. How many people here have played RPGs or board games or anything and rolled three 1s in a row on d6s. If you've played those games more than a couple times then everybody has. And winning 6 coin tosses is three times as likely as rolling three 1s in a row.
The thing about strings of probabilities is that they are very lumpy and streaky, not homogeneous. Excessive uniformity (ie H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T) is in itself a sign that the coin isn't fair.
If one party had won 10 or more in a row then we'd start having something to talk about. Maybe even 9.
posted by Justinian at 3:26 PM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
The thing about strings of probabilities is that they are very lumpy and streaky, not homogeneous. Excessive uniformity (ie H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T H T) is in itself a sign that the coin isn't fair.
If one party had won 10 or more in a row then we'd start having something to talk about. Maybe even 9.
posted by Justinian at 3:26 PM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
Joe (and others,) you might find this interesting: American Jews Face a Political Paradox.
In addition to its premise (Republicans love Israel but are 'not so crazy about Jews' while Democrats like Jews but are not so crazy about Israel,) the article notes that a Sanders win in New Hampshire will make him "the first non-Christian in American history to win even one major party nominating caucus or primary." Interesting.
posted by zarq at 3:28 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
In addition to its premise (Republicans love Israel but are 'not so crazy about Jews' while Democrats like Jews but are not so crazy about Israel,) the article notes that a Sanders win in New Hampshire will make him "the first non-Christian in American history to win even one major party nominating caucus or primary." Interesting.
posted by zarq at 3:28 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
S.C. Rep. Bamberg to switch endorsement from Clinton to Sanders (1/25/2016)
This one made me so happy: Ohio's Nina Turner jumps from Clinton to Sanders. I believe she has her eye on the Cleveland mayoral race, so we will hopefully have someone there who will protect the right to vote, and maybe that helps get her to Secretary of State.
Ezra Klein also mentioned on Twitter last night that he has come to believe that if Warren had entered the race, she would have been the eventual nominee. I think that's probably true
I agree. It will be interesting to see what happens when she endorses Sanders (assuming she makes a public endorsement.) One question I have for the people really pushing the bro angle is, Bernie has broken all kinds of fundraising records, including raising $20 million dollars in January alone, all from small donors. Who do you think is sending all that cash? Who is phone banking every single night? Who is making (multiple!) trips out of state to canvas for Bernie? The bros? No. It's millions of people who care about this campaign and this country. I think it's a mistake to dismiss the Sanders campaign as a boy zone.
Anecdotally, I know one person who has said they will not vote for Hillary, ever. (An African-American woman, since we're discussing demographics here.) Every other Sanders supporter I know will vote for Hilary.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:37 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
This one made me so happy: Ohio's Nina Turner jumps from Clinton to Sanders. I believe she has her eye on the Cleveland mayoral race, so we will hopefully have someone there who will protect the right to vote, and maybe that helps get her to Secretary of State.
Ezra Klein also mentioned on Twitter last night that he has come to believe that if Warren had entered the race, she would have been the eventual nominee. I think that's probably true
I agree. It will be interesting to see what happens when she endorses Sanders (assuming she makes a public endorsement.) One question I have for the people really pushing the bro angle is, Bernie has broken all kinds of fundraising records, including raising $20 million dollars in January alone, all from small donors. Who do you think is sending all that cash? Who is phone banking every single night? Who is making (multiple!) trips out of state to canvas for Bernie? The bros? No. It's millions of people who care about this campaign and this country. I think it's a mistake to dismiss the Sanders campaign as a boy zone.
Anecdotally, I know one person who has said they will not vote for Hillary, ever. (An African-American woman, since we're discussing demographics here.) Every other Sanders supporter I know will vote for Hilary.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:37 PM on February 2, 2016 [14 favorites]
I mean, if our country can elect a (relatively) unknown black guy with the same name as our nation's arch enemy, then perhaps prognostications of who's "electable" may not really hold as much water as they once did?
I kind of agree, but I think electability is still worth discussing. In this topic Sanders' electability is also brought up as a positive since he has more enthusiastic supporters, and brings in both the liberal and youth vote (and the possible potential of bringing in some of the white working class). If you are comparing it to Obama, then in 2008 his supporters made a similar case on his electability based on some of those groups as well.
posted by FJT at 3:39 PM on February 2, 2016
I kind of agree, but I think electability is still worth discussing. In this topic Sanders' electability is also brought up as a positive since he has more enthusiastic supporters, and brings in both the liberal and youth vote (and the possible potential of bringing in some of the white working class). If you are comparing it to Obama, then in 2008 his supporters made a similar case on his electability based on some of those groups as well.
posted by FJT at 3:39 PM on February 2, 2016
Can somebody confirm how many delegates Iowa has including the superdelegates? I keep saying it will end up like 30-22 for Clinton but now from what I hearing from the Clinton camp people the 52 delegates may only be the ones awarded based on the caucus results and Iowa actually has 60 total. Because the Clinton spokesguy said they expect Clinton will come out with about 37 delegates and Sanders 23.
This is such an arcane, anti-democratic, insane process when I'm not even sure what the results mean and I'm following it closer than 99.8% of the population.
posted by Justinian at 3:54 PM on February 2, 2016
This is such an arcane, anti-democratic, insane process when I'm not even sure what the results mean and I'm following it closer than 99.8% of the population.
posted by Justinian at 3:54 PM on February 2, 2016
Here's the thing about randomness: HHHHHHH is precisely as likely an outcome of six coin flips as HTTHTH or THHTTH or TTTHTH.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:55 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:55 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders won't debate Thursday unless Clinton agrees to future debates
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:58 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:58 PM on February 2, 2016
Man, Trump looks beaten down and subdued. That's too bad. Too, too bad.
posted by Justinian at 4:04 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 4:04 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's the thing about randomness: HHHHHHH is precisely as likely an outcome of six coin flips as HTTHTH or THHTTH or TTTHTH.
you could argue it's 1/3 as likely.
posted by andrewcooke at 4:05 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
you could argue it's 1/3 as likely.
posted by andrewcooke at 4:05 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I find antisemitic thoughts about Sanders hard to believe -- he's an old secular Jewish guy from Brooklyn! It'd be like hating Uncle Leo or bagels. But maybe I'm underestimating the amount of antisemitism out there.
posted by crazy with stars at 4:07 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by crazy with stars at 4:07 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
And who is responsible for moving the window of what is possible? Not just Hillary. You too.
If she beats Sanders -- which she appears to be doing -- it's *STILL* on you to change that... not just her. She's been fighting this battle for thirty plus years, while others couldn't even be bothered to come out to vote.
So really, no... let's not talk about her. Let's talk about you instead.
Strawman, but yeah you're right. Look what happened to the antiwar movement once Obama was elected. Of course you can't seem to be arsed to notice that Bernie has been making this point the entire campaign. He knows he can't do it alone. Clinton on the other hand is, as usual, focused only on herself and what she is personally going to do and/or fight for. Clinton wants votes and then the progressive wing of the party can buzz right the fuck off as far as she's concerned. She doesn't want a movement, she wants sloganeering and apathy....i.e. the status quo.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:09 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
If she beats Sanders -- which she appears to be doing -- it's *STILL* on you to change that... not just her. She's been fighting this battle for thirty plus years, while others couldn't even be bothered to come out to vote.
So really, no... let's not talk about her. Let's talk about you instead.
Strawman, but yeah you're right. Look what happened to the antiwar movement once Obama was elected. Of course you can't seem to be arsed to notice that Bernie has been making this point the entire campaign. He knows he can't do it alone. Clinton on the other hand is, as usual, focused only on herself and what she is personally going to do and/or fight for. Clinton wants votes and then the progressive wing of the party can buzz right the fuck off as far as she's concerned. She doesn't want a movement, she wants sloganeering and apathy....i.e. the status quo.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:09 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
But maybe I'm underestimating the amount of antisemitism out there.
I once got banned from an IRC channel for expressing the opinion that Intel processors were generally better than AMD. Because the channel operator thought that Intel chips were part of a Jewish conspiracy.
It wasn't even a channel about computers.
So yeah, the struggle is real.
posted by fifthrider at 4:09 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
I once got banned from an IRC channel for expressing the opinion that Intel processors were generally better than AMD. Because the channel operator thought that Intel chips were part of a Jewish conspiracy.
It wasn't even a channel about computers.
So yeah, the struggle is real.
posted by fifthrider at 4:09 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's the thing about randomness: HHHHHHH is precisely as likely an outcome of six coin flips as HTTHTH or THHTTH or TTTHTH.
Every discrete outcome is equally likely (1/64), but there was a 63/64 chance of Sanders winning at least one coin toss.
But the chance that Clinton somehow distributed trick coins to every caucus in Iowa just in case is about as likely as America transitioning to full communism.
posted by dis_integration at 4:11 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
Every discrete outcome is equally likely (1/64), but there was a 63/64 chance of Sanders winning at least one coin toss.
But the chance that Clinton somehow distributed trick coins to every caucus in Iowa just in case is about as likely as America transitioning to full communism.
posted by dis_integration at 4:11 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
She doesn't want a movement, she wants sloganeering and apathy....i.e. the status quo.
She only wants sloganeering and apathy if the polls say sloganeering and apathy is what the voters want. Then she's always been in favor of sloganeering and apathy. In fact, she was a slogan engineer and apathetic way before her opponent and resents you would imply she's ever been anything other.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:15 PM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
She only wants sloganeering and apathy if the polls say sloganeering and apathy is what the voters want. Then she's always been in favor of sloganeering and apathy. In fact, she was a slogan engineer and apathetic way before her opponent and resents you would imply she's ever been anything other.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:15 PM on February 2, 2016 [10 favorites]
In fact, she was a slogan engineer and apathetic way before her opponent and resents you would imply she's ever been anything other.
Wait are you trying to say that Hillary is a hipster?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:18 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wait are you trying to say that Hillary is a hipster?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:18 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
No way. Hipsters don't poll well with the general populace or people over 50.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:21 PM on February 2, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 4:21 PM on February 2, 2016
Last March, the ADL issued a press release mentioning that antisemitic incidents were on the rise in the US in 2014. Checking their site, they haven't issued an update for 2015 yet. But they have apparently launched the "ADL Global 100" so we Jews can see at a glance how many people hate us.
Highly depressing.
posted by zarq at 4:25 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Highly depressing.
posted by zarq at 4:25 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Regarding the coin toss issue: 1) Sanders did win some of the coin tosses, 2) It didn't change the outcome anyway
And also, all the other stuff above about it not even being that unlikely to win 6 in a row.
posted by shesdeadimalive at 5:05 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
And also, all the other stuff above about it not even being that unlikely to win 6 in a row.
posted by shesdeadimalive at 5:05 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
How about we don't mix coins and voting at all.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:07 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:07 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
i.e. the status quo.
--AND--
In fact, she was a slogan engineer and apathetic way before her opponent and resents you would imply she's ever been anything other.
How can Clinton be both the status quo, yet change on issues?
It's a contradiction, and just not true with a Democrat in the White House for the last seven years. Yes, I do understand that people think Obama and Clinton aren't changing fast enough or gone far enough, but it seems like less of a criticism and more like, well, some kind of cynical slogan.
posted by FJT at 5:10 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
--AND--
In fact, she was a slogan engineer and apathetic way before her opponent and resents you would imply she's ever been anything other.
How can Clinton be both the status quo, yet change on issues?
It's a contradiction, and just not true with a Democrat in the White House for the last seven years. Yes, I do understand that people think Obama and Clinton aren't changing fast enough or gone far enough, but it seems like less of a criticism and more like, well, some kind of cynical slogan.
posted by FJT at 5:10 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
How can Clinton be both the status quo, yet change on issues?
Uh, because the prevailing consensus does change occasionally? Back in the 90s when Bowers was still good law, Hillary hated gays with the best of 'em. Now that we've got Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, and Hollingsworth she's suddenly come around to the side of light. The point is that Hillary basically just does focus groups to figure out what she believes, not that she is a static ideologue.
posted by fifthrider at 5:14 PM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Uh, because the prevailing consensus does change occasionally? Back in the 90s when Bowers was still good law, Hillary hated gays with the best of 'em. Now that we've got Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, and Hollingsworth she's suddenly come around to the side of light. The point is that Hillary basically just does focus groups to figure out what she believes, not that she is a static ideologue.
posted by fifthrider at 5:14 PM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Holy cow:
posted by entropicamericana at 5:22 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
- Bernie Sanders crushed Hillary Clinton by 70 points among young voters in Iowa.
- Among voters between the ages of 17 and 29, Bernie Sanders won 84 percent of the vote to Hillary Clinton's 14 percent.
- Barack Obama won the 17-29 vote by "only" 43 points in the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses.
- Clinton finished third among young voters in Iowa in 2008; she got 11 percent of the vote.
posted by entropicamericana at 5:22 PM on February 2, 2016 [4 favorites]
The point is that Hillary basically just does focus groups to figure out what she believes, not that she is a static ideologue.
It took Hillary months to come out against the XL pipeline when asked about it (even though the issue had been around for years so she really should have been informed and had an opinion). Pretty much only after it wasn't going to happen did she finally say she was against it. She refused to state a position on it even when campaigning in a state that has a controversial and unpopular pipeline project in the works. She just didn't want to pick the wrong stance.
She dodges questions like the fastest kid in dodgeball. A google search for "Hillary laughs off question" produces an alarming number of results. Some of the videos are downright cringeworthy. Perhaps I am wrong, but Sanders answers the questions he's asked. He doesn't worry if the soundbite will be used against him. Maybe this is confirmation bias, but I don't think so (I understand the humor of that statement).
posted by cjorgensen at 5:31 PM on February 2, 2016 [25 favorites]
It took Hillary months to come out against the XL pipeline when asked about it (even though the issue had been around for years so she really should have been informed and had an opinion). Pretty much only after it wasn't going to happen did she finally say she was against it. She refused to state a position on it even when campaigning in a state that has a controversial and unpopular pipeline project in the works. She just didn't want to pick the wrong stance.
She dodges questions like the fastest kid in dodgeball. A google search for "Hillary laughs off question" produces an alarming number of results. Some of the videos are downright cringeworthy. Perhaps I am wrong, but Sanders answers the questions he's asked. He doesn't worry if the soundbite will be used against him. Maybe this is confirmation bias, but I don't think so (I understand the humor of that statement).
posted by cjorgensen at 5:31 PM on February 2, 2016 [25 favorites]
I'm also guessing if you request the transcript of any speech Sanders has given his office would be happy to provide it.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:34 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 5:34 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
She dodges questions like the fastest kid in dodgeball.
In Secretary Clinton's defense, she does get asked a lot of remarkably stupid questions from remarkably stupid people, so a certain emotional distance is understood to be required at times.
However, when the tactic that is used to deflect questions from nitwits is used to avoid reasonable queries, you're going to have a bad time...
posted by mikelieman at 5:45 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
In Secretary Clinton's defense, she does get asked a lot of remarkably stupid questions from remarkably stupid people, so a certain emotional distance is understood to be required at times.
However, when the tactic that is used to deflect questions from nitwits is used to avoid reasonable queries, you're going to have a bad time...
posted by mikelieman at 5:45 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
It took Hillary months to come out against the XL pipeline when asked about it (even though the issue had been around for years so she really should have been informed and had an opinion)
I'm not sure if Keystone XL can be attributed to focus groups (or at least her focus grouping), since the pipeline was under review for six years and even President Obama changed his mind and rejected it last year. Having served as Secretary of State for the Obama administration, I think Clinton understands how important it is for both current and former members of an administration to speak (or in this case, not speak) with "one voice".
posted by FJT at 6:04 PM on February 2, 2016
I'm not sure if Keystone XL can be attributed to focus groups (or at least her focus grouping), since the pipeline was under review for six years and even President Obama changed his mind and rejected it last year. Having served as Secretary of State for the Obama administration, I think Clinton understands how important it is for both current and former members of an administration to speak (or in this case, not speak) with "one voice".
posted by FJT at 6:04 PM on February 2, 2016
However, when the tactic that is used to deflect questions from nitwits is used to avoid reasonable queries, you're going to have a bad time...
No one would be attacking her for dodging questions from nitwits. In fact, this can turn someone into my hero: Barney Frank Strikes Back
If it were stupid questions I'd shrug, but I think asking if she'll release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, when undo corporate and banking influence is a campaign issue, is a reasonable request. Did she tell them how bad bankers have it and they have her sympathies? Did she make promises? What do speeches that net her a $600,000in a year look like? I mean those must be some incredible fucking speeches.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:05 PM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
No one would be attacking her for dodging questions from nitwits. In fact, this can turn someone into my hero: Barney Frank Strikes Back
If it were stupid questions I'd shrug, but I think asking if she'll release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, when undo corporate and banking influence is a campaign issue, is a reasonable request. Did she tell them how bad bankers have it and they have her sympathies? Did she make promises? What do speeches that net her a $600,000in a year look like? I mean those must be some incredible fucking speeches.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:05 PM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
On the Film Pigs podcast the other night, Stephen Falk quipped that none of the Republican candidates would make it out of a tour of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory. They DO seem like a bunch that Gene Wilder would take great delight in tormenting, don't they?
posted by Ursula Hitler at 6:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Ursula Hitler at 6:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
Trump would HAVE to be the swell-up-and-turn-purple one right?
posted by Trochanter at 6:19 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 6:19 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
How about we don't mix coins and voting at all.
Three-card Monte?
Seven-card Stud?
I'd say 43-Man Squamish but that's pretty much what a caucus is already.
posted by delfin at 6:26 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Three-card Monte?
Seven-card Stud?
I'd say 43-Man Squamish but that's pretty much what a caucus is already.
posted by delfin at 6:26 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Uh, because the prevailing consensus does change occasionally? Back in the 90s when Bowers was still good law, Hillary hated gays with the best of 'em. Now that we've got Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, and Hollingsworth she's suddenly come around to the side of light.
You do realize that 10 years ago gay marriage wasn't supported by a majority of Americans, right? And that Obama wasn't even open about his support of gay marriage until around about when the tide turned with the 2012 election?
If you want to argue Hillary represents the status quo and changes with it, great, because she does. But a whole bunch of people on the left only came around post-2008 and even post-2012. I'm kind of tired of this "I was perfect before you were" attitude. It gainsays people the right to admit they were wrong.
That said, I wish she weren't so malleable to public appeal.
posted by dw at 6:29 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
You do realize that 10 years ago gay marriage wasn't supported by a majority of Americans, right? And that Obama wasn't even open about his support of gay marriage until around about when the tide turned with the 2012 election?
If you want to argue Hillary represents the status quo and changes with it, great, because she does. But a whole bunch of people on the left only came around post-2008 and even post-2012. I'm kind of tired of this "I was perfect before you were" attitude. It gainsays people the right to admit they were wrong.
That said, I wish she weren't so malleable to public appeal.
posted by dw at 6:29 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
Keep in mind that being malleable to the public will is seen as an asset in many regards especially for the presidency. As various presidents have said they are president of the whole US not just the liberal or conservative Americans. That being said triangulation of every culture war issue gets annoying.
posted by vuron at 6:39 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by vuron at 6:39 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
And that Obama wasn't even open about his support of gay marriage until around about when the tide turned with the 2012 election?
A lot of people who voted for Obama are to the left of him. "Obama got it wrong too" is not really a good defense, especially on social issues.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:46 PM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
A lot of people who voted for Obama are to the left of him. "Obama got it wrong too" is not really a good defense, especially on social issues.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:46 PM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
You do realize that 10 years ago gay marriage wasn't supported by a majority of Americans, right?
Yes, thank you for identifying the crux of my point. Ten years ago, gay marriage was outré in lots of establishment neoliberal circles, and Hillary was more than happy to play to the bigots. Nowadays that doesn't fly anymore and, imagine that, she's changed her tune. Far be it from her to stand up for basic human decency without prompting and polling data.
posted by fifthrider at 6:47 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, thank you for identifying the crux of my point. Ten years ago, gay marriage was outré in lots of establishment neoliberal circles, and Hillary was more than happy to play to the bigots. Nowadays that doesn't fly anymore and, imagine that, she's changed her tune. Far be it from her to stand up for basic human decency without prompting and polling data.
posted by fifthrider at 6:47 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump would HAVE to be the swell-up-and-turn-purple one right?
I'm thinking maybe he'd turn into a poor little Mexican girl and get deported. What do you get for misogynist gall? Turned brown, shrunk down, sent over the wall...
posted by Ursula Hitler at 6:52 PM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm thinking maybe he'd turn into a poor little Mexican girl and get deported. What do you get for misogynist gall? Turned brown, shrunk down, sent over the wall...
posted by Ursula Hitler at 6:52 PM on February 2, 2016 [13 favorites]
One thing both Sanders and Clinton need to be particularly cautious about Iowa is drawing too many conclusions about the electorate either way. As many people earlier in this thread noted the caucuses in general are only slightly democratic. That us to say Sanders got less delegates than he probably should have but also that the ability to generalize the caucus goers to the overall electorate is sketchy. Caucus goers are only a small percentage of likely voters and only a small number of registered voters. There are a lot of potential voters that are very much up for grabs in upcoming primaries and neither can rely exclusively on their natural affinity groups. That means Clinton needs better 18-29 messaging and Sanders needs to broaden his appeal to older whites and union goers. Personally I think both need to be honing messaging as much as possible because both are going to have issues with independent voters.
I personally would like to win this election not just because the Republican candidate is a schmuck.
posted by vuron at 6:58 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
I personally would like to win this election not just because the Republican candidate is a schmuck.
posted by vuron at 6:58 PM on February 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, thank you for identifying the crux of my point. Ten years ago, gay marriage was outré in lots of establishment neoliberal circles, and Hillary was more than happy to play to the bigots
fifthrider, you seem unaware that Sanders held the same position. Why aren't you saying he was playing the bigot?
posted by Justinian at 7:01 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
fifthrider, you seem unaware that Sanders held the same position. Why aren't you saying he was playing the bigot?
posted by Justinian at 7:01 PM on February 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
An All-Caps Explosion of Feelings Regarding the Liberal Backlash Against Hillary Clinton
posted by sweetkid at 7:06 PM on February 2, 2016 [8 favorites]
you seem unaware that Sanders held the same position.
But was a vocal opponent of attempts to ban gay marriage, and a vocal supporter of gay rights. He didn't publicly state that he was pro gay marriage until 2009, but before that his voting record is pretty clearly not "playing to the bigots."
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:12 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
But was a vocal opponent of attempts to ban gay marriage, and a vocal supporter of gay rights. He didn't publicly state that he was pro gay marriage until 2009, but before that his voting record is pretty clearly not "playing to the bigots."
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:12 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
fifthrider, you seem unaware that Sanders held the same position. Why aren't you saying he was playing the bigot?
Sanders voted against DOMA in 1996, although, granted, he didn't explicitly endorse gay marriage until 2009. In 1999, he spoke out approvingly when the Vermont Supreme Court ruled for benefits for gay couples. On gay rights issues in general, he's been explicitly positive since at least the 80s, if not earlier. It should also be pointed out, incidentally, that gay marriage was for many years not seen as a primary objective by the gay rights movement, many of whom saw it as being an unacceptable concession to conventional, conservative mores.
Clinton, meanwhile, didn't voice support for gay marriage until 2013, when it was more or less a settled issue on the left. In the 90s, she and the President were openly hostile to gay rights in general - DADT, the HIV travel ban, and, yes, DOMA, to name a few.
posted by fifthrider at 7:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]
Sanders voted against DOMA in 1996, although, granted, he didn't explicitly endorse gay marriage until 2009. In 1999, he spoke out approvingly when the Vermont Supreme Court ruled for benefits for gay couples. On gay rights issues in general, he's been explicitly positive since at least the 80s, if not earlier. It should also be pointed out, incidentally, that gay marriage was for many years not seen as a primary objective by the gay rights movement, many of whom saw it as being an unacceptable concession to conventional, conservative mores.
Clinton, meanwhile, didn't voice support for gay marriage until 2013, when it was more or less a settled issue on the left. In the 90s, she and the President were openly hostile to gay rights in general - DADT, the HIV travel ban, and, yes, DOMA, to name a few.
posted by fifthrider at 7:16 PM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]
Clinton, incidentally, now claims that her support for DOMA was all part of a secret plan to head off some unspecified worse legislation, a position that basically underscores everything that's unacceptable about her as a candidate. It's one thing to evolve on issues: I'm not about to deny anyone that prerogative, although I will absolutely favor a politician that is generally ahead of the curve over one that is dragging their heels. It's quite another thing, however, to consciously attempt to remake the past to project an image of leadership and confidence in the right rather than admit that they were wrong. That evinces a fundamental dishonesty - a contempt, really, for the electorate.
Look at Hillary's record as a "progressive," then look at what she's telling us now: she's running on a platform of "I've always been right, and, by the way, you should settle for half-measures."
What was Buckley's quote about conservatism, "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop"?
posted by fifthrider at 7:27 PM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Look at Hillary's record as a "progressive," then look at what she's telling us now: she's running on a platform of "I've always been right, and, by the way, you should settle for half-measures."
What was Buckley's quote about conservatism, "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop"?
posted by fifthrider at 7:27 PM on February 2, 2016 [12 favorites]
Jeb Lund/Mobute in Rolling Stone: The Electability Spin Machine
This is the dim path where a career pro-gay-rights feminist looms as a misogynist and an enemy to identity politics because some people with egg avatars sent some tweets. Where a candidate who personally earned millions in speeches and whose campaigns were significantly funded by Wall Street firms that nearly broke the world is equivalent to the candidate whose whole campaign opposes them because, apparently, he took money from a nurses' union. Where a legitimate candidate of the working class will be hammered over and over in an authenticity battle with a campaign that weekly releases some "How do you do, fellow kids?" embarrassment and whose Instagram manager is a woman with her own HBO series. Where the real progressive candidate has already pledged not to raise any middle-class taxes and once called people on welfare deadbeats.posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:28 PM on February 2, 2016 [17 favorites]
This is the claustrophobic world of small meaning that is born when everyone knows the only idea you have to aspire to is the reaffirmation that the Republicans are worse. It's the logic that says that nothing we do to each other in this room — that nothing we do anywhere — matters when we know there's a monster behind the door. It is a mean and interminable partnership with nihilism that will get much worse before it gets better, and no one will blame you if you fill your pockets with rocks and walk into the sea.
Ehh, honestly neither one are particularly great leaders when it comes to LGBT issues. That's unfortunate but understandable given the rather shitty position this country was in in regards to LGBT issues even half a decade ago. At the end of the day I doubt either are going to make LGBT issues a center point of their presidency. Fortunately this is an area where activists are going to continue to push both candidates out of their comfort zone. I also think this is going to be the case in regards to racial issues with BLM activists hammering both candidates on racial issues.
At the end of the day I reluctantly acknowledge that concepts of intersectionality seem to still be pretty foreign to policy makers in Washington to the point where people can acknowledge systemic issues of race and gender and sexual identity and religion overlap and shape issues such as economic and social class. The fact that even a community as well intentioned as metafilter still struggles with issues of intersectionality makes we wonder if these types of conversations can be had at a national political level. But on the other hand we've seen enormous progress in a variety of social areas in the last decade so maybe I'm being excessively pessimistic.
In the meantime I strongly encourage people to invest the time and effort necessary to make their desire for more progressive voices on LGBT and racial and other issues apparent on the local and state level even if you are like me and live in a state where those platform issues tend to be ignored at best. My hope is that we can continue to grow upcoming progressive leaders because honestly our bench is seeming pretty fucking sparse right now.
posted by vuron at 7:30 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
At the end of the day I reluctantly acknowledge that concepts of intersectionality seem to still be pretty foreign to policy makers in Washington to the point where people can acknowledge systemic issues of race and gender and sexual identity and religion overlap and shape issues such as economic and social class. The fact that even a community as well intentioned as metafilter still struggles with issues of intersectionality makes we wonder if these types of conversations can be had at a national political level. But on the other hand we've seen enormous progress in a variety of social areas in the last decade so maybe I'm being excessively pessimistic.
In the meantime I strongly encourage people to invest the time and effort necessary to make their desire for more progressive voices on LGBT and racial and other issues apparent on the local and state level even if you are like me and live in a state where those platform issues tend to be ignored at best. My hope is that we can continue to grow upcoming progressive leaders because honestly our bench is seeming pretty fucking sparse right now.
posted by vuron at 7:30 PM on February 2, 2016 [6 favorites]
An All-Caps Explosion of Feelings Regarding the Liberal Backlash Against Hillary Clinton
The last paragraph was telling, and not in a bad way. It's perfectly OK to feel that we should have a woman as president, because women deserve a fair shake. No, that's a sucky way of phrasing it - it is righteous and noble that a woman lead this country, because women have shaped it and lead it and defended it since the very beginning. They must have a say in how it is governed, for they are more than half the population, and democracy works.
Picking the right woman is a sticking point for some women, however, especially younger women who wouldn't mind waiting around a few more election cycles for the right woman candidate to take the office. Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, or if you're an Old like me, Margaret Thatcher are warnings that voting by gender may not generate a desired outcome.
That said, on the one hand, I agree with Bernie's economic and foreign policy positions, and believe he has the strength of conviction and political savvy to see a lot of them through even in the teeth of intractable opposition, BUT! On the other hand, I'm afraid that like Obama, his grass roots will wither and abandon us come the mid-terms. Clinton works with the party, and can bring its machinery to bear in the off-year elections, and she's to the left of Bill Clinton, and by the time of the convention, likely to the left of Barrack Obama. She is a woman who moves with the times, and in our liberalizing, pluralizing nation, that is a good thing.
On the gripping hand, Bill sure as shit lost both houses of Congress under his watch.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:34 PM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
The last paragraph was telling, and not in a bad way. It's perfectly OK to feel that we should have a woman as president, because women deserve a fair shake. No, that's a sucky way of phrasing it - it is righteous and noble that a woman lead this country, because women have shaped it and lead it and defended it since the very beginning. They must have a say in how it is governed, for they are more than half the population, and democracy works.
Picking the right woman is a sticking point for some women, however, especially younger women who wouldn't mind waiting around a few more election cycles for the right woman candidate to take the office. Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, or if you're an Old like me, Margaret Thatcher are warnings that voting by gender may not generate a desired outcome.
That said, on the one hand, I agree with Bernie's economic and foreign policy positions, and believe he has the strength of conviction and political savvy to see a lot of them through even in the teeth of intractable opposition, BUT! On the other hand, I'm afraid that like Obama, his grass roots will wither and abandon us come the mid-terms. Clinton works with the party, and can bring its machinery to bear in the off-year elections, and she's to the left of Bill Clinton, and by the time of the convention, likely to the left of Barrack Obama. She is a woman who moves with the times, and in our liberalizing, pluralizing nation, that is a good thing.
On the gripping hand, Bill sure as shit lost both houses of Congress under his watch.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:34 PM on February 2, 2016 [11 favorites]
ob1quixote: “Ka-boom! Look at Jacob Silver's face!”The reporter's name is actually Jacob Soboroff. I regret the error.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:36 PM on February 2, 2016
I'm not going to offer this as a defense to Bill Clinton but the '94 Republican Revolution was pretty much inevitable given the electorate regardless of Bill Clinton.
Keep in mind that the Republican Revolution was largely built on the massive shift in white southern voters towards the Republican party. This shift was already in place prior to 1994 (and was famously foretold by LBJ in the wake of the Civil Rights era) but in a lot of southern states you saw wholesale elimination of centrist white democrats from elected office. This was also about the time where the new found dominance of the evangelical movement in regards to Republican politics reached it's high point.
That isn't to say that Bill didn't contribute to the loss of seats during the midterm election but I really hesitate to place that much blame at his feet either. Yeah his midterm campaigning could've been better but seriously a wave election like that requires more than just a unpopular president.
posted by vuron at 7:53 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
Keep in mind that the Republican Revolution was largely built on the massive shift in white southern voters towards the Republican party. This shift was already in place prior to 1994 (and was famously foretold by LBJ in the wake of the Civil Rights era) but in a lot of southern states you saw wholesale elimination of centrist white democrats from elected office. This was also about the time where the new found dominance of the evangelical movement in regards to Republican politics reached it's high point.
That isn't to say that Bill didn't contribute to the loss of seats during the midterm election but I really hesitate to place that much blame at his feet either. Yeah his midterm campaigning could've been better but seriously a wave election like that requires more than just a unpopular president.
posted by vuron at 7:53 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
"her support for DOMA"
... was actually her husband's support of DOMA. She did tend to support her husband, but wasn't even a politician twenty years ago.
Also note, it was a *VERY* different country then, when even Barney Frank tiptoed around DOMA, making only very specific objections to it, based largely on states rights. Specifically, it attempted to protect marriage in the U.S. from Hawaii's decision to allow *some* basic rights for those in the LGBT community.
"I have not had people come to me and say, I am in love with another woman, I want to get married because I really want to have State sanction. I want to know that the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Georgia, that they really like me. No one has come forward and said, can you please arrange so that the Republican Party and the House of Representatives will express their approval of my lifestyle. That is not a request I have ever gotten nor expect to get.
What people have said is, can I regularize this relationship so we are legally responsible for each other. Can I get to the point where if one of us gets very ill we will be protected in our ability to undertake financial responsibilities? Can we buy property jointly? Can we do the other things that people do? Can we decide that one will work and one might be in child rearing, there are people who have children in these relationships. That is what they
are asking for."
Playing revisionist history games on DOMA shows a profound lack of respect for those who fought hard and got us from where the LGBT community was, to where it is today.
posted by markkraft at 8:18 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
... was actually her husband's support of DOMA. She did tend to support her husband, but wasn't even a politician twenty years ago.
Also note, it was a *VERY* different country then, when even Barney Frank tiptoed around DOMA, making only very specific objections to it, based largely on states rights. Specifically, it attempted to protect marriage in the U.S. from Hawaii's decision to allow *some* basic rights for those in the LGBT community.
"I have not had people come to me and say, I am in love with another woman, I want to get married because I really want to have State sanction. I want to know that the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Georgia, that they really like me. No one has come forward and said, can you please arrange so that the Republican Party and the House of Representatives will express their approval of my lifestyle. That is not a request I have ever gotten nor expect to get.
What people have said is, can I regularize this relationship so we are legally responsible for each other. Can I get to the point where if one of us gets very ill we will be protected in our ability to undertake financial responsibilities? Can we buy property jointly? Can we do the other things that people do? Can we decide that one will work and one might be in child rearing, there are people who have children in these relationships. That is what they
are asking for."
Playing revisionist history games on DOMA shows a profound lack of respect for those who fought hard and got us from where the LGBT community was, to where it is today.
posted by markkraft at 8:18 PM on February 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is the dim path where a career pro-gay-rights feminist looms as a misogynist and an enemy to identity politics because some people with egg avatars sent some tweets.
So earlier on Lund says that Sanders isn't responsible for everything his followers say, but then he suddenly turns around here and seems to take it very personally when some followers of Hillary "send some tweets" . I agree Sanders can't necessarily can't control everything that's said, but Lund here seems to be okay to ignore the worst of Sander's followers, but then go to the trouble of pointing out something bad Hlllary's followers are saying. And "send some tweets" makes it seem like he's dismissive of Twitter in general, like some angry kid saying "I don't care!" when he clearly does.
Where a legitimate candidate of the working class will be hammered over and over in an authenticity battle with a campaign that weekly releases some "How do you do, fellow kids?" embarrassment and whose Instagram manager is a woman with her own HBO series.
Now, this just makes Lund seem like an asshole. To Lund, it's fake or some elitist bullshit that Lena Dunham manages Hillary's IG for a bit, but when Mark Ruffalo, Will Ferrell, Sarah Silverman, or the 100 or so other celebrities endorse Sanders it's totally charming and folksy!
posted by FJT at 8:29 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
So earlier on Lund says that Sanders isn't responsible for everything his followers say, but then he suddenly turns around here and seems to take it very personally when some followers of Hillary "send some tweets" . I agree Sanders can't necessarily can't control everything that's said, but Lund here seems to be okay to ignore the worst of Sander's followers, but then go to the trouble of pointing out something bad Hlllary's followers are saying. And "send some tweets" makes it seem like he's dismissive of Twitter in general, like some angry kid saying "I don't care!" when he clearly does.
Where a legitimate candidate of the working class will be hammered over and over in an authenticity battle with a campaign that weekly releases some "How do you do, fellow kids?" embarrassment and whose Instagram manager is a woman with her own HBO series.
Now, this just makes Lund seem like an asshole. To Lund, it's fake or some elitist bullshit that Lena Dunham manages Hillary's IG for a bit, but when Mark Ruffalo, Will Ferrell, Sarah Silverman, or the 100 or so other celebrities endorse Sanders it's totally charming and folksy!
posted by FJT at 8:29 PM on February 2, 2016 [5 favorites]
...he suddenly turns around here and seems to take it very personally when some followers of Hillary "send some tweets"
He's not offended by the tweets; quite the opposite. He's offended by their wide-eyed elevation by influential media figures as evidence of a Grand Berniebro Conspiracy.
posted by fifthrider at 8:35 PM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
He's not offended by the tweets; quite the opposite. He's offended by their wide-eyed elevation by influential media figures as evidence of a Grand Berniebro Conspiracy.
posted by fifthrider at 8:35 PM on February 2, 2016 [7 favorites]
At the end of the day I doubt either are going to make LGBT issues a center point of their presidency.
Maybe. Definitely not in the way that we want. But...
This is anecdotal. I used to really dislike Clinton, but my recent respect for her has come from working with feds who found themselves under her at State. One story struck me in particular, from one of the guys in charge of diversity initiatives. He said that under Condoleezza, they couldn't even get a meeting - she wouldn't give them the time of day on several LGBT issues. Clinton gets appointed and without them even asking, she makes it a priority to set up a meeting with them the very first week on the job to establish a plan for banning discriminatory practices and extending benefits/protections to same-sex partners at State. This guy was a passionate advocate for LGBT rights, and I could feel how astonished he was at all this. It was clear to me he was a non-Clintonian who she won over by being super competent and getting shit done when it counted. And I've met a lot of people like him.
Hearing those stories, contrasted with the stuff I read on the internet about how she's obviously a soulless waffle and everyone who likes her must be a shill is what makes me feel so compelled to defend her now even though I campaigned heavily for Obama in '08 and I imagine I'll vote for Sanders.
Because to hell with that noise. The woman has put up with so much bullshit hate for so long, and even if she is super problematic, fuck me if I'm going to gleefully join in the internet joke squad this time. Criticize her policy, please. But when liberals are telling jokes and the punchline is the same as a Rush Limbaugh joke, I wish they would think about that for a second before claiming that they've never been influenced by the decades of vitriol thrown at her by the right. Because those memes came from somewhere.
She's not the woman president I want, but at this point I'm thinking EVERY SINGLE women presidential candidate is gonna have to run the gauntlet of this extraordinary bullshit at one point or another, and people are gonna find a way to dress it up as a new joke and a new meme each time. Bleh.
edit: Speaking of her 'support' for DOMA?
December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband.
The New York Times reported that Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said she supported the Defense of Marriage Act but added that "same-sex unions should be recognized and that same-sex unions should be entitled to all the rights and privileges that every other American gets."
April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions. "I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont," she said.
July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman."
However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman."
It's not great but let's not revise history, either.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:46 PM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]
Maybe. Definitely not in the way that we want. But...
This is anecdotal. I used to really dislike Clinton, but my recent respect for her has come from working with feds who found themselves under her at State. One story struck me in particular, from one of the guys in charge of diversity initiatives. He said that under Condoleezza, they couldn't even get a meeting - she wouldn't give them the time of day on several LGBT issues. Clinton gets appointed and without them even asking, she makes it a priority to set up a meeting with them the very first week on the job to establish a plan for banning discriminatory practices and extending benefits/protections to same-sex partners at State. This guy was a passionate advocate for LGBT rights, and I could feel how astonished he was at all this. It was clear to me he was a non-Clintonian who she won over by being super competent and getting shit done when it counted. And I've met a lot of people like him.
Hearing those stories, contrasted with the stuff I read on the internet about how she's obviously a soulless waffle and everyone who likes her must be a shill is what makes me feel so compelled to defend her now even though I campaigned heavily for Obama in '08 and I imagine I'll vote for Sanders.
Because to hell with that noise. The woman has put up with so much bullshit hate for so long, and even if she is super problematic, fuck me if I'm going to gleefully join in the internet joke squad this time. Criticize her policy, please. But when liberals are telling jokes and the punchline is the same as a Rush Limbaugh joke, I wish they would think about that for a second before claiming that they've never been influenced by the decades of vitriol thrown at her by the right. Because those memes came from somewhere.
She's not the woman president I want, but at this point I'm thinking EVERY SINGLE women presidential candidate is gonna have to run the gauntlet of this extraordinary bullshit at one point or another, and people are gonna find a way to dress it up as a new joke and a new meme each time. Bleh.
edit: Speaking of her 'support' for DOMA?
December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband.
The New York Times reported that Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said she supported the Defense of Marriage Act but added that "same-sex unions should be recognized and that same-sex unions should be entitled to all the rights and privileges that every other American gets."
April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions. "I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont," she said.
July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman."
However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman."
It's not great but let's not revise history, either.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 8:46 PM on February 2, 2016 [23 favorites]
She's not the woman president I want, but at this point I'm thinking EVERY SINGLE women presidential candidate is gonna have to run the gauntlet of this extraordinary bullshit at one point or another, and people are gonna find a way to dress it up as a new joke and a new meme each time. Bleh.
I really have a hard time believing that if E. Warren ran, 90% of Dems wouldn't be over the moon.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:24 PM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
I really have a hard time believing that if E. Warren ran, 90% of Dems wouldn't be over the moon.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:24 PM on February 2, 2016 [15 favorites]
... followed by a quick nomination, and months and months and months and months of corporate-funded attack ads that drag her through every bit of mud and every lurid suggestion they can insinuate. This process wouldn't stop, should she get elected.
The GOP would be very worried about Warren, because they simply haven't viewed her as important enough to haze to such a thorough degree.
posted by markkraft at 12:17 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
The GOP would be very worried about Warren, because they simply haven't viewed her as important enough to haze to such a thorough degree.
posted by markkraft at 12:17 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm really heartened by the 84-14 for Sanders among younger people. I know their turnout isn't high enough to let him win the primary but it gives me hope to know that the future of the Democratic party is in the hands of people who can look at two prototypes of what a party leader can look like and chose the, in my view, much better option. They want to be a party that puts the working and middle classes first and will try to implement policies to help all Americans.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:35 AM on February 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:35 AM on February 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
She did tend to support her husband, but wasn't even a politician twenty years ago.
The phrase "did tend to support her husband" might be the understatement of the decade, given the ferocity of her support and push back against attacks. They were very much a team with mutual political aspirations ("eight years of Bill, eight years of HIll"), and she played an open political role in his presidency that was different from most other spouses in the white house.
People talk about her "enthusiasm gap" and I think her inept portrayal of her changing views (such as on LGBT issues) gets at that problem. Every politician changes their views from time to time, but some have the knack of being out in front of those changes rather than waiting for poll numbers, and there is also a skill (which Bill has, but Hillary does not) of communicating those changes in ways that make them look better rather than worse. She just doesn't have that skill, and so just looks like she is pandering rather than leading.
posted by Dip Flash at 2:37 AM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
The phrase "did tend to support her husband" might be the understatement of the decade, given the ferocity of her support and push back against attacks. They were very much a team with mutual political aspirations ("eight years of Bill, eight years of HIll"), and she played an open political role in his presidency that was different from most other spouses in the white house.
People talk about her "enthusiasm gap" and I think her inept portrayal of her changing views (such as on LGBT issues) gets at that problem. Every politician changes their views from time to time, but some have the knack of being out in front of those changes rather than waiting for poll numbers, and there is also a skill (which Bill has, but Hillary does not) of communicating those changes in ways that make them look better rather than worse. She just doesn't have that skill, and so just looks like she is pandering rather than leading.
posted by Dip Flash at 2:37 AM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sanders has rallied millions of Democrats under the banner of 'democratic socialism' ... and moved 'socialist' from the realm of epithet to legitimate label."
We'll know that “socialism” is a legitimate label when it has been coopted by the neoliberal elites, and things like postdemocratic trade agreements and new rounds of deregulation and privatisation are sold as “socialist” measures to somehow nebulously help the wealth trickle down.
posted by acb at 5:00 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
We'll know that “socialism” is a legitimate label when it has been coopted by the neoliberal elites, and things like postdemocratic trade agreements and new rounds of deregulation and privatisation are sold as “socialist” measures to somehow nebulously help the wealth trickle down.
posted by acb at 5:00 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
A Muslim, that would be tough right now.
Or an atheist, or agnostic, or anyone who doesn't profess faith in God.
posted by acb at 5:11 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or an atheist, or agnostic, or anyone who doesn't profess faith in God.
posted by acb at 5:11 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I really have a hard time believing that if E. Warren ran, 90% of Dems wouldn't be over the moon."
You must be new to the liberal circular firing squad.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:26 AM on February 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
You must be new to the liberal circular firing squad.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 6:26 AM on February 3, 2016 [15 favorites]
The phrase "did tend to support her husband" might be the understatement of the decade, given the ferocity of her support and push back against attacks. They were very much a team with mutual political aspirations ("eight years of Bill, eight years of HIll"), and she played an open political role in his presidency that was different from most other spouses in the white house.
I can't tell if this is a criticism or not, or just reminding people of the extent of the ties she has to Bill and his policies. One reason I respected Bill, despite some pretty big reservations, was his willingness to include Hillary as a political part of his White House. It didn't work out too well, and I know more than one longtime liberal operative who blamed her for destroying, through her inept management, a coalition around universal health care that took 20 years to build, but I have always thought it spoke well of Bill that he gave her the task.
posted by OmieWise at 6:27 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't tell if this is a criticism or not, or just reminding people of the extent of the ties she has to Bill and his policies. One reason I respected Bill, despite some pretty big reservations, was his willingness to include Hillary as a political part of his White House. It didn't work out too well, and I know more than one longtime liberal operative who blamed her for destroying, through her inept management, a coalition around universal health care that took 20 years to build, but I have always thought it spoke well of Bill that he gave her the task.
posted by OmieWise at 6:27 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't tell if this is a criticism or not
I certainly didn't mean for it to sound like a criticism, just a refutation of the statement that she is only newly a politician. I agree with your comment totally.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:31 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I certainly didn't mean for it to sound like a criticism, just a refutation of the statement that she is only newly a politician. I agree with your comment totally.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:31 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.
The alleged fraud he is talking about is the Cruz voter report cards, the Carson thing, and telling voters Trump supported Obamacare and is pro-choice. So uhh, not fraud.
The sore loser thing is a bad, bad idea for him I think. Just roll into New Hampshire and change the narrative, dude.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:48 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
@realDonaldTrump
Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.
The alleged fraud he is talking about is the Cruz voter report cards, the Carson thing, and telling voters Trump supported Obamacare and is pro-choice. So uhh, not fraud.
The sore loser thing is a bad, bad idea for him I think. Just roll into New Hampshire and change the narrative, dude.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:48 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
So blobfish are pretty cool, look like a normal animal when they are in the water where they should be, and we should stop taking them out of the water and mocking them for how they look there. They just want to chill in the depths.
posted by Artw at 6:49 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by Artw at 6:49 AM on February 3, 2016
I like to think Trump was killed by the Palin bump.
posted by mazola at 7:06 AM on February 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by mazola at 7:06 AM on February 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
she is only newly a politician
My perspective is that she has been a politician for as long or longer than many who have run/are running. But I'd also quibble with the title "politician" - she's been in office since 2000, but a politician since her husband first took office and she began serving as Arkansas' First Lady. She has been an elected or appointed official for a shorter time, but being part of a First Family is politics. I see all of her activities in this role, as well as her work on campaigns during her education, as highly relevant political experience.
posted by Miko at 7:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
My perspective is that she has been a politician for as long or longer than many who have run/are running. But I'd also quibble with the title "politician" - she's been in office since 2000, but a politician since her husband first took office and she began serving as Arkansas' First Lady. She has been an elected or appointed official for a shorter time, but being part of a First Family is politics. I see all of her activities in this role, as well as her work on campaigns during her education, as highly relevant political experience.
posted by Miko at 7:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eh, it's America, you can pretty much say whatever you want about a public figure. Such a brazen allegation isn't something a normal politician generally would say without evidence but uhh, it's Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:14 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 7:14 AM on February 3, 2016
The alleged fraud he is talking about is the Cruz voter report cards […]
It wasn't just that.
He sent a mailer to districts with historically low voter turnout, and implied not only their voter registration was public record, but also their past votes. He also made it look like these people will have committed a "violation" if they don't vote. So people dumb enough to be intimidated by this are probably exactly the kind of people he wanted showing up.
I wish I could find a link to the exact mailer, but it was pretty far out of bounds. If not the letter of the law, it sure as fuck violated the spirit.
Another link.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:14 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
It wasn't just that.
He sent a mailer to districts with historically low voter turnout, and implied not only their voter registration was public record, but also their past votes. He also made it look like these people will have committed a "violation" if they don't vote. So people dumb enough to be intimidated by this are probably exactly the kind of people he wanted showing up.
I wish I could find a link to the exact mailer, but it was pretty far out of bounds. If not the letter of the law, it sure as fuck violated the spirit.
Another link.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:14 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Pretty hard to buy that that's what bothers Trump and not being a big old loser.
I think if I'm wrong about his chances, and hey, very happy to be wrong, then a messy tantrum one explosion upon encountering real opposition is the way he'll go out. If the electorate disappoint him next primary it's going to be fun.
posted by Artw at 7:20 AM on February 3, 2016
I think if I'm wrong about his chances, and hey, very happy to be wrong, then a messy tantrum one explosion upon encountering real opposition is the way he'll go out. If the electorate disappoint him next primary it's going to be fun.
posted by Artw at 7:20 AM on February 3, 2016
Yeah, I seem to be on Trump's side of that. And that's maybe the first and last time I'll write that sentence.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:21 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:21 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not saying it's not a dirty trick, but it's not election fraud or something that rises to the level of disregarding the election results. If you spend your time doing shit like claiming your opponent isn't even eligible for the office, you can expect every page of the dirty tricks playbook to be on the table in response.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:26 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:26 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
From a Related Post link (I Want You to Be Nice Until It's Time to Not Be Nice):
Trump is going to be a screamer, a cryer, and a bleeder. He’s also going to be the guy who immediately starts shouting “No fair!” and tries to get everyone to stop the fight and start over because of some bullshit rule he just made up like everybody was supposed to take their jackets off first, and if they won’t stop, the win doesn’t really count.
Well. That was pretty bang-on.
posted by clawsoon at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
Trump is going to be a screamer, a cryer, and a bleeder. He’s also going to be the guy who immediately starts shouting “No fair!” and tries to get everyone to stop the fight and start over because of some bullshit rule he just made up like everybody was supposed to take their jackets off first, and if they won’t stop, the win doesn’t really count.
Well. That was pretty bang-on.
posted by clawsoon at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
That Cruz mailer was breathtakingly scummy. (The worst thing: they seem to have made up the scores. The people listed were your real neighbors, but as far as anyone can tell they just randomly assigned grades to them, not based on their real participation.) I don't know if the scummy mailers actually invalidate the result, though. The fraud charges stem partly from the fact that it was designed to look official and like something that might have come from the government.
I can't remember whether I said it on this thread or somewhere else, but social pressure is the next frontier of Get Out the Vote efforts on both sides. MoveOn has been experimenting with it, too. I think they've been sending you fliers that shame you for your own low participation, rather than telling your neighbors, but I think that telling your neighbors is going to be the next thing. I got a (terribly targeted) Republican Facebook ad in 2014 that told me that it's public record whether you vote and threatened to tell my neighbors if I didn't. Which is funny, because I'm a Democrat, I had already early voted, and my neighbors seriously couldn't care less, but whatever.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't remember whether I said it on this thread or somewhere else, but social pressure is the next frontier of Get Out the Vote efforts on both sides. MoveOn has been experimenting with it, too. I think they've been sending you fliers that shame you for your own low participation, rather than telling your neighbors, but I think that telling your neighbors is going to be the next thing. I got a (terribly targeted) Republican Facebook ad in 2014 that told me that it's public record whether you vote and threatened to tell my neighbors if I didn't. Which is funny, because I'm a Democrat, I had already early voted, and my neighbors seriously couldn't care less, but whatever.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you spend your time claiming your opponent isn't even eligible for the office, you can expect the dirty tricks playbook to be wide open on you.
Again, there are more than a few Constitutional scholars who believe that Ted Cruz is ineligible come convention time because he was naturalized after birth.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016
Again, there are more than a few Constitutional scholars who believe that Ted Cruz is ineligible come convention time because he was naturalized after birth.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:28 AM on February 3, 2016
Social pressure was already getting trotted out in 2008 and has been the foundation of a lot of ground strategy.
posted by Miko at 7:42 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by Miko at 7:42 AM on February 3, 2016
Again, there are more than a few Constitutional scholars who believe that Ted Cruz is ineligible come convention time because he was naturalized after birth.
There are precisely zero legitimate reasons to demand that a U.S. president had to have been inside the U.S.A from the moment of her or his birth. I get that constitutional scholars are gonna constitutional scholar, but that doesn't mean the rest of us - especially those of us who support the idea of democracy - should bother to support such stupid and immoral hairsplitting.
posted by mediareport at 7:47 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are precisely zero legitimate reasons to demand that a U.S. president had to have been inside the U.S.A from the moment of her or his birth. I get that constitutional scholars are gonna constitutional scholar, but that doesn't mean the rest of us - especially those of us who support the idea of democracy - should bother to support such stupid and immoral hairsplitting.
posted by mediareport at 7:47 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I thought Trump was also accusing Cruz of telling people that Carson was dropping out either right before or during the caucus, which does seem like an awfully dirty trick.
posted by dialetheia at 7:47 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 7:47 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are precisely zero legitimate reasons to demand that a U.S. president had to have been inside the U.S.A from the moment of her or his birth.
Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School and disagrees.
What would it take to find out for sure if Ted Cruz (or others like him) is eligible for the presidency?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:49 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School and disagrees.
What would it take to find out for sure if Ted Cruz (or others like him) is eligible for the presidency?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:49 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are precisely zero legitimate reasons to demand that a U.S. president had to have been inside the U.S.A from the moment of her or his birth. I get that constitutional scholars are gonna constitutional scholar, but that doesn't mean the rest of us - especially those of us who support the idea of democracy - should bother to support such stupid and immoral hairsplitting.
I'm not sure what you mean here, can you expand? I agree that there is no reason to have this prohibition, but it seems like you're saying we should ignore the prohibition that is there? Are you saying the scholars are wrong?
I guess it's not clear to me if you are contesting the restriction itself (which contesting I support) or if you are saying it doesn't apply in this case for some reason. The latter is making a constitutional argument, so it would seem the reasoning of constitutional scholars is important in that case.
posted by OmieWise at 7:52 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure what you mean here, can you expand? I agree that there is no reason to have this prohibition, but it seems like you're saying we should ignore the prohibition that is there? Are you saying the scholars are wrong?
I guess it's not clear to me if you are contesting the restriction itself (which contesting I support) or if you are saying it doesn't apply in this case for some reason. The latter is making a constitutional argument, so it would seem the reasoning of constitutional scholars is important in that case.
posted by OmieWise at 7:52 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think mediareport means that just because you can make a constitutional argument that Cruz isn't eligible doesn't mean that's a legitimate reason; that's certainly my feeling as well.
As for Cruz's people possible telling people that Carson was dropping out, based on my limited (and highly biased against, I'll admit) caucus experience, tricks like that happen on all sides so much that they probably barely register as dirty.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:53 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
As for Cruz's people possible telling people that Carson was dropping out, based on my limited (and highly biased against, I'll admit) caucus experience, tricks like that happen on all sides so much that they probably barely register as dirty.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:53 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
The worst thing: they seem to have made up the scores. The people listed were your real neighbors, but as far as anyone can tell they just randomly assigned grades to them, not based on their real participation.
It would be amusing to create a class of Iowa citizens who were consistent voters but randomly assigned a bad grade by Cruz's campaign and demand compensation for libel.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:54 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It would be amusing to create a class of Iowa citizens who were consistent voters but randomly assigned a bad grade by Cruz's campaign and demand compensation for libel.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:54 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think my point is more general, roomthreeseventeen. No liberal should ever support a restriction under which U.S. citizens are only eligible for the presidency based on where they were at the precise moment they emerged from the womb.
As you can imagine, I'm not a Scalia-style strict originalist.
posted by mediareport at 7:54 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
As you can imagine, I'm not a Scalia-style strict originalist.
posted by mediareport at 7:54 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
No liberal should ever support a restriction on which U.S. citizens are eligible for the presidency based on where they were at the precise moment they emerged from the womb.
That's fair, I guess, although only one of Cruz's parents was American, which in my mind makes it a little different. I can see both sides of it, and my opinion that he shouldn't be president has nothing to do with that at all.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:57 AM on February 3, 2016
That's fair, I guess, although only one of Cruz's parents was American, which in my mind makes it a little different. I can see both sides of it, and my opinion that he shouldn't be president has nothing to do with that at all.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:57 AM on February 3, 2016
Hey, if it keeps Cruz out of the the Oval Office, this liberal's okay with it.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:57 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by entropicamericana at 7:57 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's a U.S. citizen, full stop.
posted by mediareport at 7:58 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by mediareport at 7:58 AM on February 3, 2016
Hey, if it keeps Cruz out of the the Oval Office, this liberal's okay with it.
I'd be lying if I didn't admit this is how I feel too. And if backwards ass Republicans with weird nationalistic jingoist tendencies don't vote for him for that reason, they are willing to exercise that right. I think it's a shitty thing to keep bringing up though, no matter who the candidate is, and I'll continue to think that there shouldn't be any institutional controls preventing him.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:03 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd be lying if I didn't admit this is how I feel too. And if backwards ass Republicans with weird nationalistic jingoist tendencies don't vote for him for that reason, they are willing to exercise that right. I think it's a shitty thing to keep bringing up though, no matter who the candidate is, and I'll continue to think that there shouldn't be any institutional controls preventing him.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:03 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's a U.S. citizen, full stop.
No, sorry. There are many US citizens who are ineiligible to be president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, sorry. There are many US citizens who are ineiligible to be president.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
If folks want to demand that a U.S. citizen reside in the U.S.A. for at least 10/15/whatever years before becoming eligible for the presidency, fine, do that. But this "BORN ON NATIVE SOIL OR ELSE" shit is disgusting. It's beyond horrific to see so-called liberals support it in any form, for any reason.
posted by mediareport at 8:04 AM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 8:04 AM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
I mean, take it up with the Constitution.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:05 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:05 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
People do. That's why there's a debate we're on opposite sides of right now.
posted by mediareport at 8:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 8:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mainly I'm seeing poking fun at the MUSLIM KENYANER WITHOUT LONGFORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE crowd rallying to the cause.
posted by Artw at 8:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hey, if it keeps Cruz out of the the Oval Office, this liberal's okay with it.I actually don't feel that way, and I am beginning to realize that this makes me a weirdo. I'm also willing to admit that I could be wrong. But to me, it's really, really important that we not create a distinction between classes of citizens. I also really want to get rid of the entire Constitutional provision that bars naturalized citizens from being president. I think we should beat Cruz on legitimate grounds, not based on some xenophobic bullshit. I also wonder a lot of this whole issue would be getting any traction if he were named Christie, rather than Cruz.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:08 AM on February 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
But you don't seem to be part of that debate, that's what's confusing to me. You seem to be saying that there is no debate, that the constitution doesn't matter, and that the only issue here is how we feel (or should feel) about nativist sentiment. I'm still really confused by what it is you are arguing for or against (in the context of the Constitutional debate).
posted by OmieWise at 8:08 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by OmieWise at 8:08 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, Artw, it's a well-deserved hoot until you think about what you're actually arguing for.
posted by mediareport at 8:09 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by mediareport at 8:09 AM on February 3, 2016
I actually don't feel that way, and I am beginning to realize that this makes me a weirdo.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:08 AM on February 3 [+] [!]
Least eponsterical comment ever?
posted by entropicamericana at 8:09 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:08 AM on February 3 [+] [!]
Least eponsterical comment ever?
posted by entropicamericana at 8:09 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's reasonable to argue either side of Cruz's eligibility. "Natural-born" clearly has some meaning. Whether that means "born in the US" or "was eligible for US Citizenship from birth" isn't an unreasonable thing. The Constitution is what it is now. It is no better for lefties to ignore it than it is for righties.
Personally, I am on the side of the most liberal interpretation, but I wouldn't shed many tears if it were construed in a more restrictive way. If we would like the rule to change to allow any citizen, or any citizen who has been in this country a certain number of years, that's fine, but it would require a constitutional amendment.
posted by wierdo at 8:09 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Personally, I am on the side of the most liberal interpretation, but I wouldn't shed many tears if it were construed in a more restrictive way. If we would like the rule to change to allow any citizen, or any citizen who has been in this country a certain number of years, that's fine, but it would require a constitutional amendment.
posted by wierdo at 8:09 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
OmieWise, I'm simply suggesting that this easy avenue of attack is a harmful one that betrays liberal principles, and liberals shouldn't be the ones making it in the political arena, because it relies on a shitty part of the original Constitution, like a number of other shitty parts of the original Constitution.
Is that more clear?
posted by mediareport at 8:14 AM on February 3, 2016
Is that more clear?
posted by mediareport at 8:14 AM on February 3, 2016
So it's okay to ignore the Constitution instead of amend it if we find parts of it "shitty" by modern standards or inconvenient? I mean, granted, we've done that with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, but still.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:17 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:17 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it mostly comes down to the idea that sort of joyfully reiterating that a shitty part of the law exists because at the moment it's potentially shitty for someone one dislikes is just kinda eh at best and it'd be nice to give that a miss in favor of better conversation.
posted by cortex at 8:21 AM on February 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by cortex at 8:21 AM on February 3, 2016 [9 favorites]
Hillary Clinton has evolved since the '90s. You probably have too.
Still, liberals have some reason for skepticism. Is Clinton just tacking left for the primaries in response to the success of the Sanders insurgency? Will she go back to her '90s self if she wins the nomination?posted by tonycpsu at 8:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't think so. In part, Clinton may be reacting to Sanders. But really the power of Sanders' challenge is as much effect as cause. It represents a Democratic coalition that is well to the left of where it was in 1994 or 1976. The political landscape has changed, and even Bill Clinton would govern very differently if he took office today than he did in the '90s.
For example, Hillary Clinton has been forcefully arguing for an end to mass incarceration and denouncing the racist effects of these policies. But, as first lady, she supported the 1994 omnibus crime bill signed by her husband that severely exacerbated the problem. Some liberals are surely worried that the 1994 statute represents the "real" Clinton and she'll go back once the primaries are over.
I don't think, in this case, there's much basis for concern. It's important to understand the politics of the era, and how much things have changed. The 1994 omnibus crime bill had, at the time, broad support within the Democratic coalition. Only two Democratic senators voted against the bill, and one was the conservative Alabaman Richard Shelby. Among the members of the House who voted for the bill was…Bernie Sanders. The statute was, in retrospect, a terrible mistake, but it was based on bad assumptions that were widely shared by liberal and moderate Democrats alike at the time. Neither Clinton nor Sanders would make the same mistake again.
[...]
Needless to say, with Republican control of the House all but assured there will not be another Great Society if either Clinton or Sanders get elected. Indeed, the differences between a Clinton presidency and a Sanders presidency are probably much narrower than many supporters of either assume. But even if Sanders doesn't win, the support he's generating is having an effect. If the Democrats are going to keep moving away from their timid '90s, his supporters need to keep the pressure on.
What about the ban on 34 1/2-year-olds? Is that stupid and immoral hairsplitting that betrays liberal principles?
posted by JackFlash at 8:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by JackFlash at 8:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Really, entropicamericana? Senator Ted Cruz's alleged lack of eligibility for higher office is a Constitutional hill worth defending? Knowing there might be good Dem candidates with similar issues in the future? Ex-governor Granholm was hot for a minute there, wasn't she? She should be eligible for the presidency, too.
posted by mediareport at 8:26 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by mediareport at 8:26 AM on February 3, 2016
ffs, "Natural Born" clearly means vaginally without an epidural... sheesh... Can we move forward now?
posted by mikelieman at 8:26 AM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 8:26 AM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Clearly we should ignore the parts of the law we don't like because only good things could happen once we venture down that road.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:27 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by entropicamericana at 8:27 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is that more clear?
Yes. I still think the issue is more complex than what we would morally want, because of the way it's written in the Constitution. (And I say this as someone born overseas, although to American parents on US mission.)
posted by OmieWise at 8:28 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes. I still think the issue is more complex than what we would morally want, because of the way it's written in the Constitution. (And I say this as someone born overseas, although to American parents on US mission.)
posted by OmieWise at 8:28 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's reasonable to argue either side of Cruz's eligibility. "Natural-born" clearly has some meaning. Whether that means "born in the US" or "was eligible for US Citizenship from birth" isn't an unreasonable thing.
We should decide that it means only citizens who were born naturally can be President, as opposed to any citizens who might be born supernaturally. Sorry Jesus and Anakin and Athena, you can't run.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:29 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
We should decide that it means only citizens who were born naturally can be President, as opposed to any citizens who might be born supernaturally. Sorry Jesus and Anakin and Athena, you can't run.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:29 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, again, Serious Constitutional Scholars disagree on Cruz's eligibility. You can ignore that as long as you like, entropic, but it will remain true.
posted by mediareport at 8:29 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by mediareport at 8:29 AM on February 3, 2016
Liberals shouldn't ever be arguing for the shittier interpretation.
posted by mediareport at 8:31 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by mediareport at 8:31 AM on February 3, 2016
It's completely unclear what "Natural Born" means, and as I understand it, it's not a phrase that has any other significance in US law. I really don't understand how using it to bar Cruz is somehow fighting the good fight for the rule of law. It's adding a new exclusion based on place of birth, but it's not accomplishing anything else. It's not like it's upholding the Founders' intent, since we don't have the first clue what the Founders' intent was in this case.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:32 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:32 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Wasn't the Founder's intent to make sure that the President didn't end up being an English aristocrat?
posted by clawsoon at 8:33 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 8:33 AM on February 3, 2016
Cruz / Schwarzenegger 2016!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:37 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:37 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
The deeper, and very liberal, point is that the Founders' intent only matters so much.
posted by mediareport at 8:38 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mediareport at 8:38 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It’s interesting that, despite all the commentary about the Sanders-Clinton tie being the biggest story, the betting odds for the Democratic nomination are basically unchanged since before the Iowa caucus, while the odds on the Republican nomination are completely reversed, with Rubio now the odds-on favorite.
It looks like most bettors were expecting Trump to do significantly better in Iowa, and think that his poor showing has major import for the nomination race. Meanwhile, the Democratic caucus results were in line with median expectations, or at least close enough that people don’t think the overall odds are affected.
There’s still a lot of uncertainty about whether Trump will come in first in New Hampshire. If he doesn’t, it would be a major blow to his narrative. Come on, New Hampshire Republicans. Don’t screw this up.
posted by mbrubeck at 8:38 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
It looks like most bettors were expecting Trump to do significantly better in Iowa, and think that his poor showing has major import for the nomination race. Meanwhile, the Democratic caucus results were in line with median expectations, or at least close enough that people don’t think the overall odds are affected.
There’s still a lot of uncertainty about whether Trump will come in first in New Hampshire. If he doesn’t, it would be a major blow to his narrative. Come on, New Hampshire Republicans. Don’t screw this up.
posted by mbrubeck at 8:38 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think the most reasonable interpretation is that natural born means someone who is eligible to be a citizen at the moment of birth.
I think it makes sense to be concerned about potential foriegn influence in a politician, but I don't think blanket bans make any sense. Let the voters decide on a case by case basis. This obviously wasn't a constitution that put too much faith in the will of the people though.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:41 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it makes sense to be concerned about potential foriegn influence in a politician, but I don't think blanket bans make any sense. Let the voters decide on a case by case basis. This obviously wasn't a constitution that put too much faith in the will of the people though.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:41 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
The deeper, and very liberal, point is that the Founders' intent only matters so much.
Yup. Just a bunch of guys. There's a 'divinely inspired' aspect that's crept way too far in already.
posted by Trochanter at 8:43 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yup. Just a bunch of guys. There's a 'divinely inspired' aspect that's crept way too far in already.
posted by Trochanter at 8:43 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
And while we're busy doubting the Founders, we should probably get rid of the position of President.
posted by clawsoon at 8:46 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 8:46 AM on February 3, 2016
In the primaries it's basically just his fellow republicans opinion that count on this, but if he gets through isn't it the Supeeme court that decides? Because I don't really see that one going against him.
posted by Artw at 8:46 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by Artw at 8:46 AM on February 3, 2016
What about the ban on 34 1/2-year-olds? Is that stupid and immoral hairsplitting that betrays liberal principles?
Yes?
But I care much less about that than I do about a ban based on where the fetus pops out?
posted by mediareport at 8:47 AM on February 3, 2016
Yes?
But I care much less about that than I do about a ban based on where the fetus pops out?
posted by mediareport at 8:47 AM on February 3, 2016
Trump is a PR genius, and I've been giggling about it all morning. This is a soap-opera turn of events, and will drum up constant media attention for the next week. While not fraud, exactly, it's shady, weasely stuff, and now Cruz and his team is in the position of having to explain why it wasn't fraud, exactly, in the face of howling mad Trump supporters, and come across as shady and weasely. This has planted the idea that Cruz only won because he cheated, and that Trump is an honest candidate - every time Donny Trump wins a primary, he will hammer home that he did it honestly.
Cruz may be cooked. He's now cast as a plotting, conniving villain from a comic strip, and it only took four tweets to do it.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:48 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Cruz may be cooked. He's now cast as a plotting, conniving villain from a comic strip, and it only took four tweets to do it.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:48 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's completely unclear what "Natural Born" means
It disqualifies someone who was from his mother's womb untim'ly ripped.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:48 AM on February 3, 2016 [22 favorites]
It disqualifies someone who was from his mother's womb untim'ly ripped.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:48 AM on February 3, 2016 [22 favorites]
I'm not ruling out homunculus.
posted by Artw at 8:55 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 8:55 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Telling someone their personal experience isn't real is.
It's not always gaslighting to challenge someone's narrative of their personal experience. Sometimes it's helpful to them, as for instance when someone's perceptions of their experiences have been distorted by mental illness/addictive disorders/denial/faulty memory. There have been many times I've been grateful to have people challenge my understanding of my personal experiences--I mean, damn, I've paid therapists and counselors good money for the privilege. I understand the point here on a purely social justice theoretical basis, but as a practical understanding of how the messy jumble of confused narratives that people are in real life works? People are sometimes the last reliable narrators of their own experience. I once knew somebody who justified their support for voting for Bush on some idiosyncratic line of reasoning (which I never could quite follow) related to the fact Martha Stewart had been jailed for fraud.
Are Berniebros real? Probably. Do I think for a minute the fact some Sanders' supporters may be douchebags makes Sanders a "bro"? Not at all. His entire career in public service says otherwise. He's been less compromising on issues like same-sex marriage and "tough on crime" policies that disproportionately harm black communities than Clinton has as far as I know.
I mean, maybe the Berniebros exist, and if they do, sign me up for their hate club (I know from personal experience how important women's reproductive rights and economic justice/labor issues are for everyone), but nobody's asking anybody to elect a Berniebro as president. Sanders is the candidate up for election, not his supporters. For a nonpolitical analogy, the fact some crazy dude and his followers (Manson) thought The Beatles meant to incite a race war with the song "Helter Skelter" isn't a reflection on The Beatles' own attitudes about race is it? Tell me what makes Sanders a better or worse candidate if you want to sell me on Clinton.
I'm leaning Sanders now after this turnout, and will still gladly and enthusiastically support Clinton if she wins the prize, but I don't appreciate the arguments against Sanders based on the fact some of his supporters may be clueless on issues of reproductive rights and race and privilege. I'm sure some Clinton supporters are idiots, too. I don't see how that's not just irrelevant noise, unless we're talking raw ability to court votes. In which case, it's not clear either Clinton or Sanders has a deciding advantage from this result.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:56 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's not always gaslighting to challenge someone's narrative of their personal experience. Sometimes it's helpful to them, as for instance when someone's perceptions of their experiences have been distorted by mental illness/addictive disorders/denial/faulty memory. There have been many times I've been grateful to have people challenge my understanding of my personal experiences--I mean, damn, I've paid therapists and counselors good money for the privilege. I understand the point here on a purely social justice theoretical basis, but as a practical understanding of how the messy jumble of confused narratives that people are in real life works? People are sometimes the last reliable narrators of their own experience. I once knew somebody who justified their support for voting for Bush on some idiosyncratic line of reasoning (which I never could quite follow) related to the fact Martha Stewart had been jailed for fraud.
Are Berniebros real? Probably. Do I think for a minute the fact some Sanders' supporters may be douchebags makes Sanders a "bro"? Not at all. His entire career in public service says otherwise. He's been less compromising on issues like same-sex marriage and "tough on crime" policies that disproportionately harm black communities than Clinton has as far as I know.
I mean, maybe the Berniebros exist, and if they do, sign me up for their hate club (I know from personal experience how important women's reproductive rights and economic justice/labor issues are for everyone), but nobody's asking anybody to elect a Berniebro as president. Sanders is the candidate up for election, not his supporters. For a nonpolitical analogy, the fact some crazy dude and his followers (Manson) thought The Beatles meant to incite a race war with the song "Helter Skelter" isn't a reflection on The Beatles' own attitudes about race is it? Tell me what makes Sanders a better or worse candidate if you want to sell me on Clinton.
I'm leaning Sanders now after this turnout, and will still gladly and enthusiastically support Clinton if she wins the prize, but I don't appreciate the arguments against Sanders based on the fact some of his supporters may be clueless on issues of reproductive rights and race and privilege. I'm sure some Clinton supporters are idiots, too. I don't see how that's not just irrelevant noise, unless we're talking raw ability to court votes. In which case, it's not clear either Clinton or Sanders has a deciding advantage from this result.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:56 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
They exist alright, I just not sure their existence is meaningful outside of the peeve lance of opportunistic shitbaggery on the internet these days.
posted by Artw at 8:58 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:58 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
It disqualifies someone who was from his mother's womb untim'ly ripped.
By that I assume you mean one week late making them 34 years and 51 weeks old at inauguration day.
posted by JackFlash at 9:00 AM on February 3, 2016
By that I assume you mean one week late making them 34 years and 51 weeks old at inauguration day.
posted by JackFlash at 9:00 AM on February 3, 2016
Citizenship begins at conception!
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:02 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:02 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are basically two groups of people talking about Bernie Bros: everyday people on twitter, and journalists. I'm only addressing the usage of the latter here. But to me, as a feminist who supports Sanders, I continue to find the Bernie Bro thing to be an ugly way of calling me a bad feminist for not supporting her and erasing me from the conversation.
The journalists making this into A Thing aren't aimed at stopping harassment - most of them could give a shit - they're aimed at smearing Sanders and his supporters. I wish it would stop. It's not feminist, either. We should be targeting harassers and protecting people, not turning the whole thing into a campaign circus that has the effect of silencing and erasing other women.
posted by dialetheia at 9:04 AM on February 3, 2016 [25 favorites]
The journalists making this into A Thing aren't aimed at stopping harassment - most of them could give a shit - they're aimed at smearing Sanders and his supporters. I wish it would stop. It's not feminist, either. We should be targeting harassers and protecting people, not turning the whole thing into a campaign circus that has the effect of silencing and erasing other women.
posted by dialetheia at 9:04 AM on February 3, 2016 [25 favorites]
Trump Says He’ll Probably Sue Over Iowa Results
posted by Drinky Die at 9:13 AM on February 3, 2016
“One of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen. They said he was quitting the race and to vote for him,” said Trump.You are killing your own campaign right now. Forget Iowa!
Asked if he would sue, Trump said, “I probably will, what he did is unthinkable. He said the man has left the race and he said it during the caucus. And then when the clarification was put out by Ben Carson saying it’s untrue, they got the statement and they didn’t put it out.”
“They apologized after the caucus was over, how does that help?” added Trump.
Trump, echoing accusations he made earlier on Wednesday in a series of tweets, called Cruz’s action “total voter fraud.”
“It’s a total voter fraud when you think of it and he picked up a lot of those votes and that’s why the polls were so wrong, because of that,” continued Trump. “I couldn’t understand why the polls were wrong.”
posted by Drinky Die at 9:13 AM on February 3, 2016
Cruz may be cooked. He's now cast as a plotting, conniving villain from a comic strip...
And Trump isn't?
posted by Foosnark at 9:13 AM on February 3, 2016
And Trump isn't?
posted by Foosnark at 9:13 AM on February 3, 2016
Trump is more like a Juggernaut style villain, he's just gonna crush anything in his way with brute force.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:15 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:15 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
And Trump isn't?
As of this morning, Trump is leading the polls in New Hampshire by 15 points, with Cruz a very distant fourth. So, the narrative could change next week again.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:15 AM on February 3, 2016
As of this morning, Trump is leading the polls in New Hampshire by 15 points, with Cruz a very distant fourth. So, the narrative could change next week again.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:15 AM on February 3, 2016
he was leading the polls in iowa too, wasn't he?
posted by nadawi at 9:18 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 9:18 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, he was leading in their polls by a small margin.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:20 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:20 AM on February 3, 2016
People are really underestimating the effect of Trump's shitty ground game in Iowa. Caucuses reward organization, which Trump didn't really have. He'll likely perform closer to his polling when his randos can just show up and cast a vote instead of hanging around a boring meeting for hours.
posted by dialetheia at 9:22 AM on February 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:22 AM on February 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
Yeah, the final RCP average before Iowa was Trump +4.7. In New Hampshire it's currently Trump +21.2.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:24 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 9:24 AM on February 3, 2016
You are killing your own campaign right now. Forget Iowa!
I think he is actually using this as a campaign tactic. By crying foul, he is delegitimizing Cruz's win in the eyes of those dunderheaded True Believers who are still 100% convinced of Trump's invincibility.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:25 AM on February 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think he is actually using this as a campaign tactic. By crying foul, he is delegitimizing Cruz's win in the eyes of those dunderheaded True Believers who are still 100% convinced of Trump's invincibility.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:25 AM on February 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
"Again, there are more than a few Constitutional scholars who believe that Ted Cruz is ineligible come convention time because he was naturalized after birth."
" that doesn't mean the rest of us - especially those of us who support the idea of democracy - should bother to support such stupid and immoral hairsplitting."
It's a particularly interesting question with Cruz because the judges that Cruz would appoint to the federal bench and Supreme Court mostly would not agree that Cruz is eligible for the presidency.
I personally think he's eligible, although it's a semi-interesting Constitutional question, (and, moreover, that we should amend the Constitution to allow immigrants of 35 years citizenship to run), but I DO think it's a really interesting question that the jurists Cruz wants to appoint to the bench mostly would not agree that Cruz is eligible for the presidency. What's going on there, Cruz? What's up with that? And, what's going on there, jurists? You going to take an appointment to the bench from someone you think is an illegitimate president just because you want to be on the bench so bad? Those are real and serious questions not so much about Cruz's eligibility, but about the decisions he would make as president, and the legal thought processes of men he wants to put into lifetime judicial appointments. Those are important questions!
So, it's not so much the question of his eligibility that interests me, but the questions of hypocrasy that it raises, that I think Cruz needs to answer, especially if he wants to foist "originalist" judges on the rest of us. And I think it's a question those judges need to answer, if they're content to apply one Constitution to the powerful and a different one to the rest of us.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:40 AM on February 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
" that doesn't mean the rest of us - especially those of us who support the idea of democracy - should bother to support such stupid and immoral hairsplitting."
It's a particularly interesting question with Cruz because the judges that Cruz would appoint to the federal bench and Supreme Court mostly would not agree that Cruz is eligible for the presidency.
I personally think he's eligible, although it's a semi-interesting Constitutional question, (and, moreover, that we should amend the Constitution to allow immigrants of 35 years citizenship to run), but I DO think it's a really interesting question that the jurists Cruz wants to appoint to the bench mostly would not agree that Cruz is eligible for the presidency. What's going on there, Cruz? What's up with that? And, what's going on there, jurists? You going to take an appointment to the bench from someone you think is an illegitimate president just because you want to be on the bench so bad? Those are real and serious questions not so much about Cruz's eligibility, but about the decisions he would make as president, and the legal thought processes of men he wants to put into lifetime judicial appointments. Those are important questions!
So, it's not so much the question of his eligibility that interests me, but the questions of hypocrasy that it raises, that I think Cruz needs to answer, especially if he wants to foist "originalist" judges on the rest of us. And I think it's a question those judges need to answer, if they're content to apply one Constitution to the powerful and a different one to the rest of us.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:40 AM on February 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
> I think we should beat Cruz on legitimate grounds, not based on some xenophobic bullshit.
I agree.
This said, as long as these attacks come from the right I am fine with them. Cruz himself claims to be a strict constitutionalist. So I like the consistency and the hypocrisy in the GOP on this issue.
When these arguments get raised by the left I am disappointed. Let them eat their own. Don't let them suck you into this stupidity.
I find the law fascinating, and find that we can argue these points a century after it seems like settled law, to be stimulating. Where someone is born and whether the mother or father was a US citizen is currently part of the qualifications. I have no doubt Cruz is eligible. It's a distraction at best, and attack on democracy at worst. Constitutional scholars can debate this and have differing opinions, but much like global warming it seems fairly established with only the fringe disagreeing.
tl:dr hoist own petard/schadenfreude
posted by cjorgensen at 9:40 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree.
This said, as long as these attacks come from the right I am fine with them. Cruz himself claims to be a strict constitutionalist. So I like the consistency and the hypocrisy in the GOP on this issue.
When these arguments get raised by the left I am disappointed. Let them eat their own. Don't let them suck you into this stupidity.
I find the law fascinating, and find that we can argue these points a century after it seems like settled law, to be stimulating. Where someone is born and whether the mother or father was a US citizen is currently part of the qualifications. I have no doubt Cruz is eligible. It's a distraction at best, and attack on democracy at worst. Constitutional scholars can debate this and have differing opinions, but much like global warming it seems fairly established with only the fringe disagreeing.
tl:dr hoist own petard/schadenfreude
posted by cjorgensen at 9:40 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Just sitting here eating supper and the thought pops into my head:
What if the Donald yells "fix"
[...]
posted by Trochanter at 8:34 PM on February 1
It's just so "him".
posted by Trochanter at 9:40 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
What if the Donald yells "fix"
[...]
posted by Trochanter at 8:34 PM on February 1
It's just so "him".
posted by Trochanter at 9:40 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Erica Grieder, a journalist who has been following Ted Cruz since 2009, has published “a field guide to Ted Cruz” in the Texas Monthly. It includes these ten lessons she has absorbed about the rather Machiavellian candidate:
- Ted Cruz is not a fire-breathing extremist.
- Cruz is also not a wild-eyed maniac.
- He has nerves of steel.
- Cruz is smarter than us.
- He may even be too smart for his own good.
- Cruz is very serious about strategy.
- Cruz is meticulous with his words.
- Cruz is a mainstream conservative from the Texas Republican establishment.
- Cruz is really into the Constitution.
- Cruz is in it to win.
hey all, sorry if I'm late to the conversation, have we established yet whether "ten thousand writhing centipedes poured into a human-shaped mold" is disqualified under the "natural born" clause?
posted by indubitable at 10:10 AM on February 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 10:10 AM on February 3, 2016 [17 favorites]
Erica Grieder, a journalist who has been following Ted Cruz since 2009
One can only try in vain to shy away from imagining the hideous transgressions she must have committed in a past life to be assigned such a fate in this one.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:14 AM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
One can only try in vain to shy away from imagining the hideous transgressions she must have committed in a past life to be assigned such a fate in this one.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:14 AM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bush Pressured to Do Well in NH or Drop Out (NYT)
Yet there are signs Mr. Bush may still have some work to do to finish in the top tier here. Speaking to a crowd at the Hanover Inn near the Vermont border during his final stop of the day, Mr. Bush finished a fiery riff about protecting the country as commander in chief — “I won’t be out here blowharding, talking a big game without backing it up,” he said — and was met with total silence.posted by OmieWise at 10:16 AM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
“Please clap,” he said, sounding defeated.
The crowd laughed — and then, finally, clapped.
I'm glad liberals are eliminating "xenophobic bullshit" restrictions on the Presidency, because I'm voting for Justin Trudeau.
posted by JackFlash at 10:16 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 10:16 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ted Cruz is the most Conservative candidate on the Republican ballot.
His bona fides as a 'genuine Texas Republican' do not make him mainstream. They classify him as an extremist wingnut.
posted by zarq at 10:21 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
His bona fides as a 'genuine Texas Republican' do not make him mainstream. They classify him as an extremist wingnut.
posted by zarq at 10:21 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Let’s Be Serious About Ted Cruz From The Start: He’s Too Extreme And Too Disliked To Win"
The only GOP candidate that headline doesn't apply to is Fiorina, and that's only because she's a woman.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
The only GOP candidate that headline doesn't apply to is Fiorina, and that's only because she's a woman.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jeb goes to bed at night swearing to himself "Not.dropping out before that Trump fucker, no way."
posted by mediareport at 10:25 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mediareport at 10:25 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
His bona fides as a 'genuine Texas Republican' do not make him mainstream. They classify him as an extremist wingnut.
(To be a Ted Cruz about language, the article specifically calls him a “mainstream conservative from Texas”, not mainstream in a general sense. But it’s helpful to him that people get confused.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:31 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
(To be a Ted Cruz about language, the article specifically calls him a “mainstream conservative from Texas”, not mainstream in a general sense. But it’s helpful to him that people get confused.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:31 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
That Texas Monthly piece is long on assertion and short on evidence. I'm questioning myself, because I find Cruz so odious that I frankly have a hard time accepting the premise of the article. Even so, most people don't seem to read Cruz the way that reporter does.
posted by OmieWise at 10:33 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by OmieWise at 10:33 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's a distraction at best, and attack on democracy at worst.
It isn't a resolved issue for Cruz because of the nature of the citizenship of his parents at the time of his birth, not that he wasn't born in the US. This is why it wasn't an issue for Senator McCain. Anyway, the rank hypocrisy of Republicans on this issue is another typical example of wanting one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for anyone who isn't a Republican. It is troubling that pointing out the double standard is called anti-democratic.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:33 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It isn't a resolved issue for Cruz because of the nature of the citizenship of his parents at the time of his birth, not that he wasn't born in the US. This is why it wasn't an issue for Senator McCain. Anyway, the rank hypocrisy of Republicans on this issue is another typical example of wanting one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for anyone who isn't a Republican. It is troubling that pointing out the double standard is called anti-democratic.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:33 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Cruz is a mainstream Texas republican, it's just that the mainstream of the Texas republican party is the same thing as extremist wingnuttery.
I buy that he's a smart guy, but if he's in it to win it then he's got blinders on about himself and how deeply unlikable he is.
posted by dis_integration at 10:33 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I buy that he's a smart guy, but if he's in it to win it then he's got blinders on about himself and how deeply unlikable he is.
posted by dis_integration at 10:33 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
What it says is that: "Cruz is a mainstream conservative from the Texas Republican establishment." Which is not the same thing as saying, "He's considered a mainstream conservative by Texas' extreme Republicans, who are just slightly to the right of the Kaiser."
posted by zarq at 10:36 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 10:36 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
> If [Cruz] is in it to win it then he's got blinders on about himself and how deeply unlikable he is.
That's really the most fascinating thing about this Republican primary - the rest of the GOP elite hate Cruz so much that they almost (almost) seemed willing to make peace with the idea of a Trump nomination. It's frankly astonishing!
And if Trump pulls off a convincing win in NH, I still think Iowa will be a minor speed bump on his road to the convention. Will he actually be the nominee? I don't know - I have no experience with a major party deciding to commit public suicide, but it terrifies me.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:39 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's really the most fascinating thing about this Republican primary - the rest of the GOP elite hate Cruz so much that they almost (almost) seemed willing to make peace with the idea of a Trump nomination. It's frankly astonishing!
And if Trump pulls off a convincing win in NH, I still think Iowa will be a minor speed bump on his road to the convention. Will he actually be the nominee? I don't know - I have no experience with a major party deciding to commit public suicide, but it terrifies me.
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:39 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
What it says is that: “Cruz is a mainstream conservative from the Texas Republican establishment.” Which is not the same thing as saying, “He's considered a mainstream conservative by Texas’ extremist Republican establishment, who just are slightly to the right of the Kaiser.”
Actually, I would argue that the beauty of the phrase is that it could mean all of these things.
It could be that Cruz is a “Mainstream Conservative… from Texas.” It could mean he’s a “Mainstream Texas Conservative.” It’s all in how you parse the modifiers, and that makes it a very useful, more or less meaningless phrase.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:03 AM on February 3, 2016
Actually, I would argue that the beauty of the phrase is that it could mean all of these things.
It could be that Cruz is a “Mainstream Conservative… from Texas.” It could mean he’s a “Mainstream Texas Conservative.” It’s all in how you parse the modifiers, and that makes it a very useful, more or less meaningless phrase.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:03 AM on February 3, 2016
And that a lot of stuff is classified for stupid reasons or otherwise really pointlessly.
You're not even wrong. But what burns me up is that people aren't saying "Hey, classifications are stupid, overturn them for everyone." They're saying, "Hillary Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted" - ie, hey, this famous politician that we like shouldn't have to see the inside of a courtroom, while if you're just a low level joe at the NSA and you accidentally bring a piece of paper home, you can be up on charges. The idea of separate justice for political candidates and average people is really problematic.
posted by corb at 11:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
You're not even wrong. But what burns me up is that people aren't saying "Hey, classifications are stupid, overturn them for everyone." They're saying, "Hillary Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted" - ie, hey, this famous politician that we like shouldn't have to see the inside of a courtroom, while if you're just a low level joe at the NSA and you accidentally bring a piece of paper home, you can be up on charges. The idea of separate justice for political candidates and average people is really problematic.
posted by corb at 11:07 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
if you're just a low level joe at the NSA and you accidentally bring a piece of paper home, you can be up on charges.
Perhaps you could tell us who are these people from your vivid imagination who accidentally brought a piece of paper home and were up on charges.
posted by JackFlash at 11:21 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Perhaps you could tell us who are these people from your vivid imagination who accidentally brought a piece of paper home and were up on charges.
posted by JackFlash at 11:21 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, I'll get right on making a list of people who have worked for the NSA and shown carelessness on materials handling for you. That won't cause any problems at all, and is totally a reasonable request! I'm sure that information wouldn't even be classified as FOUO. Let me just call my lawyer so I can arrange for a comfortable stay first, shall I?
posted by corb at 11:24 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by corb at 11:24 AM on February 3, 2016
Much less than the "BernieBros" which I personally have seen little of (and does incline me to think it's a catchy media-fuelled story more than an overriding phenomenon) - I was more concerned with the initial reactions I saw from liberals over #BlackLivesMatter some months ago when they interrupted Sanders. I didn't like that pushback at all, it felt needlessly defensive. It disappointed me, frankly, as mainstream liberals unfortunately do, because mainstream liberalism is still too often from a privileged POV.
What impressed me, and really solidified Sanders as a candidate for me, was his campaign's response. He took those interruptions, that criticism and after consideration his campaign began making changes fairly quickly to address those concerns. As well Sanders' social media has really stepped up in including #BlackLivesMatter points in their outreach; where before his talking points didn't include their concerns - now they do. And there's the whole Killer Mike thing, I won't even go into that but I'm sure if you've been paying attention you've seen it.
#BlackLivesMatter got their concerns in front of a candidate and he addressed them. That's such a big deal to me. That's a candidate who, from a position of privilege, will listen to criticism and will listen to the needs of the people coming to him even (*especially*) when it is presented in a confrontational way. His campaign saw how his narrative and his talking points and yes, his initial defensive reaction was not speaking to people who would be benefited by his policies because pointing to his past record wasn't enough; that his initial determination that they would benefit from his platform so wasn't that enough? - it was not enough, it was not inclusive enough and it needed to be.
A candidate who is responsive, inclusive, straightforward, and willing to propose big changes to help work on huge structural problems - who presents as principled and looking out for the least privileged in this country - that is a win for me and he is proving it in his campaign, from where I sit.
posted by flex at 11:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [23 favorites]
What impressed me, and really solidified Sanders as a candidate for me, was his campaign's response. He took those interruptions, that criticism and after consideration his campaign began making changes fairly quickly to address those concerns. As well Sanders' social media has really stepped up in including #BlackLivesMatter points in their outreach; where before his talking points didn't include their concerns - now they do. And there's the whole Killer Mike thing, I won't even go into that but I'm sure if you've been paying attention you've seen it.
#BlackLivesMatter got their concerns in front of a candidate and he addressed them. That's such a big deal to me. That's a candidate who, from a position of privilege, will listen to criticism and will listen to the needs of the people coming to him even (*especially*) when it is presented in a confrontational way. His campaign saw how his narrative and his talking points and yes, his initial defensive reaction was not speaking to people who would be benefited by his policies because pointing to his past record wasn't enough; that his initial determination that they would benefit from his platform so wasn't that enough? - it was not enough, it was not inclusive enough and it needed to be.
A candidate who is responsive, inclusive, straightforward, and willing to propose big changes to help work on huge structural problems - who presents as principled and looking out for the least privileged in this country - that is a win for me and he is proving it in his campaign, from where I sit.
posted by flex at 11:24 AM on February 3, 2016 [23 favorites]
Yes, I'll get right on making a list of people who have worked for the NSA and shown carelessness on materials handling for you.
Don't be disingenuous, that isn't what you talked about or what he asked for. You said people are charged. Charging information is public in many cases. It makes it into the paper. So, if you are making an evidence based claim, you should be able to back it up. If your response is to mock a different type of request entirely, it looks like maybe you are just making things up.
[For the record, I'm sure [an NSA worker] could be charged, but I hate this kind of breathless New World Order bullshit.]
posted by OmieWise at 11:29 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Don't be disingenuous, that isn't what you talked about or what he asked for. You said people are charged. Charging information is public in many cases. It makes it into the paper. So, if you are making an evidence based claim, you should be able to back it up. If your response is to mock a different type of request entirely, it looks like maybe you are just making things up.
[For the record, I'm sure [an NSA worker] could be charged, but I hate this kind of breathless New World Order bullshit.]
posted by OmieWise at 11:29 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
It is troubling that pointing out the double standard is called anti-democratic.
Pointing out the obvious Republican birther double standard is not what's being called anti-democratic. Defending the interpretation that calls a sitting U.S. senator ineligible for the presidency because of the circumstances of his birth is what's being called anti-democratic.
posted by mediareport at 11:31 AM on February 3, 2016
Pointing out the obvious Republican birther double standard is not what's being called anti-democratic. Defending the interpretation that calls a sitting U.S. senator ineligible for the presidency because of the circumstances of his birth is what's being called anti-democratic.
posted by mediareport at 11:31 AM on February 3, 2016
You're not even wrong. But what burns me up is that people aren't saying "Hey, classifications are stupid, overturn them for everyone." They're saying, "Hillary Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted"
I'm hearing ,"What she did was not technically illegal." Not hearing people say that she is above the law.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:32 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm hearing ,"What she did was not technically illegal." Not hearing people say that she is above the law.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:32 AM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
You know, it's not technically illegal that the Canadian Ted Cruz can run for president.
It's not technically illegal to be the third scion of a political dynasty.
It's not technically illegal to wear horrible wigs.
This *is* a fun game.
posted by bonehead at 11:35 AM on February 3, 2016
It's not technically illegal to be the third scion of a political dynasty.
It's not technically illegal to wear horrible wigs.
This *is* a fun game.
posted by bonehead at 11:35 AM on February 3, 2016
I was in the unfortunate situation of spending some quality time in the ER last night, and got talking politics with the friend who had brought us there.
The conversation went thusly:
Me: You support Bernie, right?
Him: Yeah [explanations why, they're all sympathetic]
Me: So, if he doesn't get it, will you support Clinton
Him: Clinton, Trump, they're just different flavors of evil!
Me: [no idea what to say to this]
posted by angrycat at 11:41 AM on February 3, 2016
The conversation went thusly:
Me: You support Bernie, right?
Him: Yeah [explanations why, they're all sympathetic]
Me: So, if he doesn't get it, will you support Clinton
Him: Clinton, Trump, they're just different flavors of evil!
Me: [no idea what to say to this]
posted by angrycat at 11:41 AM on February 3, 2016
Charging information is public in many cases. It makes it into the paper.
No, it doesn't - not for minor offenses. Or at least, it didn't when I was last working in the intelligence community, which was several years ago. Because information about who works at intelligence agencies, or has recently worked at intelligence agencies, or which agency is operating out of where, was likewise not information considered for public release, because you could easily construct analysis to target employees from that data.
I mean, if you want to believe I'm just making stuff up for fun, go with God, I can't stop you. But the idea that it's some controversial allegation that someone could and would be charged for removing classified material without permission is just weird. That's kind of the point of having secured facilities in the first place.
posted by corb at 11:42 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, it doesn't - not for minor offenses. Or at least, it didn't when I was last working in the intelligence community, which was several years ago. Because information about who works at intelligence agencies, or has recently worked at intelligence agencies, or which agency is operating out of where, was likewise not information considered for public release, because you could easily construct analysis to target employees from that data.
I mean, if you want to believe I'm just making stuff up for fun, go with God, I can't stop you. But the idea that it's some controversial allegation that someone could and would be charged for removing classified material without permission is just weird. That's kind of the point of having secured facilities in the first place.
posted by corb at 11:42 AM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
angrycat, I actually am someone who represents the other person in your conversation. There are people here who won't vote for Clinton who are Bernie supporters. There are probably a lot.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:44 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:44 AM on February 3, 2016
Much less than the "BernieBros" which I personally have seen little of (and does incline me to think it's a catchy media-fuelled story more than an overriding phenomenon)
It absolutely is happening. About half my twitter feed is made up of women who support Clinton. The replies they receive are gross and misogynistic and, in some cases, threatening. It's really really gross, and, as a Bernie supporter, I hope his campaign continues to address it and condemn it - not just with words but with actions. I think it's less about Clinton being a woman (though that is part of it), than it is an extension of general misogynistic Twitter harassment women receive when they disagree with a man. That is, I think if the "mainstream" candidate were a man, the women supporting him would still receive a significant amount of harassment from the BernieBro crowd for daring to have their own opinions; it's definitely amplified because Clinton is a woman though.
It makes me sad/mad, because I do support Bernie. But if this continues and his campaign doesn't act to stop it, that support will wane. I never thought I'd be defending Megyn Kelly either, but here we are. Misogyny is the great unifier.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:44 AM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
It absolutely is happening. About half my twitter feed is made up of women who support Clinton. The replies they receive are gross and misogynistic and, in some cases, threatening. It's really really gross, and, as a Bernie supporter, I hope his campaign continues to address it and condemn it - not just with words but with actions. I think it's less about Clinton being a woman (though that is part of it), than it is an extension of general misogynistic Twitter harassment women receive when they disagree with a man. That is, I think if the "mainstream" candidate were a man, the women supporting him would still receive a significant amount of harassment from the BernieBro crowd for daring to have their own opinions; it's definitely amplified because Clinton is a woman though.
It makes me sad/mad, because I do support Bernie. But if this continues and his campaign doesn't act to stop it, that support will wane. I never thought I'd be defending Megyn Kelly either, but here we are. Misogyny is the great unifier.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:44 AM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
I mean, if you want to believe I'm just making stuff up for fun, go with God, I can't stop you. But the idea that it's some controversial allegation that someone could and would be charged for removing classified material without permission is just weird. That's kind of the point of having secured facilities in the first place.
I think you're using offensive as a good defense. I know a little about the intelligence community and classified documents. (Don't ask me how.) I know that far from the only determinant of who gets charged with what is whether someone is or is not a presidential candidate.
As I said, and as usual, you are more breathless than substantive.
posted by OmieWise at 11:48 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think you're using offensive as a good defense. I know a little about the intelligence community and classified documents. (Don't ask me how.) I know that far from the only determinant of who gets charged with what is whether someone is or is not a presidential candidate.
As I said, and as usual, you are more breathless than substantive.
posted by OmieWise at 11:48 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Thanks for the coin toss odds, Justinian... I was wondering about this (isn't it always 50/50? etc) and I kept thinking of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
posted by chapps at 11:50 AM on February 3, 2016
posted by chapps at 11:50 AM on February 3, 2016
Santorum has oozed out. (Sorry, I'm not sorry.)
posted by OmieWise at 11:52 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by OmieWise at 11:52 AM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Y'all please drop the proxy argument about unnameable absentee classification violators already.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:53 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:53 AM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
> "It's not like it's upholding the Founders' intent, since we don't have the first clue what the Founders' intent was in this case."
"[T]he children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens" -- Naturalization Act of 1790.
That was statutory, so it's a definition that can be changed if people want it to be changed, but we really do know exactly what they had in mind. It dates from George Washington's first term in office.
posted by kyrademon at 11:57 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
"[T]he children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens" -- Naturalization Act of 1790.
That was statutory, so it's a definition that can be changed if people want it to be changed, but we really do know exactly what they had in mind. It dates from George Washington's first term in office.
posted by kyrademon at 11:57 AM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm surprised he held on as long as he did.
Santorum was hoping for another unexpected good performance in Iowa for a jumpstart.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:58 AM on February 3, 2016
Santorum was hoping for another unexpected good performance in Iowa for a jumpstart.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:58 AM on February 3, 2016
[T]he children of citizens of the United States'
Right, so that language is vague and does not address foreign born children who only have on American parent.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:58 AM on February 3, 2016
Right, so that language is vague and does not address foreign born children who only have on American parent.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:58 AM on February 3, 2016
Can't Cruz just bring his sarcophagus onto American soil, disincorporate, and reform himself? Wouldn't that count?
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:01 PM on February 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:01 PM on February 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
That leaves Fiorina vs Gilmore for the next kids table debate. I would hate to be the account executive tasked with selling the TV ads.
posted by JackFlash at 12:02 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 12:02 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Can't Cruz just bring his sarcophagus onto American soil, disincorporate, and reform himself? Wouldn't that count?
He's have to wait another 35 years to run then.
posted by zarq at 12:12 PM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
He's have to wait another 35 years to run then.
posted by zarq at 12:12 PM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
That leaves Fiorina vs Gilmore for the next kids table debate.
Plus Bush, I would wager, depending mostly on whether his money infusions keep him in the race long enough. The smart bet is that the establishment backing will follow the new holder of the Sword of Chang.
posted by fifthrider at 12:25 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Plus Bush, I would wager, depending mostly on whether his money infusions keep him in the race long enough. The smart bet is that the establishment backing will follow the new holder of the Sword of Chang.
posted by fifthrider at 12:25 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jeb! and Kasich are actually ahead of Rubio in the latest NH poll I've seen. It would be quite the clusterfuck if Jeb unleashes Chang first and ends up in a serious fight with Rubio going forward. Jeb! simply can't beat Trump. It won't happen, he can only steal votes from Rubio.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:32 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:32 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I put this in a different thread, but it also works here: @UnsureTrump is a variant @RealDonaldTrump that uses question marks instead of exclamation points.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:32 PM on February 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 12:32 PM on February 3, 2016 [6 favorites]
Advisors Hopeful Jeb Bush Finally Has Momentum To End Campaign
posted by Artw at 12:35 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:35 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
And @MartianDTrump: "All the charm of Donald Trump without any of the distracting words".
posted by mazola at 12:35 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mazola at 12:35 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
The rules for the next republican debate are for it to include the top 3 from Iowa plus the top six in either national or NH polling. So Bush won't be bumped out of the upcoming main debate.
posted by peeedro at 12:35 PM on February 3, 2016
posted by peeedro at 12:35 PM on February 3, 2016
While I'd love to see Cruz get stricken from the ballot because he's ineligible, and at the same time I also feel that the interpretation of the constitution that would allow for that to happen is really xenophopic and problematic as opposed to just leaving the interpretation as "citizen," I'm a more than a little bothered at some of the implications that we should just dismiss what's in the constitution because it's in a "shitty part" of it.
It usually takes a fairly significant issue to drive an amendment to the constitution - I do not recall anyone making a big deal of changing the interpretation of who is elegible before just now. It's entirely possible that this could be an issue used to drive a constitutional amendment regarding presidential eligibility, although I believe it's unlikely that this would happen.
Failing that, or any other federal law that would clarify these definitions and also hold up under scrutiny as "constitutional", it will be up to the supreme courts to interpret this. Given that they have interpreted the second amendment to mean what it does today despite wording that could very easily be interpreted as much more restrictive, I do not see them declaring Cruz ineligible.
In the meantime, if this is really important to you, then I'd suggest that you act towards changing it sooner rather than later, and write letters to congressmen and other elected officials who could further champion this - regardless of if Cruz gets the nomination or not, it has entered the public dialogue, and now is a good time to take action, and keep enough momentum for the issue to remain active.*
The constitution is important. While we have certainly seen encroachment upon the fourth and fifth amendments as mentioned upstream, it is by declaring them "unconstitutional" that we can prevent them from being used again. Remember, the NSA actions regarding bulk phone monitoring of citizens were determined to be "unconstitutional" - While I have a hard time believing that things were shut down to the degree that they were supposed to be shut down, I do believe that it was a step towards correcting a wrong. Conversely, when we come across things that are problematic for modern society in the constitution, the answer is not to just toss them aside. We do not want to set any more of a precedent for that, and it is upon us to ensure that there are laws - and amendments, in extreme cases - that correct these issues. I say all of this as someone who falls rather significantly to the left side of the spectrum - and who really doesn't want to see any equating of the left with ignoring the constitution, as that's not only unnecessary, but harmful at times.
I also agree with much of what Eyebrows McGee mentioned upthread - There is a hypocrisy in the ideaology of Cruz, the party, and who they would appoint that needs to be addressed, and is much more interesting to me than the specifics of his own eligibility.
*I will admit that I am not going to be the person to do that - at least not until after the election. I realize that this is not exactly a noble way of handling it, but I really, really don't like Cruz, and I'm totally willing to defer any engagement in this issue in order to keep him in doubt. It may not be politically consistent with my ideals, but I put the interests of those I love who would very likely see a ton of regression under Cruz and his appointments over this bit of political consistency, and it balances out much, much more politically consistent than me supporting him in any way whatsoever.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:36 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It usually takes a fairly significant issue to drive an amendment to the constitution - I do not recall anyone making a big deal of changing the interpretation of who is elegible before just now. It's entirely possible that this could be an issue used to drive a constitutional amendment regarding presidential eligibility, although I believe it's unlikely that this would happen.
Failing that, or any other federal law that would clarify these definitions and also hold up under scrutiny as "constitutional", it will be up to the supreme courts to interpret this. Given that they have interpreted the second amendment to mean what it does today despite wording that could very easily be interpreted as much more restrictive, I do not see them declaring Cruz ineligible.
In the meantime, if this is really important to you, then I'd suggest that you act towards changing it sooner rather than later, and write letters to congressmen and other elected officials who could further champion this - regardless of if Cruz gets the nomination or not, it has entered the public dialogue, and now is a good time to take action, and keep enough momentum for the issue to remain active.*
The constitution is important. While we have certainly seen encroachment upon the fourth and fifth amendments as mentioned upstream, it is by declaring them "unconstitutional" that we can prevent them from being used again. Remember, the NSA actions regarding bulk phone monitoring of citizens were determined to be "unconstitutional" - While I have a hard time believing that things were shut down to the degree that they were supposed to be shut down, I do believe that it was a step towards correcting a wrong. Conversely, when we come across things that are problematic for modern society in the constitution, the answer is not to just toss them aside. We do not want to set any more of a precedent for that, and it is upon us to ensure that there are laws - and amendments, in extreme cases - that correct these issues. I say all of this as someone who falls rather significantly to the left side of the spectrum - and who really doesn't want to see any equating of the left with ignoring the constitution, as that's not only unnecessary, but harmful at times.
I also agree with much of what Eyebrows McGee mentioned upthread - There is a hypocrisy in the ideaology of Cruz, the party, and who they would appoint that needs to be addressed, and is much more interesting to me than the specifics of his own eligibility.
*I will admit that I am not going to be the person to do that - at least not until after the election. I realize that this is not exactly a noble way of handling it, but I really, really don't like Cruz, and I'm totally willing to defer any engagement in this issue in order to keep him in doubt. It may not be politically consistent with my ideals, but I put the interests of those I love who would very likely see a ton of regression under Cruz and his appointments over this bit of political consistency, and it balances out much, much more politically consistent than me supporting him in any way whatsoever.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:36 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
the new holder of the Sword of Chang.
I had forgotten all about this!
Unleash Chiang Kai-Shek!!
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:38 PM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I had forgotten all about this!
Unleash Chiang Kai-Shek!!
Bush then unsheathed a golden sword and gave it to Rubio as a gift. "I'm going to bestow to you the sword of a great conservative warrior," he said, as the crowd roared.I remember reading, but can't find it now, an article that claimed this was a pun by GHWB on the Bircher's insistence that the US was holding Chian Kai-Shek back from reclaiming China, and should unleash him, and the name of a certain tennis player famous in 1989, explaining why he referred to it while playing tennis.
The crowd, however, could be excused for not understanding Bush's enigmatic foray into the realm of Eastern mysticism. We're here to help. In a 1989 Washington Post article on the politics of tennis, former President George Bush was quoted as threatening to "unleash Chang" as a means of intimidating other players. The saying was apparently quite popular with Gov. Bush's father, and referred to a legendary warrior named Chang who was called upon to settle political disputes in Chinese dynasties of yore.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:38 PM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
That would be from Scott Alexander's "Hardball Questions For The Next Debate":
posted by Rangi at 1:23 PM on February 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
Now, some might say that this all came from a giant misunderstanding. Back in the late 1940s, Mao Zedong’s victorious Chinese communists forced Chiang Kai-shek’s defeated Chinese nationalists to retreat to the island of Taiwan. The United States kept the peace in the the Taiwan Strait, mostly to prevent Mao from invading and finishing the job, but a common refrain in 1950s conservativism went that we should “unleash Chiang”; that is, advise Chiang Kai-Shek to go back across the strait and reconquer China. George H. W. Bush served as envoy to China, had to listen to this sort of stuff, and got annoyed enough at the “unleash Chiang” rhetoric that he would quote it ironically at bizarre times, like his documented habit of threatening that his serve would “unleash Chiang” on his tennis opponents. It’s unclear how we got from George H. W. Bush’s constant threats to “unleash Chiang” on people, to his son’s belief that Chang was a mystical conservative warrior. Maybe it was a joke, either Bush Sr. pranking Jeb or Jeb pranking you.(Read the whole thing; it gets weirder.)
In any case, you hung the sword in “a place of honor in your office”. From that point forward, Jeb’s fortunes declined. He left the Florida governorship, failed to get any further high positions, and then ran a very lackluster Presidential campaign. But from that same point your own fortunes decidedly rose. You started a law firm, were appointed a professor, got elected to the Senate, and are currently running a spectacular Presidential campaign with most pundits betting on your eventual victory after Trump and Carson lose their shine. The connection between the transfer of the sword and the sudden switch in both your fortunes is so striking that even the Huffington Post, not normally a source for magic-sword-related journalism, wrote about it: Jeb’s Last Hope – Reclaim the Sword of Chang.
posted by Rangi at 1:23 PM on February 3, 2016 [14 favorites]
I'm really heartened by the 84-14 for Sanders among younger people. I know their turnout isn't high enough to let him win the primary
I want to speak about these young people. I have a lot of personal and professional experience with political campaigns, from the local dog catcher to Bill Clinton, and I have never seen anything like them. They are passionate, but they are also tireless. It's not, "Can you phone bank on Monday?" it's "Can you phone bank every Monday until Iowa?" We did some outreach and Honk & Wave last weekend and had two separate Bernie supporters walk up to us and sign up to volunteer; both were young women who had recently lost their job and were eager to use the free time to support the campaign. I met three young, under-employed women who have made multiple trips to Iowa and will be going to Nevada. They all are among the people who have donated tens of millions of dollars with donations averaging $27.
I know that the conventional wisdom is that young people don't vote, but there is no reason to think that after all their hard, hard work these guys will not show up on Election Day.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:57 PM on February 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
I want to speak about these young people. I have a lot of personal and professional experience with political campaigns, from the local dog catcher to Bill Clinton, and I have never seen anything like them. They are passionate, but they are also tireless. It's not, "Can you phone bank on Monday?" it's "Can you phone bank every Monday until Iowa?" We did some outreach and Honk & Wave last weekend and had two separate Bernie supporters walk up to us and sign up to volunteer; both were young women who had recently lost their job and were eager to use the free time to support the campaign. I met three young, under-employed women who have made multiple trips to Iowa and will be going to Nevada. They all are among the people who have donated tens of millions of dollars with donations averaging $27.
I know that the conventional wisdom is that young people don't vote, but there is no reason to think that after all their hard, hard work these guys will not show up on Election Day.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:57 PM on February 3, 2016 [16 favorites]
That would be from Scott Alexander's "Hardball Questions For The Next Debate"
That's pretty great, actually.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:12 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's pretty great, actually.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:12 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
They are passionate and tireless and also tend not to actually understand how politics works. Which is great. We need passion and idealism. But Otto von Bismarck was correct that politics is the art of the possible and I don't think most young idealists understand that, which is why they are young idealists.
cue Billy Joel's Angry Young Man.
posted by Justinian at 2:13 PM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
cue Billy Joel's Angry Young Man.
posted by Justinian at 2:13 PM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I know that the conventional wisdom is that young people don't vote, but there is no reason to think that after all their hard, hard work these guys will not show up on Election Day.
I just hope they show up in 2018, too.
A horde of Bernie Sanderses in congress, county boards, state assemblies, etc would make the kind of changes they're hoping to see happen a lot more possible.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:15 PM on February 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
I just hope they show up in 2018, too.
A horde of Bernie Sanderses in congress, county boards, state assemblies, etc would make the kind of changes they're hoping to see happen a lot more possible.
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:15 PM on February 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
Unfortunately, what tends to happen once you know about how politics works is you learn that the realm of the possible in America does not include any fixes for our systemic national problems and then a lot of people stop showing up.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:19 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:19 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
A horde of Bernie Sanderses in congress, county boards, state assemblies, etc would make the kind of changes they're hoping to see happen a lot more possible.
It's already happening. I'm not sure why everyone thinks he's ignoring the fact that we need this kind of grassroots change to happen in order to enable a real liberal agenda - it's one of the main points of his entire stump speech. He's not just being rhetorical about a political revolution.
In fact, that's one of the most transformative things about his campaign: he's proving that you can run for major elected office without groveling to major corporations for money. That is huge.
posted by dialetheia at 2:20 PM on February 3, 2016 [18 favorites]
It's already happening. I'm not sure why everyone thinks he's ignoring the fact that we need this kind of grassroots change to happen in order to enable a real liberal agenda - it's one of the main points of his entire stump speech. He's not just being rhetorical about a political revolution.
In fact, that's one of the most transformative things about his campaign: he's proving that you can run for major elected office without groveling to major corporations for money. That is huge.
posted by dialetheia at 2:20 PM on February 3, 2016 [18 favorites]
Like, I'm an extremely politically motivated person - one of my happiest childhood memories is being involved with the local Clinton campaign in 1992 at the tender age of 9 - and the corporate fundraising requirement is one of the most important reasons why I've ruled out getting involved by running for office. His campaign's success appealing to regular people for funding makes me reconsider my opinion on that.
posted by dialetheia at 2:22 PM on February 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 2:22 PM on February 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
Fiorina wrote a letter to the RNC asking to make sure she is included in the debate. I think she makes a solid case.
In 2012, the debate stage featured 8 candidates until the Iowa Caucus and then all declared candidates still in the race were invited from that point forward, including the ABC New Hampshire debate. As of today, I will be the only candidate kept off the debate stage. To review, we beat Governors Christie and Kasich in Iowa this week when voters actually had their say. This campaign has the same number of delegates as Governors Bush and Kasich while Governor Christie has zero. We’re ahead of Dr. Carson in New Hampshire polling. We are 6th in hard dollars raised and have twice the cash on hand as either Governors Christie or Kasich. We are already on the ballot in 32 states, and there is a ground game with paid staff in 12 states. Yet, all of these candidates will be invited to the ABC debate. I will not.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:30 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
In 2012, the debate stage featured 8 candidates until the Iowa Caucus and then all declared candidates still in the race were invited from that point forward, including the ABC New Hampshire debate. As of today, I will be the only candidate kept off the debate stage. To review, we beat Governors Christie and Kasich in Iowa this week when voters actually had their say. This campaign has the same number of delegates as Governors Bush and Kasich while Governor Christie has zero. We’re ahead of Dr. Carson in New Hampshire polling. We are 6th in hard dollars raised and have twice the cash on hand as either Governors Christie or Kasich. We are already on the ballot in 32 states, and there is a ground game with paid staff in 12 states. Yet, all of these candidates will be invited to the ABC debate. I will not.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:30 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
It'd be funny if the endgame on the Republicans' side is Jeb getting the VP from someone who needs to quickly conjure up a moderate image for the general election. Cruz/Rubio would be too- diverse? Not diverse?- a ticket to ever happen.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:41 PM on February 3, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 2:41 PM on February 3, 2016
Fiorina should be left out of the debates until she has an explanation for not only defending the faked Planned Parenthood videos, but arguing stridently for their content. Someone who is as completely and unrepentantly divorced from reality as her should be nowhere near a job that handles nuclear weapons.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:57 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:57 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
yeah but that would also apply to the entire GOP field, so
posted by angrycat at 2:59 PM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by angrycat at 2:59 PM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
The deeper, and very liberal, point is that the Founders' intent only matters so much.
Yes, and the stranger thing is that in the age of Hamilton anyone still thinks the Founders had some kind of unified vision of America.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:01 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, and the stranger thing is that in the age of Hamilton anyone still thinks the Founders had some kind of unified vision of America.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:01 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
It'd be funny if the endgame on the Republicans' side is Jeb getting the VP from someone who needs to quickly conjure up a moderate image for the general election. Cruz/Rubio would be too- diverse? Not diverse?- a ticket to ever happen.
They all seem to passionately dislike each other, though. It’s hard to think that any of the candidates would gladly run on the same ticket as any of the others. I guessed that the VP nominee would be Susana Martinez, but I’m not sure if she’d want to tarnish her own bonafides by hanging out with these dudes.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:02 PM on February 3, 2016
They all seem to passionately dislike each other, though. It’s hard to think that any of the candidates would gladly run on the same ticket as any of the others. I guessed that the VP nominee would be Susana Martinez, but I’m not sure if she’d want to tarnish her own bonafides by hanging out with these dudes.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:02 PM on February 3, 2016
Yes, and the stranger thing is that in the age of Hamilton anyone still thinks the Founders had some kind of unified vision of America.
Realistically, how many of the GOP nominees do you think have seen, read plot synopses of, or would be inclined to trust the version of the founding portrayed in Hamilton?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:04 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Realistically, how many of the GOP nominees do you think have seen, read plot synopses of, or would be inclined to trust the version of the founding portrayed in Hamilton?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:04 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, and the stranger thing is that in the age of Hamilton anyone still thinks the Founders had some kind of unified vision of America.
And the Federalist Society espouses Anti-Federalist ideas. A lot of willful revisionism around these days.
posted by fifthrider at 3:07 PM on February 3, 2016
And the Federalist Society espouses Anti-Federalist ideas. A lot of willful revisionism around these days.
posted by fifthrider at 3:07 PM on February 3, 2016
Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein: Sanders candidacy a 'dangerous moment'
BerNIE! BerNIE! BerNIE!
posted by Trochanter at 4:07 PM on February 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
BerNIE! BerNIE! BerNIE!
posted by Trochanter at 4:07 PM on February 3, 2016 [21 favorites]
Aaron Bycoffe at 538: “Marco Rubio Is Now Winning The Race For Endorsements ”
posted by Going To Maine at 4:12 PM on February 3, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 4:12 PM on February 3, 2016
Whoa. As Burr says in Hamilton "Alright so we're doing this."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:17 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:17 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein: Sanders candidacy a 'dangerous moment'
It seems Lloyd Blankfein's underpants are going to need a government bailout.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:39 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
It seems Lloyd Blankfein's underpants are going to need a government bailout.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:39 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Did the Lloyd Blankfein just endorse Bernie Sanders?
posted by indubitable at 4:49 PM on February 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 4:49 PM on February 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
Did the Lloyd Blankfein just endorse Bernie Sanders?
Ha! "Scares the hell out of Blankfein" is better than any congressional endorsement I could imagine.
Sadly, it's only true in the Onion: Wealthy Donors Pump Millions Into Sanders’ Campaign In Last-Ditch Effort To Destroy His Credibility
posted by dialetheia at 4:52 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ha! "Scares the hell out of Blankfein" is better than any congressional endorsement I could imagine.
Sadly, it's only true in the Onion: Wealthy Donors Pump Millions Into Sanders’ Campaign In Last-Ditch Effort To Destroy His Credibility
posted by dialetheia at 4:52 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm starting to suspect part of why Sanders doesn't seem to be facing too many anti-semitic attacks is that so many anti-semitic tropes are about banker and financial industry conspiracies and that crowd clearly is not a fan of him.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:54 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:54 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah I liked how in the article Blankfein all but admitted that he wasn't going to endorse Hillary Clinton because he knows that would be the kiss of death.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:57 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:57 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder if Betnie could get a bump from the Oscars if The Big Short wins. It's about as clear and audience friendly an explanation of what a fuck over 2008 was for anyone not a bank that you could get.
posted by Artw at 5:06 PM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:06 PM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Most progressives I know were against the war in Iraq. One of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the United States.
Most progressives that I know were opposed to the Keystone pipeline from day one. Honestly, it wasn’t that complicated.
Most progressives that I know don't raise millions of dollars from Wall Street.
You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive.
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 3, 2016
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:20 PM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Most progressives that I know were opposed to the Keystone pipeline from day one. Honestly, it wasn’t that complicated.
Most progressives that I know don't raise millions of dollars from Wall Street.
You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive.
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 3, 2016
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:20 PM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Anyone watching the cnn democrat town hall?
posted by futz at 6:38 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 6:38 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I think Bernie is doing well. He seems to actually answer the direct questions before getting to the stump speech most of the time. I think he benefits from having a little more time to answer than in the debates.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:40 PM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:40 PM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
>Whoa. As Burr says in Hamilton "Alright so we're doing this."
Well, I'll just haul in a football truism from Bill Parcells:
"You are what your record says you are."
posted by Trochanter at 6:54 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, I'll just haul in a football truism from Bill Parcells:
"You are what your record says you are."
posted by Trochanter at 6:54 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I will say I am consistently annoyed by his focus on over-prescription as it regards the problem with opiate abuse. It's not entirely untrue, but he says it without the caveat that there is already a lot of pressure on doctors about this and people who need the meds are sometimes not getting them. That side of the problem should not be ignored.
Otherwise, his policy on Drug War issues is good enough that at this point I think I can't hold out any longer and I have to consider myself a Bernie supporter despite my misgivings in other areas. It's an issue that is very important to me. Was hoping to register Republican and vote in that primary this time around, darn.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:02 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Otherwise, his policy on Drug War issues is good enough that at this point I think I can't hold out any longer and I have to consider myself a Bernie supporter despite my misgivings in other areas. It's an issue that is very important to me. Was hoping to register Republican and vote in that primary this time around, darn.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:02 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
I love that when Anderson Cooper asked Bernie what word his wife would use to describe him he asked her to speak instead of presuming to know her answer. That is feminism in action.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:03 PM on February 3, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 7:03 PM on February 3, 2016 [30 favorites]
Hillary unwilling to say if women should have to register for the draft or not. Come on.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:20 PM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:20 PM on February 3, 2016 [8 favorites]
I feel like Clinton is weirdly unprepared. She didn't have an answer for the right to die and women in the draft questions. The first is a very common political issue (and something most people have encountered personally either w/ family or contemplating their own end of life preferences) and the second is something that has been in the press for the last few days. It seemed weird that she didn't have any real opinion on either issue. I was really looking forward to her responses on both.
This is one reason I am not excited about her (though will vote for her in the general). These are issues that most people have an opinion on based on just being a human who develops opinions. I don't like that it seems like she's uncomfortable saying what she thinks on an issue without knowing where the public opinion is. I want to know what she believes, not what she believes I want to hear.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:28 PM on February 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
This is one reason I am not excited about her (though will vote for her in the general). These are issues that most people have an opinion on based on just being a human who develops opinions. I don't like that it seems like she's uncomfortable saying what she thinks on an issue without knowing where the public opinion is. I want to know what she believes, not what she believes I want to hear.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:28 PM on February 3, 2016 [12 favorites]
Yeah, Hillary seems so almost uncomfortably hesitant.
posted by inconsequentialist at 7:29 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by inconsequentialist at 7:29 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
To be fair, this isn't really a time in the campaign that demands any risk taking from her, she just has to hold steady, but still I wish there was more substance on some of these answers.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:34 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:34 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Having a clear answer on right to die or requiring women to register for the draft would create the wrong kind of headlines, not something Clinton is interested in at this point. There's no real winning answer on either of those, I don't think. Even a good answer doesn't earn you much, but a bad answer turns into an issue. She's not strong enough to want to run out the clock, but she doesn't want to get pulled off message. My take, anyway.
posted by skewed at 7:35 PM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by skewed at 7:35 PM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
I totally get why, from a campaign perspective, she dodged the questions. It's just one thing that I, personally, don't like. These are not just political issues, they're human issues that most people have some kind of thought on based on their own sense of ethics and empathy. Any kind of personal opinion other than "we need to study the issue" would have been nice.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:42 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 7:42 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Loved the story about walking around DC incognito.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:56 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:56 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeesh, I'd get hesitant if people started asking me my opinion on the right to die. People DO NOT think about this issue much, if ever. It hasn't even been in the news much since Jack Kevorkian.
posted by raysmj at 8:24 PM on February 3, 2016
posted by raysmj at 8:24 PM on February 3, 2016
Anyone who has ever watched a loved one die a drawn out, painful, awful death has thought a hell of a lot about the right to die. And that's a lot of fucking people.
posted by dersins at 8:28 PM on February 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by dersins at 8:28 PM on February 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
If you haven't thought about the issue you are extraordinarily lucky to not have had to
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:29 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:29 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
So what if the question doesn't have a politically obvious answer? She was being asked about assisted suicide by someone who is dying of cancer. He deserved a real answer to his question.
posted by dialetheia at 8:31 PM on February 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:31 PM on February 3, 2016 [10 favorites]
Most people have living wills to deal with that sort of thing now, at least for end-of-life care, or they should. I think of "right to die" as the right to assisted suicide, which is a different thing. And no, it hasn't been a heavily discussed public issue in a long time. But please feel free to tell me how much others have suffered (it's not a contest), and that what I'm saying isn't true. Find me all the mentions in debates, the point-counterpoints, the editorials, etc., in recent times. I keep up, and you are not going to find much, if anything.
I do think that she should have been able to say that women should have to register for selective service, if we're all equal, but it's not a super-urgent issue.
posted by raysmj at 8:37 PM on February 3, 2016
I do think that she should have been able to say that women should have to register for selective service, if we're all equal, but it's not a super-urgent issue.
posted by raysmj at 8:37 PM on February 3, 2016
Hillary Clinton, 2008:
Q: What’s your attitude toward Oregon’s assisted suicide law?posted by Drinky Die at 8:42 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
A: I believe it’s within the province of the states to make that decision. I commend Oregon on this count, as well, because whether I agree with it or not or think it’s a good idea or not, the fact that Oregon is breaking new ground and providing valuable information as to what does and doesn’t work when it comes to end-of-life questions, I think, is very beneficial.
Q: Would you have voted for it if you were a resident of the state?
A: I don’t know the answer to that. I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are in difficult end-of-life situations. I’ve gone to friends who have been in great pain and suffering at the end of their lives. I’ve never been personally confronted with it but I know it’s a terribly difficult decision that should never be forced upon anyone. So with appropriate safeguards and informed decision-making, I think it’s an appropriate right to have.
I feel like it's been in the news a lot in the past few years. There was a long article in the nyt about a woman in Ithaca, a viral story about a young woman in (I think?) Arkansas who moved to Oregon to take advantage of their laws, there was a recent story about the death of the doc that pioneered oregon's laws. These are just a few I remember off the top of my head. She and her husband are well-informed older people with attorneys. They definitely have their own advanced directives etc and have talked about their personal wishes with their family. How hard would it be to say "in my family we've discussed our wishes and it's important for families to discuss these issues with each other. We should study it and see how government can help...yadda yadda."
Like, does she not even have a personal anecdote to share?
posted by melissasaurus at 8:49 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
Like, does she not even have a personal anecdote to share?
posted by melissasaurus at 8:49 PM on February 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Schiavo situation touching on similar issues was also absolutely huge national news. It's come back up for Jeb in 2016 at times. Terri Schiavo’s husband calls Jeb Bush ad ‘disgusting’.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:53 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:53 PM on February 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that attempts to make me dislike either candidate based upon attacks by supporters of the other candidate tend to be a lot of wasted energy as I tend to like both candidates despite being told not to. I acknowledge that neither one is by any means a perfect candidate but at the end of the day I seem to be growing fonder of both of them even though neither seem particularly lovable or charismatic (in the classical sense of charisma).
At the end of the day I'm just not really receptive to negative campaigning by supporters of either candidate and would actually be more interested if supporters would focus more on extolling the virtues of their candidates rather than the moral failings of the opponent (and their supporters).
With some possible exceptions I think most supporters of either candidate tend to support their candidate in good faith, they genuinely think that their candidate has a certain something that makes him or her the best candidate available in the current election cycle. Yes there might be some Machievalian types that want a weaker candidate so that a stronger candidate can run in 2020 but I think most Democrats (whether centrist or progressive) understand that even a suboptimal democrat is superior to a Republican for 4-8 years.
I also tend towards the wonkish side so I also kinda demand specific proposals from both candidates as I feel like there is somewhat of an enthuiasm gap on the left towards a perceived tendency for Obama to promise alot and under deliver on those promises.
But yeah I would like more positive messaging although to their credit both Clinton and Sanders seem pretty collegial and more focus on policy specifics and I'd like less potshots directed by supporters of either candidate at supporters of the other candidate. I'd also like a pony.
posted by vuron at 8:53 PM on February 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
At the end of the day I'm just not really receptive to negative campaigning by supporters of either candidate and would actually be more interested if supporters would focus more on extolling the virtues of their candidates rather than the moral failings of the opponent (and their supporters).
With some possible exceptions I think most supporters of either candidate tend to support their candidate in good faith, they genuinely think that their candidate has a certain something that makes him or her the best candidate available in the current election cycle. Yes there might be some Machievalian types that want a weaker candidate so that a stronger candidate can run in 2020 but I think most Democrats (whether centrist or progressive) understand that even a suboptimal democrat is superior to a Republican for 4-8 years.
I also tend towards the wonkish side so I also kinda demand specific proposals from both candidates as I feel like there is somewhat of an enthuiasm gap on the left towards a perceived tendency for Obama to promise alot and under deliver on those promises.
But yeah I would like more positive messaging although to their credit both Clinton and Sanders seem pretty collegial and more focus on policy specifics and I'd like less potshots directed by supporters of either candidate at supporters of the other candidate. I'd also like a pony.
posted by vuron at 8:53 PM on February 3, 2016 [13 favorites]
I noticed that Colorado has talked about right to die legislation, but that an effort to pass it there recently failed. Might depend on where you live? It hasn't been a national issue, though, certainly, not like gun control or continued racism and police brutality, not even close.
posted by raysmj at 8:53 PM on February 3, 2016
posted by raysmj at 8:53 PM on February 3, 2016
I'd also like a pony.
Then vote Vermin Supreme!!!
(no seriously, that's one of his platform planks, everyone gets a pony)
posted by daq at 9:01 PM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
Then vote Vermin Supreme!!!
(no seriously, that's one of his platform planks, everyone gets a pony)
posted by daq at 9:01 PM on February 3, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm not sure that Vermin Supreme will pass the unfair structural barrier required to get him on the primary ballot during Super Tuesday which is a shame because honestly I kinda want a pony especially if someone else is on the hook for care and feeding of said pony.
posted by vuron at 9:10 PM on February 3, 2016
posted by vuron at 9:10 PM on February 3, 2016
Rent in S.F. is expensive. Can I skip the pony and get a yurt in Golden Gate Park, instead?
posted by markkraft at 9:13 PM on February 3, 2016
posted by markkraft at 9:13 PM on February 3, 2016
"You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive."
Wow, wait, what? Do people really agree with this sentiment?
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:19 PM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Wow, wait, what? Do people really agree with this sentiment?
posted by Solon and Thanks at 10:19 PM on February 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
I guessed that the VP nominee would be Susana Martinez, but I’m not sure if she’d want to tarnish her own bonafides by hanging out with these dudes.
A Cruz/Martinez or Rubio/Martinez (or Cruz/Rubio?!) GOP ticket would be too hilarious to be true. If that was to happen, the Democrats should just go, "okay, forget balancing the ticket" and run Clinton/Warren. Which actually isn't such a bad idea, given that could be a major concession to the Sanders supporters. Or have Ron Wyden be veep.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:52 PM on February 3, 2016
A Cruz/Martinez or Rubio/Martinez (or Cruz/Rubio?!) GOP ticket would be too hilarious to be true. If that was to happen, the Democrats should just go, "okay, forget balancing the ticket" and run Clinton/Warren. Which actually isn't such a bad idea, given that could be a major concession to the Sanders supporters. Or have Ron Wyden be veep.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:52 PM on February 3, 2016
Wow, wait, what? Do people really agree with this sentiment?
Dunno, progressive in the modern context has not really been well defined as far as I can tell. I just generally see it as a way to say liberal without the negative connotations that got attached to being liberal.
If it had been framed as, "You can't be a liberal and a centrist," I would agree in some ways and disagree in some ways. The whole thing seems like a sloppy approach to saying Bernie is a true leftist and Hillary is not.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:59 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dunno, progressive in the modern context has not really been well defined as far as I can tell. I just generally see it as a way to say liberal without the negative connotations that got attached to being liberal.
If it had been framed as, "You can't be a liberal and a centrist," I would agree in some ways and disagree in some ways. The whole thing seems like a sloppy approach to saying Bernie is a true leftist and Hillary is not.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:59 PM on February 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
"You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive."
Wow, wait, what? Do people really agree with this sentiment?
Yes, people do.
posted by mcmile at 11:00 PM on February 3, 2016
Wow, wait, what? Do people really agree with this sentiment?
Yes, people do.
posted by mcmile at 11:00 PM on February 3, 2016
But you can be moderately progressive. Or, I suppose, progressively more moderate.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:27 PM on February 3, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 11:27 PM on February 3, 2016
NEW YORK -- Hillary Clinton has postponed another fundraiser with financial services executives amid heavy criticism from rival Bernie Sanders that she is too close to Wall Street.
Clinton will no longer attend an event in Boston scheduled for Friday that was to be hosted by Jonathan Lavine, managing director of Bain Capital affiliate Sankaty Advisors, sources close to the matter said.
The event has not been canceled but will now be held sometime after the New Hampshire primary, which takes place Feb. 9.
Can see why she wants Sanders to start talking about stuff other than Wall Street.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:42 PM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
Clinton will no longer attend an event in Boston scheduled for Friday that was to be hosted by Jonathan Lavine, managing director of Bain Capital affiliate Sankaty Advisors, sources close to the matter said.
The event has not been canceled but will now be held sometime after the New Hampshire primary, which takes place Feb. 9.
Can see why she wants Sanders to start talking about stuff other than Wall Street.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:42 PM on February 3, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think the difference is mainly in that Moderates promote incremental change while Progressives promote radical change, so the point is you can't push for modifying the ACA *and* push for putting health insurance companies out of our misery with universal healthcare trusts and universal coverage.
posted by mikelieman at 12:34 AM on February 4, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 12:34 AM on February 4, 2016
"You can be a moderate. You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive."
Fuck you, Bernie. I can be and call myself whatever I goddamned well choose. Not that I'd call myself either of those things, but.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:07 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fuck you, Bernie. I can be and call myself whatever I goddamned well choose. Not that I'd call myself either of those things, but.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:07 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, sure, he's the only candidate among the entire horrifying bunch that doesn't seem to be a piece of crap, and I like him and all, but that sort of doctrinaire nonsense is just exhausting and sophomoric.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:21 AM on February 4, 2016
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:21 AM on February 4, 2016
I hope incognito sweatsuit Hillary becomes an SNL sketch. Something calling back to this.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:32 AM on February 4, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 1:32 AM on February 4, 2016
Is it really any more doctrinaire than saying that one can't be both a liberal and a conservative at the same time? Or that one can't be a fascist and a communist at the same time? Words have meanings, and someone claiming to be a moderate one day and a progressive the next day is playing fast and loose with what the words are generally taken to mean.
posted by Justinian at 1:33 AM on February 4, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:33 AM on February 4, 2016 [21 favorites]
I might have been interested in recreational argumentation about political labels with people who insist that they are useful, maybe 30 years ago. Now, not so much. It's never a productive exercise, I have found.
Words do have meanings, though, I will happily give you that. That is a statement I can strongly get behind.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:58 AM on February 4, 2016
Words do have meanings, though, I will happily give you that. That is a statement I can strongly get behind.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:58 AM on February 4, 2016
Is it really any more doctrinaire than saying that one can't be both a liberal and a conservative at the same time? Or that one can't be a fascist and a communist at the same time?
I might have been interested in recreational argumentation about political labels with people who insist that they are useful, maybe 30 years ago. Now, not so much. It's never a productive exercise, I have found.
The differences between fascism & communism or liberalism & conservatism (in modern American political discourse) are pretty stark thing. The difference between Progressivism & Liberalism within the elected left is much thinner. We’ve seen comments during this election season from bona-fide socialists about how Bernie Sanders is abusing their label. Now, it seems like he wants to put a ring around the much more niche category of “Progressivism” because he’d like to be king of it. Well, fine. But let’s be clear that Sanders is quite comfortable making up his own labels for things as he sees fit.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:17 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I might have been interested in recreational argumentation about political labels with people who insist that they are useful, maybe 30 years ago. Now, not so much. It's never a productive exercise, I have found.
The differences between fascism & communism or liberalism & conservatism (in modern American political discourse) are pretty stark thing. The difference between Progressivism & Liberalism within the elected left is much thinner. We’ve seen comments during this election season from bona-fide socialists about how Bernie Sanders is abusing their label. Now, it seems like he wants to put a ring around the much more niche category of “Progressivism” because he’d like to be king of it. Well, fine. But let’s be clear that Sanders is quite comfortable making up his own labels for things as he sees fit.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:17 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders' comment was about 'moderates' and 'progressives' not 'liberals.'
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:46 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:46 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
It hasn't been a national issue,
It really has been a national issue since Dr. Jack Kevorkian became a household name in the late 80s, and as other mentioned, Terry Schiavo was a also huge story. Not only was Terri's Law precedent-setting, but it was a major plot line in the tv show Arrested Development.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:26 AM on February 4, 2016
It really has been a national issue since Dr. Jack Kevorkian became a household name in the late 80s, and as other mentioned, Terry Schiavo was a also huge story. Not only was Terri's Law precedent-setting, but it was a major plot line in the tv show Arrested Development.
posted by Room 641-A at 4:26 AM on February 4, 2016
Now, it seems like he wants to put a ring around the much more niche category of “Progressivism” because he’d like to be king of it.
what.
posted by Fleebnork at 6:00 AM on February 4, 2016 [19 favorites]
what.
posted by Fleebnork at 6:00 AM on February 4, 2016 [19 favorites]
Yes, and the stranger thing is that in the age of Hamilton anyone still thinks the Founders had some kind of unified vision of America.
Most of the GOP nominees take any questioning of the Founders as quite a slur, sir.
posted by mikepop at 6:33 AM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
- Realistically, how many of the GOP nominees do you think have seen, read plot synopses of, or would be inclined to trust the version of the founding portrayed in Hamilton?
Most of the GOP nominees take any questioning of the Founders as quite a slur, sir.
posted by mikepop at 6:33 AM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
you can't push for modifying the ACA *and* push for putting health insurance companies out of our misery with universal healthcare trusts and universal coverage.
Come on, that's nonsense. As a voter and activist, I absolutely can - in fact, I did. I've been a stalwart supporter of universal coverage, and continue to be; I believe it will come to pass as its efficiencies become clearer. Meanwhile, my recognition that universal care was not a viable political proposal at the moment, and that the Affordable Care Act was an improvement over leaving millions of people to hang while awaiting my day of pure victory, I spoke often in support of the ACA, communicated with my reps about it, and donated to the SEIU campaign for it.
posted by Miko at 6:36 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Come on, that's nonsense. As a voter and activist, I absolutely can - in fact, I did. I've been a stalwart supporter of universal coverage, and continue to be; I believe it will come to pass as its efficiencies become clearer. Meanwhile, my recognition that universal care was not a viable political proposal at the moment, and that the Affordable Care Act was an improvement over leaving millions of people to hang while awaiting my day of pure victory, I spoke often in support of the ACA, communicated with my reps about it, and donated to the SEIU campaign for it.
posted by Miko at 6:36 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
CO Gov. Hickenlooper attributes Sanders' strong Iowa performance to "aggressive progressives."
“I think she will do better in Colorado,” he said. “We have our own aggressive progressives here but I actually think we have a lot …of moderate individuals.”posted by audi alteram partem at 6:38 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
, my recognition that universal care was not a viable political proposal at the moment,
I disagree. The sooner we put Heath Insurance Companies out of our misery, the happier we'll be.
Ffs, ONCE we dreamed of going to the fucking moon. And then did it. Don't tell me we *can't* make sure everyone can see a doctor regularly
Don't dream it. Be it.
posted by mikelieman at 8:34 AM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
I disagree. The sooner we put Heath Insurance Companies out of our misery, the happier we'll be.
Ffs, ONCE we dreamed of going to the fucking moon. And then did it. Don't tell me we *can't* make sure everyone can see a doctor regularly
Don't dream it. Be it.
posted by mikelieman at 8:34 AM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
That sounds great. Meanwhile, my husband can now be insured despite his pre-existing chronic condition, meaning we can afford his $18,000/year medication. Now let's get to work on that universal bit.
posted by Miko at 8:39 AM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Miko at 8:39 AM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ffs, ONCE we dreamed of going to the fucking moon.
Was there a lot of public opposition to going to the moon?
In polls, there's always been a consistent 5% to 10% higher disapproval rating for the health care law.
At the same time, I have suspicion that the resistance against health care reform is because those 5% to 10% are just racist. Minorities have always had higher rates of support for ACA.
posted by FJT at 9:22 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Was there a lot of public opposition to going to the moon?
In polls, there's always been a consistent 5% to 10% higher disapproval rating for the health care law.
At the same time, I have suspicion that the resistance against health care reform is because those 5% to 10% are just racist. Minorities have always had higher rates of support for ACA.
posted by FJT at 9:22 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Was there a lot of public opposition to going to the moon?
For most of our lunar adventure, a majority of Americans did not support going to the moon.
posted by Miko at 9:24 AM on February 4, 2016 [8 favorites]
For most of our lunar adventure, a majority of Americans did not support going to the moon.
posted by Miko at 9:24 AM on February 4, 2016 [8 favorites]
Now let's get to work on that universal bit.
Universal would be great, but it's not going to be enough if people are still paying out the nose for health care to private companies. Medical debt and bankruptcy are still runaway problems. I'm also not sure how we get to universal from here - 29 million people still don't have health insurance.
More broadly, I know a lot of people want to paint Sanders' proposals as pie-in-the-sky or founded on ideological purity, but his voters are supporting him because they need his proposals. They are going broke and forgoing health care. I mean, I still don't have health insurance but I was lucky enough not to have to pay the Obamacare penalty this year because I'm too poor, so I was exempt. Unfortunately, I am not exempt from needing health care. So when people say that single payer is some ideologically pure abstract position, it makes me absolutely furious. It's not abstract at all - it's my life.
Furthermore, Medicare For All is supported by the majority of people in this country. Anyone who wants to say it's pie in the sky should be required to follow up with their policy prescription for fixing a government so broken that it can no longer even hope to deliver on policies supported by nearly 60% of Americans.
If Clinton thinks that Medicare For All is impossible, she should explain what she intends to do to change the system to make it possible. If she doesn't think that I have a human right to health care, she should be honest about it.
posted by dialetheia at 9:26 AM on February 4, 2016 [17 favorites]
Universal would be great, but it's not going to be enough if people are still paying out the nose for health care to private companies. Medical debt and bankruptcy are still runaway problems. I'm also not sure how we get to universal from here - 29 million people still don't have health insurance.
More broadly, I know a lot of people want to paint Sanders' proposals as pie-in-the-sky or founded on ideological purity, but his voters are supporting him because they need his proposals. They are going broke and forgoing health care. I mean, I still don't have health insurance but I was lucky enough not to have to pay the Obamacare penalty this year because I'm too poor, so I was exempt. Unfortunately, I am not exempt from needing health care. So when people say that single payer is some ideologically pure abstract position, it makes me absolutely furious. It's not abstract at all - it's my life.
Furthermore, Medicare For All is supported by the majority of people in this country. Anyone who wants to say it's pie in the sky should be required to follow up with their policy prescription for fixing a government so broken that it can no longer even hope to deliver on policies supported by nearly 60% of Americans.
If Clinton thinks that Medicare For All is impossible, she should explain what she intends to do to change the system to make it possible. If she doesn't think that I have a human right to health care, she should be honest about it.
posted by dialetheia at 9:26 AM on February 4, 2016 [17 favorites]
Didn't we go to the moon so we could beat the Soviets so we wouldn't have to live in a nightmarish socialist dystopia with things like universal health care?
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:26 AM on February 4, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:26 AM on February 4, 2016 [13 favorites]
It's important to note that I did not say that universal publicly-funded single-payer health care is "ideologically pure abstract position." I was simply noting that it was possible to both have supported the ACA and also continue to support bringing about a full socialization of health care - a state of affairs that someone above called impossible. I agree that we need this policy.
I see the obstacle as not essentially political - in terms of electing a single individual - but of opposing the oligarchy, which is going to be pretty tough. It involves destroying a lot of shareholder value. It will not be easy to pass no matter how many Americans are in favor of it, unless somehow they actually change who their state-level candidates are and how they vote. It is a state-level project, for sure. The President can have the best single-payer idea in the world, but will be unable to pass it until representation changes.
posted by Miko at 9:30 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I see the obstacle as not essentially political - in terms of electing a single individual - but of opposing the oligarchy, which is going to be pretty tough. It involves destroying a lot of shareholder value. It will not be easy to pass no matter how many Americans are in favor of it, unless somehow they actually change who their state-level candidates are and how they vote. It is a state-level project, for sure. The President can have the best single-payer idea in the world, but will be unable to pass it until representation changes.
posted by Miko at 9:30 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Was there a lot of public opposition to going to the moon?
Are things more partisan these days? I'm under the impression that they are, but I'm not 100% sure, and I know that the appearance of partisanship is absurdly high right now. I do know that if it was proposed by Obama or any other democratic leader, you can guarantee that there would be political opposition to it from the Republican party - at least visibly, in the theatrics of it all.
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:32 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Are things more partisan these days? I'm under the impression that they are, but I'm not 100% sure, and I know that the appearance of partisanship is absurdly high right now. I do know that if it was proposed by Obama or any other democratic leader, you can guarantee that there would be political opposition to it from the Republican party - at least visibly, in the theatrics of it all.
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:32 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sorry Miko, I was trying to transition out of responding to you specifically by saying "More broadly" - I didn't think you felt that way about it yourself. However, it has certainly been a dominant talking point among Clinton supporters this week, so I felt it was worth addressing.
posted by dialetheia at 9:33 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 9:33 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
The President can have the best single-payer idea in the world, but will be unable to pass it until representation changes.
Exactly - which is why I would like to know what Hillary Clinton's plan for political revolution is. Neither campaign has a foolproof plan to take back Congress or anything, but she has the entire party apparatus behind her and yet Sanders, virtually in the wilderness as far as the Democratic party is concerned, is the one recruiting most of the new voters, growing the party, driving enthusiasm, making the argument for liberal policies, getting young people to run for elected office, driving turnout in groups that often don't vote at all (especially people making less than $50k/year), getting $70+ million in 3 million small donations from grassroots funders, etc.
posted by dialetheia at 9:38 AM on February 4, 2016 [15 favorites]
Exactly - which is why I would like to know what Hillary Clinton's plan for political revolution is. Neither campaign has a foolproof plan to take back Congress or anything, but she has the entire party apparatus behind her and yet Sanders, virtually in the wilderness as far as the Democratic party is concerned, is the one recruiting most of the new voters, growing the party, driving enthusiasm, making the argument for liberal policies, getting young people to run for elected office, driving turnout in groups that often don't vote at all (especially people making less than $50k/year), getting $70+ million in 3 million small donations from grassroots funders, etc.
posted by dialetheia at 9:38 AM on February 4, 2016 [15 favorites]
A gif showing 62 years of congressional partisan-ness
So, yeah seems like in the mid 80's Congress started a process of becoming more and more party bound, which has only become more extreme.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 9:39 AM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
So, yeah seems like in the mid 80's Congress started a process of becoming more and more party bound, which has only become more extreme.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 9:39 AM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
There are a lot of dems who were really disappointed when the public option was taken off the table. There was a dem majority Congress, but too many dems were too far to the right to feel comfortable supporting a public option. It's not just the GOP proposing right-wing ideas, the Democratic party has been afraid of pursuing left-wing ideas. A lot of us are sick of it. I'm not naive about what is possible. I'm an educated woman whose entire adult political life has been 99% progressive disappointments -- I'm used to being unable to get what I want politically. But you miss 100% of the shots you don't take and I want someone in the room advocating for my point of view. I find some of Clinton's rhetoric on this "practicality" point to be really condescending.
I really want to be an excited Clinton supporter. I'm in the demographic that she should be winning. I would love to have a woman in the office of the president. I went into the Town Hall hoping to be wowed, and I just wasn't. Her response to the woman who said her five 20-something daughters support Bernie was just.... not good. She didn't mention reproductive rights. She didn't mention campus assault. She didn't mention BLM. Her response felt like the equivalent of "that's cute, but you'll be a republican when you grow up." I was really really disappointed with her answer on that question, and on a lot of questions last night. Young women are condescended to constantly and I was disappointed that she chose to jump on that bandwagon.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:40 AM on February 4, 2016 [11 favorites]
I really want to be an excited Clinton supporter. I'm in the demographic that she should be winning. I would love to have a woman in the office of the president. I went into the Town Hall hoping to be wowed, and I just wasn't. Her response to the woman who said her five 20-something daughters support Bernie was just.... not good. She didn't mention reproductive rights. She didn't mention campus assault. She didn't mention BLM. Her response felt like the equivalent of "that's cute, but you'll be a republican when you grow up." I was really really disappointed with her answer on that question, and on a lot of questions last night. Young women are condescended to constantly and I was disappointed that she chose to jump on that bandwagon.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:40 AM on February 4, 2016 [11 favorites]
There was a dem majority Congress, but too many dems were too far to the right to feel comfortable supporting a public option.
Yeah, that was infuriating, and totally what I was referring to far above about how the Democrats lost discipline within their own party, and even the biggest influencers could not get them in line. That (well, that and the state races which could replace some of those folks, but only if there is some serious work done on state campaigns, this year and midterm) are going to be the real progressive challenge.
posted by Miko at 9:54 AM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, that was infuriating, and totally what I was referring to far above about how the Democrats lost discipline within their own party, and even the biggest influencers could not get them in line. That (well, that and the state races which could replace some of those folks, but only if there is some serious work done on state campaigns, this year and midterm) are going to be the real progressive challenge.
posted by Miko at 9:54 AM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
You know, I think part of the problem that the Democratic Party is having is weirdly the same problem the Libertarian Party is having - Republican Flight. The Republican Party is having a lot of infighting right now, and so people are running to other parties and conservatizing them. So now you have "libertarians" who oppose abortion and "democrats" who worry about socialist creep.
posted by corb at 10:09 AM on February 4, 2016
posted by corb at 10:09 AM on February 4, 2016
Every four years a bunch of people start to whine about how Iowa is a terrible place to have such focused political attention, as though the alternatives are so much better.
...
So, yeah, go ahead and make fun of Iowa, and then realize that it has done pretty damn well by the nation over the last several decades.
Yep. That Anil dude just trolled a tiresomely condescending tweet about Iowa and got rightly called out for it.
posted by Wordshore at 10:10 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
...
So, yeah, go ahead and make fun of Iowa, and then realize that it has done pretty damn well by the nation over the last several decades.
Yep. That Anil dude just trolled a tiresomely condescending tweet about Iowa and got rightly called out for it.
posted by Wordshore at 10:10 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
"That Anil dude" who is our Own, btw, also said "@bobbinewman it's a critique of process, not Iowa." which I think is a valid point.
posted by sweetkid at 10:19 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 10:19 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Republican Party is having a lot of infighting right now, and so people are running to other parties and conservatizing them. So now you have "libertarians" who oppose abortion and "democrats" who worry about socialist creep.
1. I think I'll need to see some evidence that this is actually a thing in appreciable numbers, but
2. If it is, it's certainly not a problem for electoral politics to have more people voting for your party. If the tent gets too big, then yeah, maybe you have problems with factions developing, but that's something you worry about when it happens, and not a moment before. No sense in worrying about how you'll make policy until you can actually make it to that point.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:20 AM on February 4, 2016
1. I think I'll need to see some evidence that this is actually a thing in appreciable numbers, but
2. If it is, it's certainly not a problem for electoral politics to have more people voting for your party. If the tent gets too big, then yeah, maybe you have problems with factions developing, but that's something you worry about when it happens, and not a moment before. No sense in worrying about how you'll make policy until you can actually make it to that point.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:20 AM on February 4, 2016
I'd also say that calling the Iowa process no more flawed than the electoral college is massively not true.
posted by phearlez at 10:25 AM on February 4, 2016
posted by phearlez at 10:25 AM on February 4, 2016
I don't think it's "Republican flight" at all (agree, where's the evidence for that?) I think it's the reality and the threat of gerrymandering that drives Democrats rightward.
posted by Miko at 10:29 AM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Miko at 10:29 AM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
To be fair, I like Anil Dash, but I also would not let him pick out my outfit.
(I completely resemble the model in the photo for the Onion's Iowa Fashion Week Begins article. However, the Flyover Fashion Fest is actually a thing.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:46 AM on February 4, 2016
(I completely resemble the model in the photo for the Onion's Iowa Fashion Week Begins article. However, the Flyover Fashion Fest is actually a thing.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:46 AM on February 4, 2016
On Hillary Clinton: Having a female president is not as important as helping poor American women
Sanders and Clinton represent very different policy platforms with very different repercussions for lower income individuals in particular. For women in precarious and low-paid employment, women who struggle to make rent, women who can barely afford to feed their families and the 10% of women who lack access to basic healthcare – Sanders is the candidate advocating policies most likely to improve their material conditions.posted by dialetheia at 11:16 AM on February 4, 2016 [13 favorites]
The idea of prioritising having a woman president over goals as fundamental as ensuring a baseline standard of living can only make sense to certain sorts of people: those who will basically be fine regardless. ...
These mainstream feminist voices take the priorities of an elite minority and present them as universal, thus claiming to speak for women as a class. A disproportionate number of people living in poverty in the US are female, but the material needs of economically disadvantaged women are designated a secondary concern to the ambitions of the upper middle classes.
smh @ all these people not giving Iowa a try, when they really ought to
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:17 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:17 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is it really any more doctrinaire than saying that one can't be both a liberal and a conservative at the same time? Or that one can't be a fascist and a communist at the same time?
This whole idea seems to pretend like people can't have different views and priorities on different topics. Certain views are pretty incompatible, yeah. It'd make total sense to say, "hey you can't support apartheid and still call yourself a meaningful progressive." But people being people and not a clone army, some progressives will always have more/less moderate perspectives on different topics.
Bernie's fairly moderate - even conservative - on guns. Does anyone really think that means he's not a progressive overall? His version of democratic socialism is a more moderate version of socialism, does that mean it's not progressive?
I don't think so, which is why I'm so taken aback by that comment. I agree/hope that it sounds like a poorly thought-out critique, but I very much hope that as he continues to point out flaws in Clinton's policies he sticks to critiquing specific policy and doesn't make such broad claims.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:24 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
This whole idea seems to pretend like people can't have different views and priorities on different topics. Certain views are pretty incompatible, yeah. It'd make total sense to say, "hey you can't support apartheid and still call yourself a meaningful progressive." But people being people and not a clone army, some progressives will always have more/less moderate perspectives on different topics.
Bernie's fairly moderate - even conservative - on guns. Does anyone really think that means he's not a progressive overall? His version of democratic socialism is a more moderate version of socialism, does that mean it's not progressive?
I don't think so, which is why I'm so taken aback by that comment. I agree/hope that it sounds like a poorly thought-out critique, but I very much hope that as he continues to point out flaws in Clinton's policies he sticks to critiquing specific policy and doesn't make such broad claims.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:24 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Several comments deleted. Please drop the hyper specific debate over the propriety of Anil Dash's one tweet and the meta debate over the propriety of ways of criticizing that tweet -- very much a case of diminishing returns.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:27 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:27 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Alex Shephard and Clio Chang at The New Republic: “Everybody hates Ted” (A compilation of quotes.)
posted by Going To Maine at 11:28 AM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 11:28 AM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
I agree/hope that it sounds like a poorly thought-out critique, but I very much hope that as he continues to point out flaws in Clinton's policies he sticks to critiquing specific policy and doesn't make such broad claims.
He did critique specific issues: her previous support of TPP, her wavering on Keystone XL, her support for war in Iraq, her support and promotion of fracking, her taking $15 million from Wall Street just this year. This is the image that was linked alongside his statements - it's 100% about substantive issues, not ideological posturing.
posted by dialetheia at 11:28 AM on February 4, 2016 [13 favorites]
He did critique specific issues: her previous support of TPP, her wavering on Keystone XL, her support for war in Iraq, her support and promotion of fracking, her taking $15 million from Wall Street just this year. This is the image that was linked alongside his statements - it's 100% about substantive issues, not ideological posturing.
posted by dialetheia at 11:28 AM on February 4, 2016 [13 favorites]
That Everybody Hates Ted link is my favorite thing.
posted by OmieWise at 11:39 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by OmieWise at 11:39 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
wow that everybody hates ted article - i'm honestly impressed with marco rubio's burn
posted by burgerrr at 11:40 AM on February 4, 2016
posted by burgerrr at 11:40 AM on February 4, 2016
He did critique specific issues: her previous support of TPP, her wavering on Keystone XL, her support for war in Iraq, her support and promotion of fracking, her taking $15 million from Wall Street just this year. This is the image that was linked alongside his statements - it's 100% about substantive issues, not ideological posturing.
Right, I know he said those things, and I think those critiques were spot-on. My point is that if he feels Clinton isn't a progressive, he should say that about her, instead of stating categorically that "you cannot be a moderate and a progressive."
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:43 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right, I know he said those things, and I think those critiques were spot-on. My point is that if he feels Clinton isn't a progressive, he should say that about her, instead of stating categorically that "you cannot be a moderate and a progressive."
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:43 AM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
To be fair to Ted Cruz, I would also like Ann Coulter to say that I was a disaster in her opinion on immigration.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:44 AM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:44 AM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
From the front page of MeFi: Trump Donald. It may be my new(er) favorite thing.
posted by OmieWise at 11:48 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by OmieWise at 11:48 AM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Des Moines Register calls for audit of Sanders-Clinton result in Iowa
Personally, I don't think it's going to be possible. People left during the process. Different precincts handles this differently. In some the viability numbers for delegates were recalculated. Some they did the coin flips for the missing voters. Some the recalculated percentage of votes off of actual numbers.
Some precincts did actual counts off each realignment. Some did it based on just the numbers of people who moved using basic math. So if you had 213 sports for one candidate, and you gained 6 they said, "219." Problem there is this didn't account for those who just left, nor the people who may have actually changed choices (why you had to have a physical full recount).
Some precincts the undecideds/O'Malley supporters were forced to pick. In others their support was given over by the coin flip. Some they just left and the chaos of figuring out how to count the votes is as above.
So all they are going to be able to do is go back to the paper certified numbers. That they will be able to do assuming they all exist.
If this had been an election in another country the independent observers would not have certified it (I was a participant and I am a member of an Iowa Facebook group that has nothing but horror stories across the board).
posted by cjorgensen at 12:10 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Personally, I don't think it's going to be possible. People left during the process. Different precincts handles this differently. In some the viability numbers for delegates were recalculated. Some they did the coin flips for the missing voters. Some the recalculated percentage of votes off of actual numbers.
Some precincts did actual counts off each realignment. Some did it based on just the numbers of people who moved using basic math. So if you had 213 sports for one candidate, and you gained 6 they said, "219." Problem there is this didn't account for those who just left, nor the people who may have actually changed choices (why you had to have a physical full recount).
Some precincts the undecideds/O'Malley supporters were forced to pick. In others their support was given over by the coin flip. Some they just left and the chaos of figuring out how to count the votes is as above.
So all they are going to be able to do is go back to the paper certified numbers. That they will be able to do assuming they all exist.
If this had been an election in another country the independent observers would not have certified it (I was a participant and I am a member of an Iowa Facebook group that has nothing but horror stories across the board).
posted by cjorgensen at 12:10 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
This whole idea seems to pretend like people can't have different views and priorities on different topics.
This is something I've been thinking about lately. Most people tend to think where you lay politically is on a one-dimensional line graph. I'm guilty of simplifying my beliefs this way, for ease of conversation.
I remember seeing a proliferation of "determine your political alignment" tests that would use a two-dimensional graph - left vs right on one axis, authoritarian vs libertarian on a second. That's still better, but not perfect.
While I think that's on the right track, I think it's more like a sphere - There would a third axis (I was thinking traditional vs. contemporary, or something like that, but certainly they could all change) and how extreme you are on any axis is based on how far from the center that you are. What's interesting about this is that you would see that it would likely be relatively rare for one person to be completely opposite in all dimensions and to the same degree - and I think that in most cases, you'd find that the distance on at least one of the three axises wouldn't be very far at all, and that sometimes two extremes of certain viewpoints may have a ton more in common than they realize.
This is purely a thought exercise I've been playing with lately - If I was a certain type of person that I'm totally not, I'd probably develop the idea into a book or something like that, but it's really just something I've been thinking about as I've been trying to look at the overall political climate, and where I can find commonalities with some of my friends who self identify as "right" when I would be shoehorned into "left" on the one dimensional graph.
Unfortunately, It's a lot easier to say "I fall to the left" than it is to say "I'm a -.7, .6, .8" or "I fall to the bottom front left" or anything else specific and make it clear without getting into a very lengthy discussion on where your views lay from multiple aspects.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:11 PM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is something I've been thinking about lately. Most people tend to think where you lay politically is on a one-dimensional line graph. I'm guilty of simplifying my beliefs this way, for ease of conversation.
I remember seeing a proliferation of "determine your political alignment" tests that would use a two-dimensional graph - left vs right on one axis, authoritarian vs libertarian on a second. That's still better, but not perfect.
While I think that's on the right track, I think it's more like a sphere - There would a third axis (I was thinking traditional vs. contemporary, or something like that, but certainly they could all change) and how extreme you are on any axis is based on how far from the center that you are. What's interesting about this is that you would see that it would likely be relatively rare for one person to be completely opposite in all dimensions and to the same degree - and I think that in most cases, you'd find that the distance on at least one of the three axises wouldn't be very far at all, and that sometimes two extremes of certain viewpoints may have a ton more in common than they realize.
This is purely a thought exercise I've been playing with lately - If I was a certain type of person that I'm totally not, I'd probably develop the idea into a book or something like that, but it's really just something I've been thinking about as I've been trying to look at the overall political climate, and where I can find commonalities with some of my friends who self identify as "right" when I would be shoehorned into "left" on the one dimensional graph.
Unfortunately, It's a lot easier to say "I fall to the left" than it is to say "I'm a -.7, .6, .8" or "I fall to the bottom front left" or anything else specific and make it clear without getting into a very lengthy discussion on where your views lay from multiple aspects.
posted by MysticMCJ at 12:11 PM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
For “sphere”, read “infinite-dimensional latent space”
posted by Going To Maine at 12:18 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 12:18 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Des Moines Register calls for audit of Iowa results: 'Something smells in the Democratic Party'
Yes, I could link to the original editorial, but their nag-wall annoys me.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:19 PM on February 4, 2016
Yes, I could link to the original editorial, but their nag-wall annoys me.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:19 PM on February 4, 2016
Ugh. Fuckin' bottom-front-lefters.
posted by Etrigan at 12:19 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 12:19 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
There would a third axis...
Here you go. (Note, mostly worthless, still amusing.)
posted by cjorgensen at 12:22 PM on February 4, 2016
Here you go. (Note, mostly worthless, still amusing.)
posted by cjorgensen at 12:22 PM on February 4, 2016
If this had been an election in another country the independent observers would not have certified it
This is very true but remember that this caucus process is not a government function. So independent observers wouldn't certify or not-certify it in any case any more than they would certify, say, a union election at a company shop. The caucus is a private election for a private organization and can be run in any way those organizations (the parties) see fit, up to and including simply declaring the results null and nominating whomever the party leaders wish to nominate.
So, yeah, it was run very shoddily and that's bad but it isn't the same as the government running a shoddy election. Of course it does show that we may want to rethink how much power we've handed to these private organizations.
posted by Justinian at 12:41 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is very true but remember that this caucus process is not a government function. So independent observers wouldn't certify or not-certify it in any case any more than they would certify, say, a union election at a company shop. The caucus is a private election for a private organization and can be run in any way those organizations (the parties) see fit, up to and including simply declaring the results null and nominating whomever the party leaders wish to nominate.
So, yeah, it was run very shoddily and that's bad but it isn't the same as the government running a shoddy election. Of course it does show that we may want to rethink how much power we've handed to these private organizations.
posted by Justinian at 12:41 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
So what petty dictators are doing wrong is having an election. They should just have a party system and a caucus. No more pesky international monitoring by foreign governments.
Honestly, I think many people would disagree that this is not a government function. I get your point, but it's a regulated process that kicks off the election cycle and is governed by laws and rules.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:48 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly, I think many people would disagree that this is not a government function. I get your point, but it's a regulated process that kicks off the election cycle and is governed by laws and rules.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:48 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ugh. Fuckin' bottom-front-lefters.
Does this mean us liberals will have to start forming six-dimensional recursive firing squads? This is gonna get complicated.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:58 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Does this mean us liberals will have to start forming six-dimensional recursive firing squads? This is gonna get complicated.
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:58 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
When white women say that they don’t have to apologize for liking her, or having to qualify their support of her, they are not only speaking to dudes spouting off misogyny—they are also telling women of color that they do not have to listen to or prioritize the voices of women she has locked up—or blown up—in Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, and the United States.The Feminists Not Invited to the Hillary Party [Mahroh Jahangiri for Feministing]
When self-described feminists argue that Hillary is better for capital-w-for-white “Women,”, they remind us again how narrowly women’s issues have always been defined.
(which links to a bunch of articles including this longer piece from last year: Hillary Clinton’s Empowerment)
posted by melissasaurus at 1:04 PM on February 4, 2016 [9 favorites]
The Feminists Not Invited to the Hillary Party [Mahroh Jahangiri for Feministing]
(which links to a bunch of articles including this longer piece from last year: Hillary Clinton’s Empowerment)
Yeah, so yet again, this stuff is a little more nuanced. I both believe that the minority voices shared in that article should be boosted, AND that Hillary is getting unnecessary flack for having to play a game that men play with impunity.
Also I posted the all caps rant here and felt it spoke to me, and I am really really tired of minority women writers and otherwise referring to me as a fucking servant and cleaner for white people, metaphor is really tired and poorly made and I've had enough of it.
I wrote about feeling marginalized by the white liberal Bernie movement, especially WRT to the fact that minority voters will necessarily be more risk averse and got NO WAY NOT TRUE, but calling out Hillary and her supporters for not being good to minorities is just fine.
posted by sweetkid at 1:31 PM on February 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
(which links to a bunch of articles including this longer piece from last year: Hillary Clinton’s Empowerment)
Yeah, so yet again, this stuff is a little more nuanced. I both believe that the minority voices shared in that article should be boosted, AND that Hillary is getting unnecessary flack for having to play a game that men play with impunity.
Also I posted the all caps rant here and felt it spoke to me, and I am really really tired of minority women writers and otherwise referring to me as a fucking servant and cleaner for white people, metaphor is really tired and poorly made and I've had enough of it.
I wrote about feeling marginalized by the white liberal Bernie movement, especially WRT to the fact that minority voters will necessarily be more risk averse and got NO WAY NOT TRUE, but calling out Hillary and her supporters for not being good to minorities is just fine.
posted by sweetkid at 1:31 PM on February 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
calling out Hillary and her supporters for not being good to minorities is just fine.
I can absolutely see why it would bother you. I do think there's a difference between criticizing a candidate for their policies and their record, vs criticizing a candidate for their supporters' behavior, though.
posted by dialetheia at 1:42 PM on February 4, 2016
I can absolutely see why it would bother you. I do think there's a difference between criticizing a candidate for their policies and their record, vs criticizing a candidate for their supporters' behavior, though.
posted by dialetheia at 1:42 PM on February 4, 2016
I'm fine with criticizing both candidates and both supporters. But I also shudder to think what people might think of the idea that I agree that I don't have to apologize for support of her, despite being not white. I don't agree with Obama's foreign policies very much either and find most of them monstrous, I don't see what makes her so much worse.
Also Bernie has not found himself in the particular foreign policy decision making places that Obama and Clinton have. To me, it's not an apples to apples comparison.
posted by sweetkid at 1:47 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also Bernie has not found himself in the particular foreign policy decision making places that Obama and Clinton have. To me, it's not an apples to apples comparison.
posted by sweetkid at 1:47 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't see what makes her so much worse.
Well, to begin with, her vote on Iraq.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:50 PM on February 4, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well, to begin with, her vote on Iraq.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:50 PM on February 4, 2016 [8 favorites]
Also Bernie has not found himself in the particular foreign policy decision making places that Obama and Clinton have. To me, it's not an apples to apples comparison.
I'd say comparing senate vote to senate vote is a pretty apples to apples comparison. I'm inclined to cut Clinton a small amount of slack for the insanity that gripped so many otherwise reasonable-ish people post 9/11, but I don't think it's unfair to address the Iraq war vote.
Personally I don't know why anyone wants to assign too much weight to her actions as SoS. She's an arm of the president's will in that circumstance. If the SoS is hamfisted in their action that's one thing, but their ability to set policy is pretty well circumscribed.
I don't have a lot of patience with "well, you'd feel differently in my shoes" sorts of statements though. Sanders can point to decades of votes and I think it's fair game to say "this is how I voted when this came up." He is going to have to answer for/explain those gun votes to a lot of dem voters so it's not like this is a single-edged sword.
posted by phearlez at 1:52 PM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'd say comparing senate vote to senate vote is a pretty apples to apples comparison. I'm inclined to cut Clinton a small amount of slack for the insanity that gripped so many otherwise reasonable-ish people post 9/11, but I don't think it's unfair to address the Iraq war vote.
Personally I don't know why anyone wants to assign too much weight to her actions as SoS. She's an arm of the president's will in that circumstance. If the SoS is hamfisted in their action that's one thing, but their ability to set policy is pretty well circumscribed.
I don't have a lot of patience with "well, you'd feel differently in my shoes" sorts of statements though. Sanders can point to decades of votes and I think it's fair game to say "this is how I voted when this came up." He is going to have to answer for/explain those gun votes to a lot of dem voters so it's not like this is a single-edged sword.
posted by phearlez at 1:52 PM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't see what makes her so much worse.
Well, to begin with, her vote on Iraq.
I feel like we've been over that a million times, some of us will have to agree to disagree that this is a single issue election about a vote from 2003. I also disagreed with her vote then.
Maybe we could not pull out one little bit of someone's comment and maybe think about comments a bit more holistically? Or the point more holistically?I take issue with the idea that I'm a caterer at a Hillary party, is there any space to talk about such a thing? Nuance, is that even possible?
posted by sweetkid at 1:56 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, to begin with, her vote on Iraq.
I feel like we've been over that a million times, some of us will have to agree to disagree that this is a single issue election about a vote from 2003. I also disagreed with her vote then.
Maybe we could not pull out one little bit of someone's comment and maybe think about comments a bit more holistically? Or the point more holistically?I take issue with the idea that I'm a caterer at a Hillary party, is there any space to talk about such a thing? Nuance, is that even possible?
posted by sweetkid at 1:56 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
To me, one really key thing is the way she criticized Obama for not being interventionist enough in Libya, and thinks that we could have avoided ISIS altogether if only we'd intervened more strongly. I agree that it's not super fair to hold her accountable for broader US foreign policy, but all indications are that she wanted more intervention, not less, and criticized Obama for being insufficiently hawkish on those issues.
posted by dialetheia at 2:00 PM on February 4, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 2:00 PM on February 4, 2016 [15 favorites]
they are also telling women of color that they do not have to listen to or prioritize the voices of women she has locked up—or blown up—in Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, and the United States.
I think in terms of foreign policy, all candidates would probably fail in varying degrees in this regard. There is no major candidate running for president that would either not engage in conflict against ISIS or not form a coalition of Middle East powers to engage in a conflict against ISIS. There is no major candidate that would end the drone warfare program, including Sanders.
posted by FJT at 2:01 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think in terms of foreign policy, all candidates would probably fail in varying degrees in this regard. There is no major candidate running for president that would either not engage in conflict against ISIS or not form a coalition of Middle East powers to engage in a conflict against ISIS. There is no major candidate that would end the drone warfare program, including Sanders.
posted by FJT at 2:01 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Several comments deleted. sweetkid and roomthreeseventeen, it's fine to just disagree and not go around and around on the same point; please let it drop in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:06 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:06 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
And I just kind of want to add, foreign policy shouldn't always focus on how many people the US is bombing. I've been looking at the Democratic candidates for the last hour (cause none of the Republicans want to take refugees, except a few who want Christian ones) and it's pretty weak that the most we're willing to take is 65,000. There should be a 0 at the end, and then double that figure, at least. The truth is if we believe the Iraq War vote mattered, then we should at least be seriously discussing the responsibility the country has in taking in more refugees.
posted by FJT at 3:02 PM on February 4, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by FJT at 3:02 PM on February 4, 2016 [15 favorites]
I found this Politico article, where they asked top Democrats about Clinton's policy (domestic and foreign) accomplishments, an interesting read. Not 100% great things, but a lot to dig into.
posted by sweetkid at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's an excellent point FJT.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:07 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 4:07 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
How to Watch Tonight's Democratic Presidential Debate Online
It's just not going to be the same without O'Malley.
posted by homunculus at 4:20 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's just not going to be the same without O'Malley.
posted by homunculus at 4:20 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
Is this the debate thread? MSNBC is airing another DEM debate tonight. We went from debate famine to feast. debate.
posted by futz at 5:33 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by futz at 5:33 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Gee, its almost as if the Democratic party realized that hardly having any debates and hiding those that you do hold on secret dates at secret locations isn't the best thing to do for your party.
posted by Justinian at 5:49 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:49 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have beer!
(And I think Clinton has lipstick on her tooth? Or maybe I need a new TV.)
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:08 PM on February 4, 2016
(And I think Clinton has lipstick on her tooth? Or maybe I need a new TV.)
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:08 PM on February 4, 2016
*** DEBATE THREAD DECLARED ***
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:09 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:09 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm a progressive!
posted by homunculus at 6:09 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 6:09 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Yeah, I'm on that committee." *mic drop*
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:11 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:11 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
Watching with interest.
I'm still amazed how wildly different in terms of substance the Democrat and Republican debates are.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:12 PM on February 4, 2016
I'm still amazed how wildly different in terms of substance the Democrat and Republican debates are.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:12 PM on February 4, 2016
LEFT (PROGRESSIVE) JAB FROM CLINTON
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:13 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:13 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think Bernie's very much correct on nearly everything he's saying, but I also think Clinton is outmatching him debate-wise at the moment.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:16 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:16 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Stavros, they are indeed like night and day. Measured and reasoned debate is so very refreshing.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:18 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by PROD_TPSL at 6:18 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I never heard of Hillarycare until this election cycle. In 2008, I only knew it as Romneycare. Was it really known as HIllarycare to most people before 2008?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:19 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:19 PM on February 4, 2016
Yeah, one of the downsides of only having two candidates means that there is always a camera on you, you need to look good. When Clinton gets on a roll, Sanders looks like he's tasting Werther's Originals of days gone by.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:19 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:19 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
She's definitely had a lot of coaching recently.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:20 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:20 PM on February 4, 2016
Sec. Clinton is talking about the effort to pass health care reform in the '90s, which she led when she was First Lady. It got killed in Congress.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:21 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:21 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ugh, Sen. Sanders has a couple lines that he's already repeated twice.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:25 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:25 PM on February 4, 2016
I guess things don't ever go that way (although this is clearly a very weird election indeed for America, so who knows), but I'd love to see Clinton and Sanders just team up, and utterly mop the floor against a Trump/Cruz ticket, say.
Clinton's establishment incrementalism as President with Sanders pushing, endlessly pushing for change: that would pretty much be the best possible outcome here, I reckon.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:26 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton's establishment incrementalism as President with Sanders pushing, endlessly pushing for change: that would pretty much be the best possible outcome here, I reckon.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:26 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ugh, Sen. Sanders has a couple lines that he's already repeated twice.
The topics are kind of going in circles, honestly.
Women can't be part of the establishment. Okay.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:26 PM on February 4, 2016
The topics are kind of going in circles, honestly.
Women can't be part of the establishment. Okay.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:26 PM on February 4, 2016
Hillary Clinton. First Lady. Senator. 2008 presidential juggernaut. Secretary of State. Most-endorsed candidate in the history of the party. And she's *not* of the establishment?
posted by Rhaomi at 6:27 PM on February 4, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 6:27 PM on February 4, 2016 [10 favorites]
Wow, the audience booed.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:27 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:27 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I didn't realize there was a stronger lineage between the Clinton plan and the ACA than Romney's plan and the ACA. Can you cite a source?
While looking into this, I came across a 2007 article suggesting that Hillary wasn't leading the health care effort as much as Bill. I wonder how accurate it is.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:28 PM on February 4, 2016
While looking into this, I came across a 2007 article suggesting that Hillary wasn't leading the health care effort as much as Bill. I wonder how accurate it is.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:28 PM on February 4, 2016
"Artful Smear." Heh, it's on now!
posted by homunculus at 6:29 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by homunculus at 6:29 PM on February 4, 2016
Sanders should run a commercial of the audience booing Clinton. Like, that should be the whole commercial.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:30 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:30 PM on February 4, 2016
Wow, the audience booed.
Basically nobody is going to buy that rich people who make campaign contributions aren't doing it for a reason.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:30 PM on February 4, 2016
Basically nobody is going to buy that rich people who make campaign contributions aren't doing it for a reason.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:30 PM on February 4, 2016
Fight. Fight.
posted by Justinian at 6:32 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:32 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton won't let Sanders speak when she starts on a tear until he says the keywords she offers. She'll toss in something "let's talk about the issues!" and then won't let him get a word in until he says "I want to talk about the issues!"
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:32 PM on February 4, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:32 PM on February 4, 2016 [9 favorites]
Argh. Ask about issues damn it. There is SO MUCH that hasn't even come up in any of these debates yet.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:39 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:39 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
At least Bernie has busted the myth that you can't be viable without corporate and SuperPAC money, so it I'll be harder for people to justify taking the money in the future.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:40 PM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 6:40 PM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
I missed the boos because I left the room. What happened?
posted by futz at 6:41 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by futz at 6:41 PM on February 4, 2016
Good tie-in by Sen. Sanders to criminal justice: "A kid caught with marijuana" vs Wall Street bankers. He needs to pivot away from the Wall Street stuff now (in this debate, I mean), everyone knows what his stance is there.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:43 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:43 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
You can be viable in the primary, the question is whether you can be viable in the general, Room641-A.
posted by Justinian at 6:43 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:43 PM on February 4, 2016
I love that Wall Street is The Big Bad getting all the play here. I truly love it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:45 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:45 PM on February 4, 2016
But it might be time to move on to other issues, yes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:46 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:46 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Like fracking?
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:46 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:46 PM on February 4, 2016
Like anything.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:46 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:46 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Will you release the transcripts" of speeches to Wall Street firms?
Sec. Clinton: "I will look into it."
Bad answer.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:47 PM on February 4, 2016 [13 favorites]
Sec. Clinton: "I will look into it."
Bad answer.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:47 PM on February 4, 2016 [13 favorites]
My kingdom for an audio stream...
posted by krinklyfig at 6:48 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by krinklyfig at 6:48 PM on February 4, 2016
Still have not had one debate question about how to handle situations like the Oregon standoff in either party. Would love more on the right to die stuff that came up at the town hall. These aren't major issues, but they can help you get to know how the candidate thinks and how they will govern. We've heard the same Wall St and Health Care and Foreign Policy debates over and over.
Get them on something they don't have totally scripted, moderators.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:48 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Get them on something they don't have totally scripted, moderators.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:48 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wall St., campaign finance and health care, sure. When did they do foreign policy?
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:49 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:49 PM on February 4, 2016
We've heard the same Wall St and Health Care and Foreign Policy debates over and over.
You have heard them over and over. I am continually surprised by how many educated, adult people I meet who don't know why the bottom fell out of things economically in 2007-8.
posted by LooseFilter at 6:51 PM on February 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
You have heard them over and over. I am continually surprised by how many educated, adult people I meet who don't know why the bottom fell out of things economically in 2007-8.
posted by LooseFilter at 6:51 PM on February 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
Wall St., campaign finance and health care, sure. When did they do foreign policy?
I meant in all the debates, they will get to it tonight and it will be the same talking points as last time.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:51 PM on February 4, 2016
I meant in all the debates, they will get to it tonight and it will be the same talking points as last time.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:51 PM on February 4, 2016
But yeah. Flint. Let's talk Flint, infrastructure, green economy. Let's hear about labor. Immigration, refugee crisis, global poverty.
And let's talk about HOW the candidates are going to govern in a broken political system!
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:51 PM on February 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
And let's talk about HOW the candidates are going to govern in a broken political system!
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:51 PM on February 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yeah, bad move on the transcripts answer. Transparency is needed to repair her untrustworthy label.
posted by futz at 6:52 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by futz at 6:52 PM on February 4, 2016
And let's talk about HOW the candidates are going to govern in a broken political system!
Seriously. Yes, we can't get single payer. But we also couldn't get Republicans to agree on a proclamation that is in favor of Mom and Apple Pie if a Democrat suggests it. Questions about how you would handle a standoff over the debt ceiling would get to the heart of the choices the next Democratic President is going to have to make.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:53 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Seriously. Yes, we can't get single payer. But we also couldn't get Republicans to agree on a proclamation that is in favor of Mom and Apple Pie if a Democrat suggests it. Questions about how you would handle a standoff over the debt ceiling would get to the heart of the choices the next Democratic President is going to have to make.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:53 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
And let's talk about HOW the candidates are going to govern in a broken political system
This would be great
posted by LooseFilter at 6:54 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
This would be great
posted by LooseFilter at 6:54 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the company paid for the speech, they might own the performance of it?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:55 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:55 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, that (debt ceiling) would be a good topic. We really need to get them to talk about how they would work with / through / around Congress.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:55 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:55 PM on February 4, 2016
Serious question for anyone smarter than me. Clinton just now and Obama for a while has distinguished between "combat troops" vs. "special forces". Do special forces not fight? Wouldn't that be combat?
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:59 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:59 PM on February 4, 2016
Superficial, but I really dislike pearl necklaces, they seem so classist and should be relegated to rich great-aunts.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:59 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:59 PM on February 4, 2016
If the company paid for the speech, they might own the performance of it?
This has been a topic long enough now that she should have figured out if she can release stuff or not.
Clinton just now and Obama for a while has distinguished between "combat troops" vs. "special forces". Do special forces not fight? Wouldn't that be combat?
The idea is they are there to do things like coordinate air strikes and stuff, like one guy with a group of local soldiers. It's combat, but it's different than sending in regular army ito fight directly in important ways.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:02 PM on February 4, 2016
This has been a topic long enough now that she should have figured out if she can release stuff or not.
Clinton just now and Obama for a while has distinguished between "combat troops" vs. "special forces". Do special forces not fight? Wouldn't that be combat?
The idea is they are there to do things like coordinate air strikes and stuff, like one guy with a group of local soldiers. It's combat, but it's different than sending in regular army ito fight directly in important ways.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:02 PM on February 4, 2016
seen elsewhere: Whoever taught her how to sound like she knows something without answering any questions did a great job
posted by futz at 7:02 PM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:02 PM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
re: special forces -- I guess they're training / logistical / air support?
It's all bullshit to try to pretend that we're not engaged in military operations in countries where we have not declared war. At least in Iraq we're doing so with the approval of the government there so I guess that's legitimate. But I don't see how constitutionally, or in international law, there is any basis for us to be involved in military operations in Syria.
Of course, even fine things like the Constitution and the international treaties on warfare are only worth the paper they're written on. If everyone chooses to ignore them, ignored they will be.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:04 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's all bullshit to try to pretend that we're not engaged in military operations in countries where we have not declared war. At least in Iraq we're doing so with the approval of the government there so I guess that's legitimate. But I don't see how constitutionally, or in international law, there is any basis for us to be involved in military operations in Syria.
Of course, even fine things like the Constitution and the international treaties on warfare are only worth the paper they're written on. If everyone chooses to ignore them, ignored they will be.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:04 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Experience vs. judgement. That is the stark choice, and it's a good framing that good people can disagree on.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:06 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:06 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hillary is definitely much better than Bernie on foreign policy.
posted by Small Dollar at 7:07 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by Small Dollar at 7:07 PM on February 4, 2016
Hillary is definitely much better than Bernie on foreign policy.
Depends how you balance out all the dead Iraqis and the quality of her time as SoS. (Personally, I think it turned out not such a great term in the end, but that is highly debateable.)
posted by Drinky Die at 7:09 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Depends how you balance out all the dead Iraqis and the quality of her time as SoS. (Personally, I think it turned out not such a great term in the end, but that is highly debateable.)
posted by Drinky Die at 7:09 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
She keeps saying, "You have to be ready on day one" regarding the presidency. She has aligned herself so closely to Obama - I wonder if she has said that Obama was ready on day one.
If he was, so would Sanders.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:09 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
If he was, so would Sanders.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:09 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Re: Sec. Clinton being better on foreign policy: Yeah, and Sen. Sanders conceded that directly. But his argument is that the key thing needed in a Commander-in-Chief is judgement -- the experience comes through the foreign policy team you bring on. Obviously one needs some level of experience, but I think he'd argue that he has more experience in foreign affairs than, say, Bill Clinton did.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:11 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:11 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders whiffed on Libya though, which is one of the best reasons to oppose Clinton.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:12 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:12 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, her husband was governor of Arkansas, for God's sake. She can't pretend to believe that extensive foreign policy experience is a necessary precondition. I won't argue that she is clearly far more comfortable discussing foreign policy than Sanders, but I haven't heard him say anything disqualifyingly ignorant, such as most of the Republican field.
posted by gatorae at 7:12 PM on February 4, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by gatorae at 7:12 PM on February 4, 2016 [17 favorites]
Exaggerating the differences is part of the primary process I guess. Everybody knows that in the end the vast majority of the party will be fine with either choice in the general, so you have a bit of freedom to go hard on them.
It can actually sharpen the opponent for the general. (Which is why it's a good idea to challenge on stuff like Libya a bit, the Republican will challenge all of Obama foriegn policy.)
posted by Drinky Die at 7:14 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
It can actually sharpen the opponent for the general. (Which is why it's a good idea to challenge on stuff like Libya a bit, the Republican will challenge all of Obama foriegn policy.)
posted by Drinky Die at 7:14 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wish that the foreign policy discourse were broader than just talking about wars and threats of wars. For all his domestic progressive credentials, Sen. Sanders doesn't really seem to have a particularly progressive vision of engagement with the world. (Not that anyone else in the race does either.)
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:14 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:14 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
North Korea is no threat. No threat. They can't do anything that would really endanger their position. Russia is actively working to undermine the world order and increase their own status by underhanded aggression.
posted by Small Dollar at 7:15 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by Small Dollar at 7:15 PM on February 4, 2016
North Korea is no threat. No threat.
They do a good job of coming off as just potentially insane enough that you can't necessarily take that for granted.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:16 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
They do a good job of coming off as just potentially insane enough that you can't necessarily take that for granted.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:16 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
The threat from Russia vs. from North Korea is, in my mind, like the threat of violence from a mugger vs. a belligerent drunk person. The mugger has some sort of rational aim and if you give them your wallet they will go away. The angry drunk will potentially wander away (or fall down) but also might just randomly sucker-punch you.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:20 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:20 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's nice to see a debate between adults for a change.
posted by figurant at 7:23 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by figurant at 7:23 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Electability and recounts" Oh fuck off Todd. And I'm disappointed in you Rachel.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:24 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 7:24 PM on February 4, 2016
Whatever the outcome of this debate--and primary--it's good for all of is that it's happening. So many of these topics and perspectives simply would not be on the table if not for Sanders.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:24 PM on February 4, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by LooseFilter at 7:24 PM on February 4, 2016 [12 favorites]
Whatever the outcome of this debate--and primary--it's good for all of is that it's happening. So many of these topics and perspectives simply would not be on the table if not for Sanders.
That is true and I can appreciate this, but once Hillary wins the nomination, won't she just chuck all of this stuff overboard and run to the center(right)?
posted by cell divide at 7:27 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
That is true and I can appreciate this, but once Hillary wins the nomination, won't she just chuck all of this stuff overboard and run to the center(right)?
posted by cell divide at 7:27 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
I agree, LooseFilter. I can't even imagine Clinton using the phrase "LGBT" in an opening speech if she didn't have to expand on Sanders' speech.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:27 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:27 PM on February 4, 2016
cell divide, maybe. But in that case, Sanders voters are under no obligation to vote for her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:28 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:28 PM on February 4, 2016
Sanders will move to the right in the general too. Or he won't be elected.
posted by Justinian at 7:35 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 7:35 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't imagine Clinton not using the phrase "LGBT" after the SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality. Pragmatism means recalibration and reevaluation as well as moderation.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:36 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by krinklyfig at 7:36 PM on February 4, 2016
Enough with the meta-issues around how the campaigns are being run. No one cares, and Rachel Maddow & Chuck Todd are better journalists than this.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:36 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:36 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
On Russia vs NK, it all depends. I think Russia is dangerous in a "conventional" way, but is ultimately manageable because there are institutions like NATO and the history of the Cold War has made Russia an adversary that's been planned for. Russia has no risk of a black swan event, but NK does and that's collapse. And if it that happens you might have a huge amount refugees, you might have a bunch of party/military elites fighting for power, and then you will have to coordinate closely with South Korea and China on this.
But a black swan event is rare, so once again I'm back to "it depends".
posted by FJT at 7:36 PM on February 4, 2016
But a black swan event is rare, so once again I'm back to "it depends".
posted by FJT at 7:36 PM on February 4, 2016
Enough with the meta-issues around how the campaigns are being run. No one cares, and Rachel Maddow & Chuck Todd are better journalists than this.
Yeah, I've been distracted for the past 10 minutes trying to convince a friend to watch The Expanse and I keep looking over and hearing "emails" and "your ad says" and realizing I'm not missing anything. Rachel is definitely better than this, Chuck Todd I dunno. He may be having more influence because he is the broadcast guy and the political director at NBC.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:38 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I've been distracted for the past 10 minutes trying to convince a friend to watch The Expanse and I keep looking over and hearing "emails" and "your ad says" and realizing I'm not missing anything. Rachel is definitely better than this, Chuck Todd I dunno. He may be having more influence because he is the broadcast guy and the political director at NBC.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:38 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
No one cares, and Rachel Maddow & Chuck Todd are better journalists than this.
Yeah, the insipid turn of the questions is unfortunate. "We have to ask about this, because it has been said." No, actually you don't. Lots of things are said about all kinds of things, all the time, and most of them are stupid. Let debates be the one time you're smarter than the public discourse.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:39 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the insipid turn of the questions is unfortunate. "We have to ask about this, because it has been said." No, actually you don't. Lots of things are said about all kinds of things, all the time, and most of them are stupid. Let debates be the one time you're smarter than the public discourse.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:39 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Death penalty, here we go.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:40 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:40 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maddow & Todd are both total wonkish US politics geeks and news junkies at heart. Political inside baseball is their game, for better or worse. Maddow is more clearly progressive, but she'd be pouring over the details of all the campaigns even if it weren't her job.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:40 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by krinklyfig at 7:40 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I don't want to see the government be part of killing. That's all."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 PM on February 4, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:42 PM on February 4, 2016 [15 favorites]
Yeah but the reason she's so great is that she does get down to policy issues, she does horse race stuff as well but it's not ALL GAFFE-WATCH ALL THE TIME like most of the rest of our pathetic media establishment.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:42 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:42 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Jamelle Bouie on Twitter: This fight over financial reform is less about policy & more about political economy. BS doesn't think Wall Street is legitimate. HRC does. “In my view, the business model of Wall Street is fraud.” There it is. They are working from fundamentally different premises.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:42 PM on February 4, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 7:42 PM on February 4, 2016 [18 favorites]
I agree with you there, tivalasvegas. Fair enough.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:46 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by krinklyfig at 7:46 PM on February 4, 2016
This is a more articulate way to say, "Our negotiators are dumb, I'm gonna make yuge, smart, high energy deals when I'm President." (from both of them)
posted by Drinky Die at 7:49 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 7:49 PM on February 4, 2016
Good answer from Sec. Clinton on TPP. I disagree with her but she made a solid argument.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:49 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:49 PM on February 4, 2016
It would be a much better country and world if this were the Presidential debate.
posted by cell divide at 7:50 PM on February 4, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by cell divide at 7:50 PM on February 4, 2016 [25 favorites]
It would be a much better country and world if this were the Presidential debate.
Amen. I actually forgot for a bit that this is only a primary debate, and then I remembered, and now I'm sad.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:51 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Amen. I actually forgot for a bit that this is only a primary debate, and then I remembered, and now I'm sad.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:51 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Very likely that next summer/fall is not going to be nearly as fun.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:54 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:54 PM on February 4, 2016
I'm sorry I told Bernie to fuck off up-thread, even if it was jocularly. I really do like and respect this guy, more than I have any American politician at this level since, well... ever.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:54 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:54 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
I forgive you.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:55 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:55 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
"I want to start good things from happening."
These people need some naps. :D
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
These people need some naps. :D
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
The only honest answer is: I won't be able to do any of it, unless I get a political revolution in the midterm.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:57 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 7:57 PM on February 4, 2016
Was it really known as HIllarycare to most people before 2008?
It was well known as Hillarycare back in 1995, used as a Republican pejorative, back formed from Medicare. Second came Obamacare in the 2008 election as a pejorative invoking the old Republican hatred of Hillarycare.
Then Obama began to embrace the Obamacare label in 2010 in some reverse jujitsu following passage of the ACA. Obama then coined Romneycare in the 2012 election to point out that the ACA wasn't much different from what his opponent Romney had passed in Massachusetts.
So the word evolution is Hillarycare > Obamacare > Romneycare.
posted by JackFlash at 7:57 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
It was well known as Hillarycare back in 1995, used as a Republican pejorative, back formed from Medicare. Second came Obamacare in the 2008 election as a pejorative invoking the old Republican hatred of Hillarycare.
Then Obama began to embrace the Obamacare label in 2010 in some reverse jujitsu following passage of the ACA. Obama then coined Romneycare in the 2012 election to point out that the ACA wasn't much different from what his opponent Romney had passed in Massachusetts.
So the word evolution is Hillarycare > Obamacare > Romneycare.
posted by JackFlash at 7:57 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
If the company paid for the speech, they might own the performance of it?
Probably not. That would be work for hire and speeches generally aren't that. But if so then all she would have to say is, "I'd love for you to read them. I am calling on Goldman Sachs to make them available or give me permission to release them."
posted by cjorgensen at 7:57 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Probably not. That would be work for hire and speeches generally aren't that. But if so then all she would have to say is, "I'd love for you to read them. I am calling on Goldman Sachs to make them available or give me permission to release them."
posted by cjorgensen at 7:57 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maddow with the "oops" reference. Very cute.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:59 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know it's how the system actually works but hearing Sanders flat out say that he wouldn't nominate to the Supreme Court unless the nominees says flat-out they will vote to overturn Citizens United is kind of distasteful. At least put the fig leaf of judicial philosophy or something over that.
posted by Justinian at 7:59 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:59 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
hahahahahahaha oops
posted by Drinky Die at 8:00 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 8:00 PM on February 4, 2016
I didn't particularly care about the speech before she refused to give a simple "Yes, we'll release it". I assumed it was blahblah neoliberal platitudes.
Now I'm curious and I imagine others will be as well. What did she say, and why doesn't she want us to know?
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:00 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Now I'm curious and I imagine others will be as well. What did she say, and why doesn't she want us to know?
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:00 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
The biggest unknown in a North Korean collapse is China. North Korea is the only nation bordering China near any major population center of the core part of the state, which means refugees could cause instability in a place that actually matters. Northern China's economic and industrial base is wobblier than the South, and a refugee crisis could actually cause discontent among Han Chinese. The CCP's number one concern is crushing dissent, so they have a motivation to prevent a collapse.
I know less about Russia's motivations but they instigated a shooting war in Europe and seized territory. The DPRK couldn't do anything comparable.
posted by Small Dollar at 8:01 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know less about Russia's motivations but they instigated a shooting war in Europe and seized territory. The DPRK couldn't do anything comparable.
posted by Small Dollar at 8:01 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know it's how the system actually works but hearing Sanders flat out say that he wouldn't nominate to the Supreme Court unless the nominees says flat-out they will vote to overturn Citizens United is kind of distasteful. At least put the fig leaf of judicial philosophy or something over that.
Nah, I prefer the less BS approach.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:01 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nah, I prefer the less BS approach.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:01 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
aw, it's a little love fest
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:02 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:02 PM on February 4, 2016
But... it's so uncouth. I think the Connecticut in me is coming out.
posted by Justinian at 8:03 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 8:03 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nah, I prefer the less BS approach.
....got temporarily confused that you were talking about Bernie Sanders.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
....got temporarily confused that you were talking about Bernie Sanders.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:03 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Man, Chuck Todd is just.... I really don't like him very much.
(Professionally, I mean. Personally I'm sure he's just fine.)
posted by LooseFilter at 8:03 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
(Professionally, I mean. Personally I'm sure he's just fine.)
posted by LooseFilter at 8:03 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, that was unexpectedly heartwarming.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:03 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:03 PM on February 4, 2016
The #1 answer here is: The party is already united.
Come on, folks.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:03 PM on February 4, 2016
Come on, folks.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:03 PM on February 4, 2016
The $politiciancare framing is really quite brilliant in a sinister manipulative way. You don't have to actually argue about details of the law itself. You can just go "Look! It's named after that candidate you didn't vote for!" and a huge number will be against it just because of that. It's like a shortcut to win dumb people votes.
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:05 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:05 PM on February 4, 2016
Yikes, Clinton's closing statement was good until it veered into patronizing ("since I was about the age of many of Senator Sanders' supporters", meaning: young people, you're being stupid).
posted by LooseFilter at 8:05 PM on February 4, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by LooseFilter at 8:05 PM on February 4, 2016 [12 favorites]
JackFlash, I remember the term Romneycare being used in the discussion before the ACA was passed. Also, I came across Romneycare's Fine Print, a 2006 article in the WSJ.
I don't see how you can say "Romneycare" was a term coined in 2012.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:05 PM on February 4, 2016
I don't see how you can say "Romneycare" was a term coined in 2012.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:05 PM on February 4, 2016
"We have a lot more questions but no more time," said the man who wasted the bulk of the time on dumb questions. The last two segments were good, I wish we had more time on that sort of thing.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:07 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:07 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
> Good tie-in by Sen. Sanders to criminal justice: "A kid caught with marijuana" vs Wall Street bankers.
Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke
posted by homunculus at 8:08 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke
posted by homunculus at 8:08 PM on February 4, 2016 [3 favorites]
On the whole, I really enjoyed this debate. Two adults giving adult answers with very little demagoguery or appeals to emotion. And the FEAR! button was only lightly pressed once or twice.
posted by LooseFilter at 8:10 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by LooseFilter at 8:10 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the fact that O'Malley wasn't on stage gumming up the works helped this debate tremendously. It flowed in a way that none of the previous debates could flow because it had to pretend to be a three way debate.
posted by Justinian at 8:11 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 8:11 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
My supervisor from a couple years ago, when the ACA exchanges were just being rolled out (I help people with insurance enrollment), told me that she remembered that when Medicare was being implemented in the 60s, the Usual Suspects called it Johnsoncare in a similarly derogatory way.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:12 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:12 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Rachel Maddow embraces both Clinton and Sanders at end of debate. I don't think I've ever seen a moderator do that before."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:12 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:12 PM on February 4, 2016
I think the fact that O'Malley wasn't on stage gumming up the works helped this debate tremendously. It flowed in a way that none of the previous debates could flow because it had to pretend to be a three way debate.
Yup, the Republican race is going to continue to be a mess until they can get it down to the three person debate it really is.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:14 PM on February 4, 2016
Yup, the Republican race is going to continue to be a mess until they can get it down to the three person debate it really is.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:14 PM on February 4, 2016
Well, yes, but I also reckon the Republican race would continue to be a mess until the heat death of the universe if it were allowed to go on that long.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:17 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:17 PM on February 4, 2016 [5 favorites]
I dislike Chris Matthews for several reasons, one of which being that he doesn't seem to be able to make words come out of his mouth without shouting them.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:20 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:20 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
After watching this debate it boggles me that people, including people here, would prefer Cruz or Trump or Rubio to either Clinton or Sanders if their preferred Democrat loses the primary. Why wouldn't you support someone who is 90% of the way there if there is a chance your state is contested?
People who live in safe states for one side or the other excepted, of course, since I understand that voting third party in California or Alabama isn't going to matter.
posted by Justinian at 8:59 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
People who live in safe states for one side or the other excepted, of course, since I understand that voting third party in California or Alabama isn't going to matter.
posted by Justinian at 8:59 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
At least put the fig leaf of judicial philosophy or something over that.
Nah, screw that. We have enough of politicians lying to us, let them at least be honest about something everyone already knows, which is that judges who don't agree with the executive on important issues don't get nominated. In fact that is one of the very few levers chief executives actually have, so I think Sanders' decision to be upfront about it is not only good policy, it's good politics, because voters know what they're buying. Just like the Koch Brothers, except about one millionth as much effect on the outcome.
After watching this debate it boggles me that people, including people here, would prefer Cruz or Trump or Rubio to either Clinton or Sanders if their preferred Democrat loses the primary. Why wouldn't you support someone who is 90% of the way there if there is a chance your state is contested?
This is the part where people remind you that THEIR VOTE is SPECIAL and needs to be EARNED, and how dare you blame them for exercising their right.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:11 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nah, screw that. We have enough of politicians lying to us, let them at least be honest about something everyone already knows, which is that judges who don't agree with the executive on important issues don't get nominated. In fact that is one of the very few levers chief executives actually have, so I think Sanders' decision to be upfront about it is not only good policy, it's good politics, because voters know what they're buying. Just like the Koch Brothers, except about one millionth as much effect on the outcome.
After watching this debate it boggles me that people, including people here, would prefer Cruz or Trump or Rubio to either Clinton or Sanders if their preferred Democrat loses the primary. Why wouldn't you support someone who is 90% of the way there if there is a chance your state is contested?
This is the part where people remind you that THEIR VOTE is SPECIAL and needs to be EARNED, and how dare you blame them for exercising their right.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:11 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think at this point I'd vote for an overripe avocado over Trump, Cruz, or Rubio.
posted by Justinian at 9:14 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 9:14 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
You know... for those who read the comments down here...
But in all seriousness, I am morally bound against voting for any Republican politician in this election cycle. In my mind it would be tacit support to the devolution and direction of the current body politik.
As furious as I was and still am about the invasion of Iraq... and the subsequent militaristic involvement of the United States in the entire region since 2002 and having been called a traitor to my face before for having not condoned it, I will not risk the Executive branch and future Supreme Court Justice nominations to the Republican party.
I hope that Sanders does win the nomination. I will vote with a clear conscience for the first time in my life. If it is Clinton... then it's at least four years of damage control.
Necessary damage control.
I will not stay away from the poles. I have far too many friends that will be at risk of various degrees of harm should a Republican candidate take the office. My friends are all so very very glorious and I love them. I will not let my priggish pride take the better of me and cause any more undue harm when I can clearly act in good faith for them.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 9:28 PM on February 4, 2016 [15 favorites]
But in all seriousness, I am morally bound against voting for any Republican politician in this election cycle. In my mind it would be tacit support to the devolution and direction of the current body politik.
As furious as I was and still am about the invasion of Iraq... and the subsequent militaristic involvement of the United States in the entire region since 2002 and having been called a traitor to my face before for having not condoned it, I will not risk the Executive branch and future Supreme Court Justice nominations to the Republican party.
I hope that Sanders does win the nomination. I will vote with a clear conscience for the first time in my life. If it is Clinton... then it's at least four years of damage control.
Necessary damage control.
I will not stay away from the poles. I have far too many friends that will be at risk of various degrees of harm should a Republican candidate take the office. My friends are all so very very glorious and I love them. I will not let my priggish pride take the better of me and cause any more undue harm when I can clearly act in good faith for them.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 9:28 PM on February 4, 2016 [15 favorites]
I came across Romneycare's Fine Print, a 2006 article in the WSJ.
So it is. Turns out that article on Romneycare is authored by the same execrable Betsy McCaughey who helped to torpedo Hillarycare back when Andrew Sullivan was editor at the New Republic. She's carried a resentment of universal healthcare for decades.
posted by JackFlash at 9:31 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
So it is. Turns out that article on Romneycare is authored by the same execrable Betsy McCaughey who helped to torpedo Hillarycare back when Andrew Sullivan was editor at the New Republic. She's carried a resentment of universal healthcare for decades.
posted by JackFlash at 9:31 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
My friends are all so very very glorious and I love them. I will not let my priggish pride take the better of me and cause any more undue harm when I can clearly act in good faith for them.
This is a good reason for anyone to vote their conscience. Thanks for doing so.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:58 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is a good reason for anyone to vote their conscience. Thanks for doing so.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:58 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Her failure to perform due diligence when Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumfeld, et. al. defrauded Congress of their lawful oversight role in the Iraq AUMF is a showstopper for me. Bernie Sanders *correctly* assessed the risk, and told us what would happen.sweetkid
I don't see what makes her so much worse.
roomthreeseventeen
Well, to begin with, her vote on Iraq.
Exactly what happened.
posted by mikelieman at 9:59 PM on February 4, 2016 [10 favorites]
Know what I'd pay good money to see?
A Royal Rumble. Get everyone from all the parties together, and let Maddow moderate. Watch Hillary and Bernie and Jill Stein vs. the Clown Car of the GOP side by side..
I'd pay good money to see that...
posted by mikelieman at 10:14 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
A Royal Rumble. Get everyone from all the parties together, and let Maddow moderate. Watch Hillary and Bernie and Jill Stein vs. the Clown Car of the GOP side by side..
I'd pay good money to see that...
posted by mikelieman at 10:14 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm young so maybe someone else could chime in, but if Bernie's perfect storm of a campaign can't elect a president, are things really going to change ever?
If this many people throwing this much weight behind someone with experience and integrity like Bernie can't best a widely reviled, extremely polarizing establishment politician running a relatively mediocre campaign, why would I have reason to believe American politics will change in my lifetime?
I know we're having a warm fuzzy moment of affection for these two very thoughtful leaders but electing Bernie Sanders is not a cherry on top, he is the whole fucking sundae and the silverware with it. Another Clinton presidency represents a final verdict on the inviability of collective action and populist motion, not the other way around.
No one would rally behind Clinton. She would have the scraps of Bernie's campaign who support her ascension obligingly, and then... then I don't know what. I can't afford healthcare and I'm 25 years old. I'm tens of thousands in debt with no career prospects. And I'm a likable tech savvy white male so I'm better off than most.
Seriously, the stakes, you have to understand how high they feel right now. It's not "Make sure we elect a Democrat," it's Bernie or bust for so many of us. And how we cope with the notion that we might bust is not yours to criticize: Sanders is drawing many voters who would vote Republican or abstain, so of course those people are gonna hold their noses and vote for Trump over Clinton. Trump also represents a hail-mary shot at change, horrifying as his version of change seems to most. I'm just postulating but I would assume people will be willing to say he's bluffing on all the racist shit and the risk of supporting him is worth it if he makes it to the general.
There is no risk electing Hillary Clinton. We know exactly what she will do, how she will do it, and that she will do it effectively. That has never been in question.
posted by an animate objects at 10:25 PM on February 4, 2016 [12 favorites]
If this many people throwing this much weight behind someone with experience and integrity like Bernie can't best a widely reviled, extremely polarizing establishment politician running a relatively mediocre campaign, why would I have reason to believe American politics will change in my lifetime?
I know we're having a warm fuzzy moment of affection for these two very thoughtful leaders but electing Bernie Sanders is not a cherry on top, he is the whole fucking sundae and the silverware with it. Another Clinton presidency represents a final verdict on the inviability of collective action and populist motion, not the other way around.
No one would rally behind Clinton. She would have the scraps of Bernie's campaign who support her ascension obligingly, and then... then I don't know what. I can't afford healthcare and I'm 25 years old. I'm tens of thousands in debt with no career prospects. And I'm a likable tech savvy white male so I'm better off than most.
Seriously, the stakes, you have to understand how high they feel right now. It's not "Make sure we elect a Democrat," it's Bernie or bust for so many of us. And how we cope with the notion that we might bust is not yours to criticize: Sanders is drawing many voters who would vote Republican or abstain, so of course those people are gonna hold their noses and vote for Trump over Clinton. Trump also represents a hail-mary shot at change, horrifying as his version of change seems to most. I'm just postulating but I would assume people will be willing to say he's bluffing on all the racist shit and the risk of supporting him is worth it if he makes it to the general.
There is no risk electing Hillary Clinton. We know exactly what she will do, how she will do it, and that she will do it effectively. That has never been in question.
posted by an animate objects at 10:25 PM on February 4, 2016 [12 favorites]
Bernie Sanders correctly assessed the risk, and told us what would happen.
An interesting, if simplistic question: when has Bernie Sanders been provably wrong? I mean, I would argue that his no vote on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, while the ethically correct position, was essentially a demonstration that he’s no good at compromise & hence will be ineffective in the long run, but I’m less curious about that sort of jiggery pokery. I mean: when has he taken a stand and later been “proven” incorrect?
posted by Going To Maine at 10:27 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
An interesting, if simplistic question: when has Bernie Sanders been provably wrong? I mean, I would argue that his no vote on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, while the ethically correct position, was essentially a demonstration that he’s no good at compromise & hence will be ineffective in the long run, but I’m less curious about that sort of jiggery pokery. I mean: when has he taken a stand and later been “proven” incorrect?
posted by Going To Maine at 10:27 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm young so maybe someone else could chime in, but if Bernie's Obama’s perfect storm of a campaign can't elect a president, are things really going to change ever?
Fixed that.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:27 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
Fixed that.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:27 PM on February 4, 2016 [4 favorites]
If this many people throwing this much weight behind someone with experience and integrity like Bernie can't best a widely reviled, extremely polarizing establishment politician running a relatively mediocre campaign
... Clinton has a 91% approval rating among Democrats. She's reviled amongst Republicans, sure, but they weren't going to vote for her anyway.
I mean: when has he taken a stand and later been “proven” incorrect?
He voted to block regulation of credit swap derivatives in 2000 with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
posted by Justinian at 10:29 PM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
... Clinton has a 91% approval rating among Democrats. She's reviled amongst Republicans, sure, but they weren't going to vote for her anyway.
I mean: when has he taken a stand and later been “proven” incorrect?
He voted to block regulation of credit swap derivatives in 2000 with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
posted by Justinian at 10:29 PM on February 4, 2016 [6 favorites]
Fixed that.
Could Obama have done what he did without superPAC support? And would he have received superPAC support if he had not been who he was? (Which is to say totally cool with big money and its influences?)
Clinton has a 91% approval rating among Democrats. She's reviled amongst Republicans, sure, but they weren't going to vote for her anyway.
I think the fact that Clinton is polling so poorly among Independents and young Democrats should be taken into consideration when her campaign hinges so heavily on her electability.
posted by an animate objects at 10:39 PM on February 4, 2016 [8 favorites]
Could Obama have done what he did without superPAC support? And would he have received superPAC support if he had not been who he was? (Which is to say totally cool with big money and its influences?)
Clinton has a 91% approval rating among Democrats. She's reviled amongst Republicans, sure, but they weren't going to vote for her anyway.
I think the fact that Clinton is polling so poorly among Independents and young Democrats should be taken into consideration when her campaign hinges so heavily on her electability.
posted by an animate objects at 10:39 PM on February 4, 2016 [8 favorites]
Things change over time. Sometimes they get better, sometimes they get worse.
To game things out, I suppose the most likely outcome is a Clinton presidency, a 50-50 Senate (with Democratic VP tiebreaker) and a slightly lower majority for Republicans in the House. So a lot will depend on how well President Clinton can work with Speaker Ryan, and how willing the Speaker will be to push back on the right wing of his party. He may have leverage to do that on some issues, or alternatively the rump of the Republican House Caucus that's interested in governance can pass some things with the Democrats if they get tired of (not) working with the idiots who make up the majority of their caucus. That would probably be trade agreements, maybe some infrastructure stuff, maybe immigration reform, maybe some tinkering with the ACA.
Beyond that it would be down to whatever she can push through from the Executive side. Probably stronger worker protections, better environmental and labor regulation, financial system oversight, criminal justice reform. Maybe a closer look at gerrymandering in the states?
Foreign policy: not too different from the Obama years -- generally intelligent or at least not openly stupid like W.'s policies, but with a heavy hand on militarism as opposed to international development. And of course if she gets a couple liberals on the Supreme Court replacing conservatives or moderates, some progressive movement could happen through the judiciary as well.
It'll be a regrouping term, I think. The main energy is going to need to be in political reform ahead of the 2020 census and redistricting. Barring the utter collapse of the Republican Party into competing factions (which I think is possible -- their divisions are not going to get better after they lose the election this year), Democrats are not going to get the House back until at least 2020.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:45 PM on February 4, 2016
To game things out, I suppose the most likely outcome is a Clinton presidency, a 50-50 Senate (with Democratic VP tiebreaker) and a slightly lower majority for Republicans in the House. So a lot will depend on how well President Clinton can work with Speaker Ryan, and how willing the Speaker will be to push back on the right wing of his party. He may have leverage to do that on some issues, or alternatively the rump of the Republican House Caucus that's interested in governance can pass some things with the Democrats if they get tired of (not) working with the idiots who make up the majority of their caucus. That would probably be trade agreements, maybe some infrastructure stuff, maybe immigration reform, maybe some tinkering with the ACA.
Beyond that it would be down to whatever she can push through from the Executive side. Probably stronger worker protections, better environmental and labor regulation, financial system oversight, criminal justice reform. Maybe a closer look at gerrymandering in the states?
Foreign policy: not too different from the Obama years -- generally intelligent or at least not openly stupid like W.'s policies, but with a heavy hand on militarism as opposed to international development. And of course if she gets a couple liberals on the Supreme Court replacing conservatives or moderates, some progressive movement could happen through the judiciary as well.
It'll be a regrouping term, I think. The main energy is going to need to be in political reform ahead of the 2020 census and redistricting. Barring the utter collapse of the Republican Party into competing factions (which I think is possible -- their divisions are not going to get better after they lose the election this year), Democrats are not going to get the House back until at least 2020.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:45 PM on February 4, 2016
I think the fact that Clinton is polling so poorly among Independents and young Democrats should be taken into consideration when her campaign hinges so heavily on her electability.
Shouldn't the fact that Sanders is polling so poorly among older Democrats (who vote reliably) also be taken into consideration?
posted by Justinian at 10:48 PM on February 4, 2016
Shouldn't the fact that Sanders is polling so poorly among older Democrats (who vote reliably) also be taken into consideration?
posted by Justinian at 10:48 PM on February 4, 2016
On the other hand, if Sen. Sanders is elected, I think it will be because of mass turnout from previously disaffected people and that could very well lead to a Democratic House.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:50 PM on February 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:50 PM on February 4, 2016 [7 favorites]
Fixed that.
Could Obama have done what he did without superPAC support? And would he have received superPAC support if he had not been who he was? (Which is to say totally cool with big money and its influences?)
Sanders has been endorsed by MoveOn. He might not want Super PAC support, but he’s definitely getting it. That said, my statement was more about tone of your passage than anything else. That sentence could have been an Obama supporter eight years ago, or a Dean supporter before that. As Ezra Klein aptly put it, “there’s never been anything audacious about hope.” It’s the same ride we’ve been on before, but with an old white dude.
I certainly don’t know that Clinton is a slam-dunk in the general, but -at least at present- it seems reasonable to think that, demographically, Iowa is pretty heavy Sanders country and all he got was a tie. While it’s certainly a good story that he got up to 50%, it’s hardly one that suggests that the rest of the country -or the party- will want what he’s selling.
Change is a long, slow slog. If you’re certain that Sanders not getting the nomination is going to make you give up hope, you’re going to be losing it soon anyway.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:53 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Could Obama have done what he did without superPAC support? And would he have received superPAC support if he had not been who he was? (Which is to say totally cool with big money and its influences?)
Sanders has been endorsed by MoveOn. He might not want Super PAC support, but he’s definitely getting it. That said, my statement was more about tone of your passage than anything else. That sentence could have been an Obama supporter eight years ago, or a Dean supporter before that. As Ezra Klein aptly put it, “there’s never been anything audacious about hope.” It’s the same ride we’ve been on before, but with an old white dude.
I certainly don’t know that Clinton is a slam-dunk in the general, but -at least at present- it seems reasonable to think that, demographically, Iowa is pretty heavy Sanders country and all he got was a tie. While it’s certainly a good story that he got up to 50%, it’s hardly one that suggests that the rest of the country -or the party- will want what he’s selling.
Change is a long, slow slog. If you’re certain that Sanders not getting the nomination is going to make you give up hope, you’re going to be losing it soon anyway.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:53 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
Justinian, yes -- but I think the older, reliably Democratic-voting folks will still turn out to vote for Sen. Sanders if he's the nominee, no? It's hard to think that there are many reliably Democratic voters at all who will stay home, or vote Republican, if he is nominated but who would come out to vote for Sec. Clinton.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:54 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:54 PM on February 4, 2016
Frankly, my hope is that Sanders crashes and burns but, a la the Velvet Underground’s first album, everyone who worked on his campaign will run for office themselves.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:54 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:54 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have no hopes of turning the House until 2020. Census and gerrymandering and all that. My hope is that whoever wins, they have a good constructive first term and can convince enough people to come back in 2020 so that there are more people voting downticket for state offices. 2010 was a bad year for the census because it was a midterm and the party in power always loses ground in a midterm. Being against something is much more motivating than being for something a lot of the time. 2020 is a general election where people that only vote in presidential elections will be voting. Higher turnout is usually good for democrats.
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:01 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by downtohisturtles at 11:01 PM on February 4, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know if a Democratic President will be able to win in 2020 because there isn't any available path I can see to a constructive term starting in 2016. The Republicans can still say no on everything, the public will still blame the President for everything. The political revolution needs to happen. That doesn't mean you have to vote Bernie, but I sure hope everybody focuses on that political revolution goal as soon as Hillary's inauguration happens. If there isn't a revolution to give the President the votes they need, progress isn't going to happen.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:06 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 11:06 PM on February 4, 2016 [2 favorites]
When Sanders is talking about fair trade, he means tariffs, right? Because I don't see any other way to keep manufacturing jobs in the US.
posted by FJT at 11:35 PM on February 4, 2016
posted by FJT at 11:35 PM on February 4, 2016
he’s no good at compromise & hence will be ineffective in the long run,
I would offer the counter example of S. 2782 (113th): A bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to improve the Federal charter for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and for other purposes.
This was actually and amazing piece of legislation for Senator Sanders to get passed. It was co-sponsored by Senator McCain, and passed OUR MESSED UP SENATE by like 97-3.
Anyone who says that Sanders doesn't play well with others simply hasn't looked at his record. And I would suggest his record on getting amendments into bills, which is the real heavy lifting of legislation.
posted by mikelieman at 12:52 AM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
I would offer the counter example of S. 2782 (113th): A bill to amend title 36, United States Code, to improve the Federal charter for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and for other purposes.
This was actually and amazing piece of legislation for Senator Sanders to get passed. It was co-sponsored by Senator McCain, and passed OUR MESSED UP SENATE by like 97-3.
Anyone who says that Sanders doesn't play well with others simply hasn't looked at his record. And I would suggest his record on getting amendments into bills, which is the real heavy lifting of legislation.
posted by mikelieman at 12:52 AM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm young so maybe someone else could chime in, but if Bernie's perfect storm of a campaign can't elect a president, are things really going to change ever?
Excellent question. First of all, about the likelihood about Bernie winning the election: it's not going to happen. How do I know this? Because the system is rigged such that even if Bernie won every state vote, he could still lose the primary. How? Clinton controls all the superdelegates, who are Democratic party loyalists, i.e. defecting from Hillary over their dead bodies. To win, Bernie would have to have such a crushing, overwhelming electoral victory over Clinton such that he overcomes the deficit of Clinton having about 1/3 of the delegates she needs to win before a single primary vote is cast.
Nobody said that was fair, but Bernie signed up for those rules when he decided to run as a candidate in the Democratic Party. We have also seen additional drawbacks that he faces: for instance, the fact that the head of the DNC is a former Clinton campaign co-chair, who has been scheduling few debates at unpopular times to minimize Sanders' exposure. Another drawback is Sanders refusing to take money from SuperPACs and corporations. Etc.
Additionally, Bernie's approach to countering Clinton seems curious at first blush. He refuses to make pointed criticisms of her; he refers to this as "not running a negative campaign" or some such. And it is painful watching these debates as a leftie since there is so much that he could be nailing Clinton on; it's practically served up on a silver platter to him. For instance, when the Goldwater campaign was brought up last night Bernie could have pointed out that he was participating in the Civil Rights movement while Hillary was supporting a candidate (Goldwater) that opposed it. Or in foreign policy he could have raised how ISIS has followed everywhere that Clinton supported the US intervening, from Iraq to Libya. Or her skullduggery in Haiti and Honduras, or her crypto-right wing attitude on abortion, etc. etc. etc. But in these debates, he seems to say "I agree" more than "I disagree."
This makes a lot more sense if one sees Bernie's candidacy as an effort to corral disaffected voters into the Democratic party, rather than a sincere challenge to the establishment (some have called this "sheepdogging"). Bernie has declared that he will support whoever wins the Democratic primary in the presidential election. When Bernie loses the primary, as he almost certainly will, his supporters will have no major party alternative to Clinton, who Bernie will have endorsed by then. Even as Hillary tacks right to counter the Republican candidate, Sanders voters will still be bullied into supporting him by a "lesser of two evils" argument that paints the Republican candidate as fascistic (this rhetoric always recurs in Democratic-friendly circles about every four years). So the winner in all this is Hillary and the Democrats, and the loser is progressivism (to say nothing of socialism).
All of this is a roundabout way of getting to your original question: change does not happen through fielding candidates in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has the deserved reputation for being the "graveyard of social movements." Every attempt to reform the party from the inside (e.g. Maoists entering the Jesse Jackson campaign) has failed miserably. On the other hand, attempts to pressure the Democrats (or the political establishment, generally) from the outside have been more successful. The CIO agitating for workers' rights, the Civil Rights movement and 60s urban riots, etc. Another way to see this is the fact that presidents who had as diverse (and relatively conservative) views as Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson did sign into law programs that are considered progressive.
I think it also helps to take a historical view. There are long periods (we have been living through one in the US for some time) where political change proceeds relatively slowly, if at all, and the masses are relatively quiescent. But! There are also periods of great change and ferment in which transformations previously thought impossible occur in the blink of an eye. We have seen some of these upheavals occur in our own lifetime: the Arab Spring, for instance. And we can also see examples in history of even more profound change taking place: e.g. the Russian Revolution. Not every change needs to come through the established political system, and the most dramatic ones never can.
The failure of the Bernie Sanders campaign will illustrate starkly the inherent limits of the Democratic Party and the US political system. This is why socialist groups are salivating over Bernie's demise. The failure of liberals to address the persistent social problems in America is going to make many motivated, idealistic people turn to political alternatives.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:15 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Excellent question. First of all, about the likelihood about Bernie winning the election: it's not going to happen. How do I know this? Because the system is rigged such that even if Bernie won every state vote, he could still lose the primary. How? Clinton controls all the superdelegates, who are Democratic party loyalists, i.e. defecting from Hillary over their dead bodies. To win, Bernie would have to have such a crushing, overwhelming electoral victory over Clinton such that he overcomes the deficit of Clinton having about 1/3 of the delegates she needs to win before a single primary vote is cast.
Nobody said that was fair, but Bernie signed up for those rules when he decided to run as a candidate in the Democratic Party. We have also seen additional drawbacks that he faces: for instance, the fact that the head of the DNC is a former Clinton campaign co-chair, who has been scheduling few debates at unpopular times to minimize Sanders' exposure. Another drawback is Sanders refusing to take money from SuperPACs and corporations. Etc.
Additionally, Bernie's approach to countering Clinton seems curious at first blush. He refuses to make pointed criticisms of her; he refers to this as "not running a negative campaign" or some such. And it is painful watching these debates as a leftie since there is so much that he could be nailing Clinton on; it's practically served up on a silver platter to him. For instance, when the Goldwater campaign was brought up last night Bernie could have pointed out that he was participating in the Civil Rights movement while Hillary was supporting a candidate (Goldwater) that opposed it. Or in foreign policy he could have raised how ISIS has followed everywhere that Clinton supported the US intervening, from Iraq to Libya. Or her skullduggery in Haiti and Honduras, or her crypto-right wing attitude on abortion, etc. etc. etc. But in these debates, he seems to say "I agree" more than "I disagree."
This makes a lot more sense if one sees Bernie's candidacy as an effort to corral disaffected voters into the Democratic party, rather than a sincere challenge to the establishment (some have called this "sheepdogging"). Bernie has declared that he will support whoever wins the Democratic primary in the presidential election. When Bernie loses the primary, as he almost certainly will, his supporters will have no major party alternative to Clinton, who Bernie will have endorsed by then. Even as Hillary tacks right to counter the Republican candidate, Sanders voters will still be bullied into supporting him by a "lesser of two evils" argument that paints the Republican candidate as fascistic (this rhetoric always recurs in Democratic-friendly circles about every four years). So the winner in all this is Hillary and the Democrats, and the loser is progressivism (to say nothing of socialism).
All of this is a roundabout way of getting to your original question: change does not happen through fielding candidates in the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has the deserved reputation for being the "graveyard of social movements." Every attempt to reform the party from the inside (e.g. Maoists entering the Jesse Jackson campaign) has failed miserably. On the other hand, attempts to pressure the Democrats (or the political establishment, generally) from the outside have been more successful. The CIO agitating for workers' rights, the Civil Rights movement and 60s urban riots, etc. Another way to see this is the fact that presidents who had as diverse (and relatively conservative) views as Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson did sign into law programs that are considered progressive.
I think it also helps to take a historical view. There are long periods (we have been living through one in the US for some time) where political change proceeds relatively slowly, if at all, and the masses are relatively quiescent. But! There are also periods of great change and ferment in which transformations previously thought impossible occur in the blink of an eye. We have seen some of these upheavals occur in our own lifetime: the Arab Spring, for instance. And we can also see examples in history of even more profound change taking place: e.g. the Russian Revolution. Not every change needs to come through the established political system, and the most dramatic ones never can.
The failure of the Bernie Sanders campaign will illustrate starkly the inherent limits of the Democratic Party and the US political system. This is why socialist groups are salivating over Bernie's demise. The failure of liberals to address the persistent social problems in America is going to make many motivated, idealistic people turn to political alternatives.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:15 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders has been endorsed by MoveOn. He might not want Super PAC support, but he’s definitely getting it.
One minor point here is that MoveOn let their members decide who to endorse and if a candidate didn't get at least 2/3 support they wouldn't endorse anyone. Most Super PACs aren't like that. Also, this was a fairly recent development. Not like they were created to support Bernie. Last, their mission isn't to be a Super PAC for Bernie (even if they are supporting him). They are out there advocating for progressive ideals. They would have thrown their weight behind Hillary if her supporters were members of MoveOn and bothered to vote.
So I don't see MoveOn as a Bernie Super PAC.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:18 AM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
One minor point here is that MoveOn let their members decide who to endorse and if a candidate didn't get at least 2/3 support they wouldn't endorse anyone. Most Super PACs aren't like that. Also, this was a fairly recent development. Not like they were created to support Bernie. Last, their mission isn't to be a Super PAC for Bernie (even if they are supporting him). They are out there advocating for progressive ideals. They would have thrown their weight behind Hillary if her supporters were members of MoveOn and bothered to vote.
So I don't see MoveOn as a Bernie Super PAC.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:18 AM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
For instance, when the Goldwater campaign was brought up last night Bernie could have pointed out that he was participating in the Civil Rights movement while Hillary was supporting a candidate (Goldwater) that opposed it.
She was a kid, yo. That would be a really dumb thing to bring up.
her crypto-right wing attitude on abortion
?
posted by Drinky Die at 7:23 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
She was a kid, yo. That would be a really dumb thing to bring up.
her crypto-right wing attitude on abortion
?
posted by Drinky Die at 7:23 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Frankly, my hope is that Sanders crashes and burns but, a la the Velvet Underground’s first album, everyone who worked on his campaign will run for office themselves.
Ah, I remember when that was supposed to happen with the Dean campaign.
posted by Miko at 7:24 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ah, I remember when that was supposed to happen with the Dean campaign.
posted by Miko at 7:24 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton controls all the superdelegates
If her campaign needs them to win the nomination, prepare for some alienated voters fed up with a rigged system. Not saying it's right, but there it is.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:32 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
If her campaign needs them to win the nomination, prepare for some alienated voters fed up with a rigged system. Not saying it's right, but there it is.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 7:32 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
First of all, about the likelihood about Bernie winning the election: it's not going to happen.
Super Delegates aren't bound until the final party convention. If there is huge support for Bernie, and if he wins the majority of the primaries, having the party then go with Hillary would be party suicide. Seriously, who would ever trust them again? Who would give them money? It would fracture the party so severely it would never recover. Even Hillary wouldn't allow that.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:35 AM on February 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
Super Delegates aren't bound until the final party convention. If there is huge support for Bernie, and if he wins the majority of the primaries, having the party then go with Hillary would be party suicide. Seriously, who would ever trust them again? Who would give them money? It would fracture the party so severely it would never recover. Even Hillary wouldn't allow that.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:35 AM on February 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
Yeah, super delegates went for Obama in 2008 that had previously given allegiance to Clinton. It's not unreasonable to think that a significant fraction will go for Sanders if he performs well in the primaries and caucuses.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 7:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm young so maybe someone else could chime in, but if Bernie's perfect storm of a campaign can't elect a president, are things really going to change ever?
This seems like a perfect storm because you're part of it, but it's not a really large number of people in the context of American presidential-electoral politics. It ain't nothing, for sure, but this is not like "old people" or "African Americans" or "southern whites."
You're young, so it feels like if this doesn't happen nothing now nothing will ever happen. But that's not how it works. Look at the religious crazypants brigade in the GOP -- they didn't get there by all showing up in one election and then there was a president who liked them and that was it.
They got there by showing up repeatedly for Republican primary contests for decades. And by having people from that demographic run for school boards, and then for county commissions, and then for state legislatures, and now winning seats in the US House and Senate and running meaningful presidential campaigns (though of course something like 75-90% of them probably flamed out at each stage of that process). It works; it just takes a long time. But the real answer if you want to see the changes you prefer isn't to show up once and then go away if it doesn't work. It's to keep showing up even though it doesn't seem to work and to actually be the politicians you want to vote for instead of just hoping they'll show up.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
This seems like a perfect storm because you're part of it, but it's not a really large number of people in the context of American presidential-electoral politics. It ain't nothing, for sure, but this is not like "old people" or "African Americans" or "southern whites."
You're young, so it feels like if this doesn't happen nothing now nothing will ever happen. But that's not how it works. Look at the religious crazypants brigade in the GOP -- they didn't get there by all showing up in one election and then there was a president who liked them and that was it.
They got there by showing up repeatedly for Republican primary contests for decades. And by having people from that demographic run for school boards, and then for county commissions, and then for state legislatures, and now winning seats in the US House and Senate and running meaningful presidential campaigns (though of course something like 75-90% of them probably flamed out at each stage of that process). It works; it just takes a long time. But the real answer if you want to see the changes you prefer isn't to show up once and then go away if it doesn't work. It's to keep showing up even though it doesn't seem to work and to actually be the politicians you want to vote for instead of just hoping they'll show up.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has dramatically cut into the nationwide lead of primary rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll.
The poll released Friday finds Clinton leading the race with 44 percent support, compared to 42 percent support for Sanders, within the survey's margin of error.
The last iteration of the poll in December had Clinton leading Sanders nationwide by a 61-30 point margin.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The poll released Friday finds Clinton leading the race with 44 percent support, compared to 42 percent support for Sanders, within the survey's margin of error.
The last iteration of the poll in December had Clinton leading Sanders nationwide by a 61-30 point margin.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
We don't vote nationally.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:45 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:45 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hillary believes abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." "Rare" is conceding waaaaaay too much to the right-wing.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:45 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:45 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Another drawback is Sanders refusing to take money from SuperPACs and corporations. Etc.
Just to say that this is more complex than that, and that refusing to take money from these groups is easy.
You can't take money from superpacs. At all. Ever. Superpacs are groups that take money in and buy ads (etc) themselves without your consent or approval. Obviously that distinction fades when Candidate A creates a superpac to support them as opposed to independent ones like MoveOn, but it's still the case that no campaign can actually receive money from a superpac.
Likewise, refusing to take money from corporations doesn't put any real limits on you. The amount that a corporation itself can give to any campaign is exactly $0. What corporations can do is set up PACs that take in money from individuals and dole it back out to candidates in ways that speak with the company's voice. But these are also limited, and the limit is low enough -- this year it's $10K for the election cycle -- that it's totally inconsequential in a presidential race. They large amounts of money you usually see thrown around are almost always campaign donations from people who happen to work at those companies, or (IIRC) people who are married to people who work at those companies. This is why companies often look scatterbrained, "donating" lots of money to both candidates at once, and how government agencies "donate" to campaigns.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:53 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Just to say that this is more complex than that, and that refusing to take money from these groups is easy.
You can't take money from superpacs. At all. Ever. Superpacs are groups that take money in and buy ads (etc) themselves without your consent or approval. Obviously that distinction fades when Candidate A creates a superpac to support them as opposed to independent ones like MoveOn, but it's still the case that no campaign can actually receive money from a superpac.
Likewise, refusing to take money from corporations doesn't put any real limits on you. The amount that a corporation itself can give to any campaign is exactly $0. What corporations can do is set up PACs that take in money from individuals and dole it back out to candidates in ways that speak with the company's voice. But these are also limited, and the limit is low enough -- this year it's $10K for the election cycle -- that it's totally inconsequential in a presidential race. They large amounts of money you usually see thrown around are almost always campaign donations from people who happen to work at those companies, or (IIRC) people who are married to people who work at those companies. This is why companies often look scatterbrained, "donating" lots of money to both candidates at once, and how government agencies "donate" to campaigns.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:53 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Rare" is conceding waaaaaay too much to the right-wing.
I think that view is out of the mainstream even on the left.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:59 AM on February 5, 2016
I think that view is out of the mainstream even on the left.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:59 AM on February 5, 2016
Hillary believes abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." "Rare" is conceding waaaaaay too much to the right-wing.
In an ideal world, wouldn't women have enough education about and access to birth control that abortion would become rarer? For that reason, this framing doesn't really bother me.
And, honestly - there are people who support the right to abortion and yet believe that abortion is tragic. Not murder, but a tragic and regrettable necessity. I don't agree with that stance, but I can't bring myself to hate on those people. Anyone who supports the right to abortion, no matter what else they think about it, is just fine by me. They've thought about the issue and come down on the same side of it as me, despite our differences, and we're going to need more people in this country to do that if we want to really secure the right to abortion for everyone.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:14 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
In an ideal world, wouldn't women have enough education about and access to birth control that abortion would become rarer? For that reason, this framing doesn't really bother me.
And, honestly - there are people who support the right to abortion and yet believe that abortion is tragic. Not murder, but a tragic and regrettable necessity. I don't agree with that stance, but I can't bring myself to hate on those people. Anyone who supports the right to abortion, no matter what else they think about it, is just fine by me. They've thought about the issue and come down on the same side of it as me, despite our differences, and we're going to need more people in this country to do that if we want to really secure the right to abortion for everyone.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:14 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hillary believes abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." "Rare" is conceding waaaaaay too much to the right-wing.
From the article: "We don't say that we want heart bypasses to be rare. We say we want people to be healthy," Herold said.
But no one is campaigning to limit people's access specifically to heart bypasses. The "safe, legal and rare" formulation is shorthand for "safe, legal, and by the way, women should have access to birth control and health care (and not be subject to rape) to the extent that there are many fewer unwanted pregnancies or easily preventable fetal health issues".
posted by Etrigan at 8:15 AM on February 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
From the article: "We don't say that we want heart bypasses to be rare. We say we want people to be healthy," Herold said.
But no one is campaigning to limit people's access specifically to heart bypasses. The "safe, legal and rare" formulation is shorthand for "safe, legal, and by the way, women should have access to birth control and health care (and not be subject to rape) to the extent that there are many fewer unwanted pregnancies or easily preventable fetal health issues".
posted by Etrigan at 8:15 AM on February 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think that view is out of the mainstream even on the left.
Eh, there are a lot of people on the left who think that any opinion on the frequency or rarity of abortion is a judgment on women who have abortions. It also gets close to the Kennedy women-always-regret-an-abortion thing. It's a common but outdated phrasing. But I don't think any of these people will fail to support Clinton in the general because of that.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:18 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Eh, there are a lot of people on the left who think that any opinion on the frequency or rarity of abortion is a judgment on women who have abortions. It also gets close to the Kennedy women-always-regret-an-abortion thing. It's a common but outdated phrasing. But I don't think any of these people will fail to support Clinton in the general because of that.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:18 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
What would be a less outdated phrasing?
posted by Going To Maine at 8:32 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 8:32 AM on February 5, 2016
I'm sure some messaging/PR person could come up with something better, but "Access to safe, legal abortion is a human right" would be a good start.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:38 AM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 8:38 AM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
I would really like to see some questions in these debates on reproductive rights (what are their thoughts on Hyde, Helms, the ban on D&X, women prosecuted for self-induced abortions, etc). I think there's a lot of nuance to be had even on the left and I want to hear about that. They could have even tied it in to foreign relations w/ the Zika issue.
I also want to hear more about Clinton's college plan. I personally don't like the whole "I don't want to pay for Donald Trump's kids" thing that she's said multiple times. Education is a right of the child, regardless of who their parents are. I've known multiple people who were stuck in abusive home situations because they needed their parents to continue paying their tuition (and the issue comes up with some frequency on the green) - someone shouldn't have to make that choice.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:39 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
I also want to hear more about Clinton's college plan. I personally don't like the whole "I don't want to pay for Donald Trump's kids" thing that she's said multiple times. Education is a right of the child, regardless of who their parents are. I've known multiple people who were stuck in abusive home situations because they needed their parents to continue paying their tuition (and the issue comes up with some frequency on the green) - someone shouldn't have to make that choice.
posted by melissasaurus at 8:39 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
One perspective on why not to call for 'rare' abortion: Weitz wrote that calling for abortions to be rare has tangible negative consequences for women and women's health because it legitimizes efforts to legally restrict abortion – i.e., make it more "rare". Worse yet, it "negates the mandates for routine training in abortion", since students and teachers wonder why they should get medical training for something that supposedly should be rare.
.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:41 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:41 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
This is why companies often look scatterbrained, "donating" lots of money to both candidates at once, and how government agencies "donate" to campaigns.
That was a great clarification. To add to the above, at the same time, many companies do this intentionally, so as to have friends on both sides of the aisle.
posted by Miko at 8:54 AM on February 5, 2016
That was a great clarification. To add to the above, at the same time, many companies do this intentionally, so as to have friends on both sides of the aisle.
posted by Miko at 8:54 AM on February 5, 2016
Obama’s First Mosque Visit Is One Mosque Visit Too Many for Marco Rubio
posted by zombieflanders at 8:57 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 8:57 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today: he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims....It's this constant pitting people against each other that I can't stand.
Tell it to Trump, bro.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:01 AM on February 5, 2016
Tell it to Trump, bro.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:01 AM on February 5, 2016
Look at today: he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims
I know right? I've always said: the best way to show that America is not discriminatory towards Muslims is to never visit a mosque, and certainly never ask American Muslims for their perspective on America's current problems.
posted by dis_integration at 9:07 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know right? I've always said: the best way to show that America is not discriminatory towards Muslims is to never visit a mosque, and certainly never ask American Muslims for their perspective on America's current problems.
posted by dis_integration at 9:07 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why Were Reproductive Rights Left Out Of Last Night’s Democratic Debate?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:07 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:07 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
This must be why Republicans only talk to men about women's issues, and white people about race. To make sure they're not being discriminatory.
posted by dis_integration at 9:09 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by dis_integration at 9:09 AM on February 5, 2016
Get back to me when there's unrestricted access to contraception. We're back to single payer, universal coverage, because then the religious nuts can STFU...
posted by mikelieman at 9:12 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 9:12 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Only in America can you be completely and utterly wrong about every major foreign policy decision and still be considered "good on foreign policy." Meanwhile, those who make the correct judgments and even correctly predict what the outcome of the bad decisions will be are viewed as "not that good on foreign policy." It's mind boggling and can only be interpreted as a testament to the propaganda of the military-industrial-congressional-media complex.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:28 AM on February 5, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:28 AM on February 5, 2016 [18 favorites]
When Sanders is talking about fair trade, he means tariffs, right? Because I don't see any other way to keep manufacturing jobs in the US.
These deals like TPP are not fair trade deals. They are deals written by and for corporations for their own benefit. There is nothing "fair" about them. Banish the word "fair" from your vocabulary when talking about trade deals.
A true fair trade deal would eliminate the biggest tariffs that exist. Deals like the TPP do not. The worst tariffs are the ones that are structural, not explicit.
For example trade laws that do not enforce environmental laws in foreign countries are effectively a tariff on U.S. produced goods that makes U.S. goods more expensive and foreign goods cheaper. It also ruins the health of foreign workers for corporate profit.
Trade laws that do not enforce union rights in other countries are a tariff on goods produced by U.S. workers making them more expensive than foreign goods. It reduces the bargaining rights of foreign workers.
Trade laws that do not enforce rules against currency manipulation make goods produced by U.S. workers more expensive. Currency manipulation of exchange rates is quite simply a broad tariff on all goods. A 40% change in exchange rates is exactly the same as a 40% tariff.
Expansion of intellectual property laws is anything but free trade. Patents and copyrights are government enforced monopolies that rig prices at anything but free market rates. IP laws are extremely high tariffs that can reach 1000% or more for pharmaceuticals, for example.
All of these are tariffs that are not called tariffs but have exactly the same effect. They raise the cost of U.S. produced goods, put U.S. wage earners out of work and encourage corporations to move jobs overseas.
So, yes, you could say that Bernie Sanders is very much opposed to tariffs if he opposes the TPP. Trade deals that have imposed these sorts of tariffs above are responsible for the loss of millions of U.S. jobs.
posted by JackFlash at 9:36 AM on February 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
These deals like TPP are not fair trade deals. They are deals written by and for corporations for their own benefit. There is nothing "fair" about them. Banish the word "fair" from your vocabulary when talking about trade deals.
A true fair trade deal would eliminate the biggest tariffs that exist. Deals like the TPP do not. The worst tariffs are the ones that are structural, not explicit.
For example trade laws that do not enforce environmental laws in foreign countries are effectively a tariff on U.S. produced goods that makes U.S. goods more expensive and foreign goods cheaper. It also ruins the health of foreign workers for corporate profit.
Trade laws that do not enforce union rights in other countries are a tariff on goods produced by U.S. workers making them more expensive than foreign goods. It reduces the bargaining rights of foreign workers.
Trade laws that do not enforce rules against currency manipulation make goods produced by U.S. workers more expensive. Currency manipulation of exchange rates is quite simply a broad tariff on all goods. A 40% change in exchange rates is exactly the same as a 40% tariff.
Expansion of intellectual property laws is anything but free trade. Patents and copyrights are government enforced monopolies that rig prices at anything but free market rates. IP laws are extremely high tariffs that can reach 1000% or more for pharmaceuticals, for example.
All of these are tariffs that are not called tariffs but have exactly the same effect. They raise the cost of U.S. produced goods, put U.S. wage earners out of work and encourage corporations to move jobs overseas.
So, yes, you could say that Bernie Sanders is very much opposed to tariffs if he opposes the TPP. Trade deals that have imposed these sorts of tariffs above are responsible for the loss of millions of U.S. jobs.
posted by JackFlash at 9:36 AM on February 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
Meanwhile, those who make the correct judgments and even correctly predict what the outcome of the bad decisions will be are viewed as "not that good on foreign policy."
Yeah, the Iraq war vote is still really important to me, and I think it's important to a lot of progressives in their late 20s or early 30s. For many of us, protesting the Iraq war in 2002-03 was the first engaged political action of our adult lives. We marched, we wrote letters, we begged our politicians to vote against it. And it happened anyway. And it was a disaster. It wasn't just Bernie Sanders with some unique insight - millions of Americans pleaded with Congress/Bush to not go to war.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [19 favorites]
Yeah, the Iraq war vote is still really important to me, and I think it's important to a lot of progressives in their late 20s or early 30s. For many of us, protesting the Iraq war in 2002-03 was the first engaged political action of our adult lives. We marched, we wrote letters, we begged our politicians to vote against it. And it happened anyway. And it was a disaster. It wasn't just Bernie Sanders with some unique insight - millions of Americans pleaded with Congress/Bush to not go to war.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [19 favorites]
For example trade laws that do not enforce environmental laws in foreign countries are effectively a tariff on U.S. produced goods that makes U.S. goods more expensive and foreign goods cheaper.
The TPP absolutely embraces this idea. It provides a means (ISDS) to challenge laws that interfere with corporate profits.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:51 AM on February 5, 2016
The TPP absolutely embraces this idea. It provides a means (ISDS) to challenge laws that interfere with corporate profits.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 9:51 AM on February 5, 2016
It wasn't just Bernie Sanders with some unique insight
That's true, but among people running for President he was. And as evidenced in this thread we still have people who think he's not that good on foreign policy while thinking Clinton is.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:58 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's true, but among people running for President he was. And as evidenced in this thread we still have people who think he's not that good on foreign policy while thinking Clinton is.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:58 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Totally agree. I just mean that when people try to write off Clinton's (or anyone's) vote as seemed-reasonable-at-the-time-based-on-the-evidence, it really flies in the face of the fact that millions of people protested it at the time. Sanders didn't just get lucky, he was right, and so were millions of Americans.
posted by melissasaurus at 10:02 AM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 10:02 AM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yeah, the Iraq war vote is still really important to me, and I think it's important to a lot of progressives in their late 20s or early 30s. For many of us, protesting the Iraq war in 2002-03 was the first engaged political action of our adult lives. We marched, we wrote letters, we begged our politicians to vote against it. And it happened anyway. And it was a disaster. It wasn't just Bernie Sanders with some unique insight - millions of Americans pleaded with Congress/Bush to not go to war.
I mean, that's when I got pretty discouraged with the Democratic party in general - most Democrats, including HRC, were too weak to go against Bush and the war machine at all. And then we had this amazing progressive movement around Howard Dean, and he made a weird noise after doing surprisingly well at Iowa and that sank his campaign for shallow, stupid reasons and we got Kerry and four more years of Bush.
I think despite his non perfection Obama breathed some life back into Democrats by opposing the war and still becoming President, and making it okay to be progressive again.
But yeah Bernie Sanders was far from unique in his views on the war. Nor do I think he would be bad, at all, on foreign policy. But there's a lot of fallout to deal with in terms of policy and what's happened in the world since that 2003 vote on war, and that's where our focus on these candidates should be. As was said upthread, what about refugees? International aid? Etc?
We should never, ever, have been in that war or several of the wars that came before. I think it's important to think about what we're going to do now though.
posted by sweetkid at 10:02 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Only in America can you be completely and utterly wrong about every major foreign policy decision and still be considered “good on foreign policy.”
I question whether this is a case of American exceptionalism.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:05 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I question whether this is a case of American exceptionalism.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:05 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Howard Dean, and he made a weird noise
538: Why the Dean Scream Sounded So Different on TV
posted by melissasaurus at 10:06 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
538: Why the Dean Scream Sounded So Different on TV
posted by melissasaurus at 10:06 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
(Apart, I mean, from any questions about Clinton’s policy bonafides.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:06 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 10:06 AM on February 5, 2016
Yeah, the Iraq war vote is still really important to me, and I think it's important to a lot of progressives in their late 20s or early 30s.
I was enlisted in the Iowa National Guard at the time, so it was pretty important vote to me as well (remember, this was a war primarily fought by reservists). The war was also key in my getting the fuck out. I woke up one day and realized I might have to shoot some dumb fucker. Then I realized, worse, that same dumb fucker might have to shoot at me. I'm a logical guy, and it didn't take long before I decided from his perspective it was probably me who was the dumb fucker. One of us for sure had a choice whether to shoot or be shot at, so I got out. I know I am a better person for both having served and for having got out when I did. I occasionally hoist a drink to the guy I didn't have to shoot at and who never got a chance to shoot at me. No thanks to Clinton.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:08 AM on February 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
I was enlisted in the Iowa National Guard at the time, so it was pretty important vote to me as well (remember, this was a war primarily fought by reservists). The war was also key in my getting the fuck out. I woke up one day and realized I might have to shoot some dumb fucker. Then I realized, worse, that same dumb fucker might have to shoot at me. I'm a logical guy, and it didn't take long before I decided from his perspective it was probably me who was the dumb fucker. One of us for sure had a choice whether to shoot or be shot at, so I got out. I know I am a better person for both having served and for having got out when I did. I occasionally hoist a drink to the guy I didn't have to shoot at and who never got a chance to shoot at me. No thanks to Clinton.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:08 AM on February 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
Howard Dean, and he made a weird noise
538: Why the Dean Scream Sounded So Different on TV
posted by melissasaurus at 1:06 PM on February 5 [1 favorite +] [!]
I don't know that I totally agree with the thesis there - I do feel like the constant jokes about the scream hurt him worse than the third place finish.
I also like Dean's point that a lot of his fired up campaign staffers went on to help Obama win.
But basically, there are a lot of parallels between the Dean campaign and Sanders, except for the important point that Sanders brought better numbers in Iowa. However, the bench was more varied in 2004, with Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, etc...
I was early-mid 20s in 2004 so I feel like that was my version of the Sanders moment - I can see how a progressive candidate getting ideas out there can lead to a more moderate candidate implementing more incremental change over time. That's why the FOR SANDERS OR YOU'RE THE ENEMY crowd doesn't really get a lot of support from me.
Sanders himself, yes, I support. But Clinton, too! For reasons implied above.
posted by sweetkid at 10:23 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
538: Why the Dean Scream Sounded So Different on TV
Anyone that knows anything about audio can hear the clipping.
I'm also friends with the photographer that took the iconic photo of Dean at that moment (thumbnail in article, better one and story of photo in video). (Actually friends with both Wells and Gannon.)
[..] except for the important point that Sanders brought better numbers in Iowa.
Downside to this is Obama could get the support of candidates and their followers as these dropped from the race. Sanders has to peel them off from Clinton.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:27 AM on February 5, 2016
Anyone that knows anything about audio can hear the clipping.
I'm also friends with the photographer that took the iconic photo of Dean at that moment (thumbnail in article, better one and story of photo in video). (Actually friends with both Wells and Gannon.)
[..] except for the important point that Sanders brought better numbers in Iowa.
Downside to this is Obama could get the support of candidates and their followers as these dropped from the race. Sanders has to peel them off from Clinton.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:27 AM on February 5, 2016
I think the endorsement thing could be a tough one for Sanders. I don't see Obama campaigning for him as much as he would for Clinton, and of course Bill would be out.
posted by sweetkid at 10:52 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by sweetkid at 10:52 AM on February 5, 2016
I think the endorsement thing could be a tough one for Sanders.
I really wonder if any voter cares about endorsements, at all. I mean, Sanders is proudly running on the fact that Hillary has the establishment endorsements. It's a point of pride of his campaign. If he wins the nomination, of course President Obama will campaign for and with him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:55 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I really wonder if any voter cares about endorsements, at all. I mean, Sanders is proudly running on the fact that Hillary has the establishment endorsements. It's a point of pride of his campaign. If he wins the nomination, of course President Obama will campaign for and with him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:55 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think the endorsement thing could be a tough one for Sanders. I don't see Obama campaigning for him as much as he would for Clinton, and of course Bill would be out.
The current endorsement race score at 538 is 466 to 2. (Different classes of politicians are worth different numbers of points.) Of course, if Sanders seems competitive, maybe folks will flip? Certainly they would in the general…
posted by Going To Maine at 10:57 AM on February 5, 2016
The current endorsement race score at 538 is 466 to 2. (Different classes of politicians are worth different numbers of points.) Of course, if Sanders seems competitive, maybe folks will flip? Certainly they would in the general…
posted by Going To Maine at 10:57 AM on February 5, 2016
I mean, Sanders is proudly running on the fact that Hillary has the establishment endorsements.
When you’ve got nothing, make a big deal about it - think about Ted Cruz making it a point of pride that he’s so disliked.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:58 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
When you’ve got nothing, make a big deal about it - think about Ted Cruz making it a point of pride that he’s so disliked.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:58 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The sexist double standard behind why millennials love Bernie Sanders (Washington Post OpEd)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:59 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:59 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The endorsements boost the candidates' signal. It's not that voters care, it's about the signal boost.
posted by sweetkid at 11:05 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sweetkid at 11:05 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I don't think endorsements matter much, at least for the primary and at least when viewed in aggregate. I might look at some people whose opinion I respect and see who they're supporting, but I'm not really worried about which candidate has the higher total number of endorsements. Also, I think in this case, no one thought Bernie had a chance, so some may have endorsed Clinton prematurely.
of course Bill would be out.
I know he's supposed to be like this master politician and whatever, but I for one think he's gross and a rapist, so would prefer if he just stays out of it all together.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:05 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
of course Bill would be out.
I know he's supposed to be like this master politician and whatever, but I for one think he's gross and a rapist, so would prefer if he just stays out of it all together.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:05 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ultimately with some exceptions about foreign policy I feel like the major differences tend to be about strategy rather than goals.
Incrementalism vs Revolutionary change is an important conversation to have but what's fun is that at the end of the day most of the Democrats seem to be roughly aligned with overall goals. In relationship to the former tendency of the Democrats to be an unruly set of children in terms of public policy this is a really exciting change and has really been influenced by the development of online liberal communities and the increasing clout of activists in terms of shaping democratic policy.
In contrast the formerly monolithic Republican party seems to be fracturing on some really deep fissure lines with social conservatives and populists and business conservatives all presenting radically different opinions on governance (but still abhorrent to me personally). This would seem to suggest that the Republican party is on the verge of needing to restructure as their previous governing coalition is threatening to implode.
I'm finding alot of encouragement for the future state of the party and progressivism as a result of this primary season because I'm seeing a huge number of people basically being presented with a choice of progressive and centrist positions and we've seen pretty much a widespread "Duh let's go with the progressive position".
posted by vuron at 11:09 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Incrementalism vs Revolutionary change is an important conversation to have but what's fun is that at the end of the day most of the Democrats seem to be roughly aligned with overall goals. In relationship to the former tendency of the Democrats to be an unruly set of children in terms of public policy this is a really exciting change and has really been influenced by the development of online liberal communities and the increasing clout of activists in terms of shaping democratic policy.
In contrast the formerly monolithic Republican party seems to be fracturing on some really deep fissure lines with social conservatives and populists and business conservatives all presenting radically different opinions on governance (but still abhorrent to me personally). This would seem to suggest that the Republican party is on the verge of needing to restructure as their previous governing coalition is threatening to implode.
I'm finding alot of encouragement for the future state of the party and progressivism as a result of this primary season because I'm seeing a huge number of people basically being presented with a choice of progressive and centrist positions and we've seen pretty much a widespread "Duh let's go with the progressive position".
posted by vuron at 11:09 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The sexist double standard behind why millennials love Bernie Sanders (Washington Post OpEd)
The author is correct that a double standard exists that allows Sanders to get away with being unkempt. But I think she really overestimates how much that contributes to his image of authenticity. That image mostly comes from being perceived as being consistent on his positions and his political identity while Hillary is perceived as being politically opportunistic. It's not his hair, which actually has been kept much more in control lately as his entire campaign has evolved to be more polished, competitive, and professional than it was at the beginning. (Though it still needs to improve there.)
posted by Drinky Die at 11:11 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
The author is correct that a double standard exists that allows Sanders to get away with being unkempt. But I think she really overestimates how much that contributes to his image of authenticity. That image mostly comes from being perceived as being consistent on his positions and his political identity while Hillary is perceived as being politically opportunistic. It's not his hair, which actually has been kept much more in control lately as his entire campaign has evolved to be more polished, competitive, and professional than it was at the beginning. (Though it still needs to improve there.)
posted by Drinky Die at 11:11 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
see also: elizabeth warren.
posted by andrewcooke at 11:14 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 11:14 AM on February 5, 2016
Yeah, that's a big plate of disengenous fuck-all that fails to address any of Clintons very real downsides and instead misrepresenting them as problems of appearance or manner.
posted by Artw at 11:19 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 11:19 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
That article is super condescending to millennials/young voters/whatever and kind of pointless but it's still a valid point that HRC could not get away with messy hair. Trump made a big deal out of the fact that she went to the bathroom, for god's sake.
Sanders has had messy hair for approximately forever so it's part of his brand, but he's not like, dirty so there's no big deal there. However, yeah I think a woman is held to higher standards. Elizabeth Warren isn't as coiffed as Sanders, but her hair isn't messy.
posted by sweetkid at 11:25 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders has had messy hair for approximately forever so it's part of his brand, but he's not like, dirty so there's no big deal there. However, yeah I think a woman is held to higher standards. Elizabeth Warren isn't as coiffed as Sanders, but her hair isn't messy.
posted by sweetkid at 11:25 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I don't think endorsements matter much, at least for the primary and at least when viewed in aggregate.
I appreciate that sentiment, but have you seen those graphs on the 538 page. The endorsement primary is a pretty darn solid indicator of who’s going to end up winning, and Sanders is underperforming everyone. It’s either the revolution or he loses.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:25 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I appreciate that sentiment, but have you seen those graphs on the 538 page. The endorsement primary is a pretty darn solid indicator of who’s going to end up winning, and Sanders is underperforming everyone. It’s either the revolution or he loses.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:25 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Imagine a female candidate that was Chris Christie fat.
posted by peeedro at 11:26 AM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 11:26 AM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
For example trade laws that do not enforce environmental laws in foreign countries are effectively a tariff on U.S. produced goods that makes U.S. goods more expensive and foreign goods cheaper. It also ruins the health of foreign workers for corporate profit.
If the West were willing to provide clean industry technology and equipment cheaply, I would agree. It seems unfair if the West was able to go through a period of dirty industry (that contributed to the deindustrialization of now former colonies) in order to grow and advance their economies, and then turn around and put up barriers to prevent other countries from following a similar path.
posted by FJT at 11:29 AM on February 5, 2016
If the West were willing to provide clean industry technology and equipment cheaply, I would agree. It seems unfair if the West was able to go through a period of dirty industry (that contributed to the deindustrialization of now former colonies) in order to grow and advance their economies, and then turn around and put up barriers to prevent other countries from following a similar path.
posted by FJT at 11:29 AM on February 5, 2016
I really wonder if any voter cares about endorsements, at all.
Not traditionally. In fact, many are suggesting getting the endorsement of The Des Moines register hurt both Clinton and Rubio. Having the media that was ignoring Sanders only a couple months ago throw its support behind his opponent helps his narrative (disclaimer: worked for DMR for 13 years).
Also, you have an interesting study on how support between candidates are playing out:
Bernie Sanders Gets Group Endorsements When Members Decide; Hillary Clinton When Leaders Decide
Which would you rather have? The endorsement of the Teachers Union or the votes of the teachers? The endorsement of some celebrity or the votes of their fans?
posted by cjorgensen at 11:32 AM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Not traditionally. In fact, many are suggesting getting the endorsement of The Des Moines register hurt both Clinton and Rubio. Having the media that was ignoring Sanders only a couple months ago throw its support behind his opponent helps his narrative (disclaimer: worked for DMR for 13 years).
Also, you have an interesting study on how support between candidates are playing out:
Bernie Sanders Gets Group Endorsements When Members Decide; Hillary Clinton When Leaders Decide
Which would you rather have? The endorsement of the Teachers Union or the votes of the teachers? The endorsement of some celebrity or the votes of their fans?
posted by cjorgensen at 11:32 AM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
The "West" was also able to amass wealth through a massive slave trade, but that doesn't mean every country should get "their" chance to have slaves. Obviously slavery or near slavery exists in much of the world today, but we shouldn't ignore it based on some strict adherence to historical fairness.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:32 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 11:32 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
It seems unfair if the West was able to go through a period of dirty industry (that contributed to the deindustrialization of now former colonies) in order to grow and advance their economies, and then turn around and put up barriers to prevent other countries from following a similar path.
So, wait. You think that U.S. companies are going overseas and building polluting and unsafe factories out of the goodness of their hearts to provide jobs for foreigners? No, they are doing it because poisoning and killing their employees is more profitable than building factories with the safety standards of the U.S.
posted by JackFlash at 11:37 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
So, wait. You think that U.S. companies are going overseas and building polluting and unsafe factories out of the goodness of their hearts to provide jobs for foreigners? No, they are doing it because poisoning and killing their employees is more profitable than building factories with the safety standards of the U.S.
posted by JackFlash at 11:37 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
in order to grow and advance their economies
I thought this meant Western economies, unless I am misunderstanding.
posted by sweetkid at 11:42 AM on February 5, 2016
I thought this meant Western economies, unless I am misunderstanding.
posted by sweetkid at 11:42 AM on February 5, 2016
Here’s What Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speaking Contract Looks Like
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:43 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Dana Milbank: The nastiness of Ted Cruz
When Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) last month mocked Donald Trump’s “New York values,” it wasn’t entirely clear what he was implying.posted by zombieflanders at 11:44 AM on February 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
This week we got a clue: For Cruz, “New York” is another way of saying “Jewish.”
At an event in New Hampshire this week, Cruz, the Republican Iowa caucus winner, was asked about campaign money he and his wife borrowed from Goldman Sachs. Cruz, asserting that Trump had “upward of $480 million of loans from giant Wall Street banks,” said: “For him to make this attack, to use a New York term, it’s the height of chutzpah.” Cruz, pausing for laughter after the phrase “New York term,” exaggerated the guttural “ch” to more laughter and applause.
But chutzpah, of course, is not a “New York” term. It’s a Yiddish — a Jewish — one. And using “New York” as a euphemism for Jewish has long been an anti-Semitic dog-whistle.
Sanders supporters banned from Tinder after campaigning on dating app
Two women - one from Iowa and the other from New Jersey - confirmed to Reuters on Friday that they received notices from Tinder in the previous 24 hours that their accounts were locked because they had been reported too many times for peppering men on the site with messages promoting Sanders' candidacy.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 11:46 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Here’s What Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speaking Contract Looks Like
What is the news in this? I mean, sort of interesting, but it’s not like we didn’t know that she charges immense speaking fees.
Also, at some level, I consider it perfectly & subversively wonderful that she is soaking wall street bankers for her own ends.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:50 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
What is the news in this? I mean, sort of interesting, but it’s not like we didn’t know that she charges immense speaking fees.
Also, at some level, I consider it perfectly & subversively wonderful that she is soaking wall street bankers for her own ends.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:50 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
but it’s not like we didn’t know that she charges immense speaking fees.
The news is that she owns all the rights to her speeches, and can release them whenever she feels the need to.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:51 AM on February 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
The news is that she owns all the rights to her speeches, and can release them whenever she feels the need to.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:51 AM on February 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
… so? I need some more help here. If you’re paying her for a speech, it doesn’t seem crazy that she would ask for post-facto ownership of it.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:56 AM on February 5, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 11:56 AM on February 5, 2016
Also, at some level, I consider it perfectly & subversively wonderful that she is soaking wall street bankers for her own ends.
Yeah, there's also a hint of institutional sexism in some of the critique - that women should give their labor away for free. I think it's fine to wonder what she was saying to them behind closed doors (a la the Romney 47% video). But she's a highly-experienced woman who should be paid for her labor - she shouldn't have to give it away for free to seem genuine or passionate (see also, people criticizing teachers or nurses for wanting higher pay). There is a question as to whether anyone should be paid that much money per hour of labor when there are so many people living in poverty. But I do get uncomfortable when people suggest that her labor is unworthy of compensation.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:56 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, there's also a hint of institutional sexism in some of the critique - that women should give their labor away for free. I think it's fine to wonder what she was saying to them behind closed doors (a la the Romney 47% video). But she's a highly-experienced woman who should be paid for her labor - she shouldn't have to give it away for free to seem genuine or passionate (see also, people criticizing teachers or nurses for wanting higher pay). There is a question as to whether anyone should be paid that much money per hour of labor when there are so many people living in poverty. But I do get uncomfortable when people suggest that her labor is unworthy of compensation.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:56 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
If she has ownership of the speeches, there is nothing outside of her desires that prevents her from releasing the transcripts.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:57 AM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 11:57 AM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Going To Maine, I think the point is that she isn't releasing the transcripts of the Goldman Sachs speeches, which may be because she said too many pro banking things in them.
posted by sweetkid at 11:58 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 11:58 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, there's also a hint of institutional sexism in some of the critique - that women should give their labor away for free.
Umm, I think what the critics would say is that she shouldn't be laboring for them in the first place.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:00 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Umm, I think what the critics would say is that she shouldn't be laboring for them in the first place.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:00 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
So, wait. You think that U.S. companies are going overseas and building polluting and unsafe factories out of the goodness of their hearts to provide jobs for foreigners?
No. Why would you think that, when I stated earlier that I would be open to providing clean tech/equipment cheaply to developing countries?
Honestly, I have a lot of ambivalence and skepticism to anything the West says in regards to helping out other countries.
posted by FJT at 12:01 PM on February 5, 2016
No. Why would you think that, when I stated earlier that I would be open to providing clean tech/equipment cheaply to developing countries?
Honestly, I have a lot of ambivalence and skepticism to anything the West says in regards to helping out other countries.
posted by FJT at 12:01 PM on February 5, 2016
she shouldn't be laboring for them in the first place
Totally agree. But a lot of the commentary I've read/heard seems to focus on the dollar amount she was paid. In the town hall:
COOPER: But did you have to be paid $675,000?
posted by melissasaurus at 12:03 PM on February 5, 2016
Totally agree. But a lot of the commentary I've read/heard seems to focus on the dollar amount she was paid. In the town hall:
COOPER: But did you have to be paid $675,000?
posted by melissasaurus at 12:03 PM on February 5, 2016
The thing about the huge speaking fees is that they aren't paying her for the speech, they're paying for access.
posted by dialetheia at 12:03 PM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:03 PM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
Going To Maine, I think the point is that she isn't releasing the transcripts of the Goldman Sachs speeches, which may be because she said too many pro banking things in them.
Yeah, I was clearly coming in at the tail end of a point raised in the debates, and it would certainly be nice to see those transcripts; she should get ’em out there, but probably won’t. (Where’s the benefit?) But as a standalone artifact, nothing about that contract seems strange to me.
Umm, I think what the critics would say is that she shouldn't be laboring for them in the first place.
I think that’s a fun thing for critics to say, but I also think that it‘s kind of simplistic. Goldman has the money, so why not make them have less? But then, that’s part of what makes Clinton the establishment.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:04 PM on February 5, 2016
Yeah, I was clearly coming in at the tail end of a point raised in the debates, and it would certainly be nice to see those transcripts; she should get ’em out there, but probably won’t. (Where’s the benefit?) But as a standalone artifact, nothing about that contract seems strange to me.
Umm, I think what the critics would say is that she shouldn't be laboring for them in the first place.
I think that’s a fun thing for critics to say, but I also think that it‘s kind of simplistic. Goldman has the money, so why not make them have less? But then, that’s part of what makes Clinton the establishment.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:04 PM on February 5, 2016
Goldman has the money, so why not make them have less?
Because nobody thinks Clinton is simply taking their money and spitting in their face, a la Steven Colbert making fun of George Bush at Sellout Prom. It seems a lot more to most people like they're handing her a bunch of money because (a) they know they'll enjoy what she has to say [which people who hate Goldman Sachs will consider a negative] and (b) she'll consider that employment as motivation for GS to get more money to spend again on her in the future.
posted by phearlez at 12:08 PM on February 5, 2016
Because nobody thinks Clinton is simply taking their money and spitting in their face, a la Steven Colbert making fun of George Bush at Sellout Prom. It seems a lot more to most people like they're handing her a bunch of money because (a) they know they'll enjoy what she has to say [which people who hate Goldman Sachs will consider a negative] and (b) she'll consider that employment as motivation for GS to get more money to spend again on her in the future.
posted by phearlez at 12:08 PM on February 5, 2016
Goldman has the money, so why not make them have less?
Clinton 2016: Dismantling Wall Street's disproportionate power, $675,000 at a time
posted by dialetheia at 12:09 PM on February 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
Clinton 2016: Dismantling Wall Street's disproportionate power, $675,000 at a time
posted by dialetheia at 12:09 PM on February 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
It's like working for the mob: Sure, you can say the money didn't affect any of your decisions, but people are always going to wonder.
The really exceptional part is a politician who hasn't worked for this particular banking mob.
posted by clawsoon at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
The really exceptional part is a politician who hasn't worked for this particular banking mob.
posted by clawsoon at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I really wonder if any voter cares about endorsements, at all.
Endorsements don't matter because voters care about endorsements.
Endorsements from political actors (as opposed to newspapers or celebrities or whatever, which probably don't make much difference at all) matter because they're an observable indicator that the political actor is helping the candidate, which might otherwise be less visible.
What matters is that political actors can do a lot to help, especially in state to state contests like presidential primaries. A governor has a big political toolkit -- they have networks of donors in their state, they have networks of volunteers in the state, they have networks of friendly organizations that can do their own organizing and volunteering. Big interest groups, like the state teachers' union if there is one, likewise have a massive organizational capacity to bring money, volunteers, and voters. There are limits of course, and governors and teachers-union heads and so on can't just force people to donate time or money to candidates they actually dislike, and these actors are smart enough not to make that kind of mistake very often. But at any rate, when those actors declare for you, it's at least likely that these toolkits become yours for a little while.
This is where endorsements come in with the whole Party Decides stuff. Not because voters care about endorsements.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Endorsements don't matter because voters care about endorsements.
Endorsements from political actors (as opposed to newspapers or celebrities or whatever, which probably don't make much difference at all) matter because they're an observable indicator that the political actor is helping the candidate, which might otherwise be less visible.
What matters is that political actors can do a lot to help, especially in state to state contests like presidential primaries. A governor has a big political toolkit -- they have networks of donors in their state, they have networks of volunteers in the state, they have networks of friendly organizations that can do their own organizing and volunteering. Big interest groups, like the state teachers' union if there is one, likewise have a massive organizational capacity to bring money, volunteers, and voters. There are limits of course, and governors and teachers-union heads and so on can't just force people to donate time or money to candidates they actually dislike, and these actors are smart enough not to make that kind of mistake very often. But at any rate, when those actors declare for you, it's at least likely that these toolkits become yours for a little while.
This is where endorsements come in with the whole Party Decides stuff. Not because voters care about endorsements.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
But as a standalone artifact, nothing about that contract seems strange to me.
Yeah, pretty standard contract.
posted by sweetkid at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2016
Yeah, pretty standard contract.
posted by sweetkid at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2016
Goldman has the money, so why not make them have less?
By moving the money to another rich person? Where does this kind of analysis end? Is a hedge fund manager actually "doing good" by taking a huge salary/carried interest because it takes money away from the fund? Is a fired/resigning CEO actually being subversive by taking the huge golden parachute because it leaves the Big Company with less money?
I get the cutesy-ness of the sentiment, but it doesn't really make any sense.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
By moving the money to another rich person? Where does this kind of analysis end? Is a hedge fund manager actually "doing good" by taking a huge salary/carried interest because it takes money away from the fund? Is a fired/resigning CEO actually being subversive by taking the huge golden parachute because it leaves the Big Company with less money?
I get the cutesy-ness of the sentiment, but it doesn't really make any sense.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
Are people suggesting that she shouldn't be appropriately compensated for speaking? I haven't seen that.
I have no idea what the typical cost is to have a former high-ranking government official speak at an event. But clearly it's not just having her come to share her insights into global economic whatever. That can't be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.
So the question is, why did these companies feel it was worthwhile to pay such obscene amounts of money -- the kind of money that it takes most people years and years to earn -- to Sec. Clinton? My initial assumption would be that a lot of it is just for the prestige, your typically disgusting acts of hyper-rich companies with money to burn. But if so, then why hasn't she just released the transcripts and put the matter to bed?
And it's ludicrous to say that that amount of money isn't buying something. I'm sure it's not anything as obvious or crude as quid pro quo. But when those ungodly sums of money are being thrown at you, you damn sure listen to the people doing the throwing. You shape yourself to them. You'll answer the phone when they call. You'll think twice when deciding whether to push for this legislative language or that departmental initiative.
You're beholden.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:12 PM on February 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
I have no idea what the typical cost is to have a former high-ranking government official speak at an event. But clearly it's not just having her come to share her insights into global economic whatever. That can't be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour.
So the question is, why did these companies feel it was worthwhile to pay such obscene amounts of money -- the kind of money that it takes most people years and years to earn -- to Sec. Clinton? My initial assumption would be that a lot of it is just for the prestige, your typically disgusting acts of hyper-rich companies with money to burn. But if so, then why hasn't she just released the transcripts and put the matter to bed?
And it's ludicrous to say that that amount of money isn't buying something. I'm sure it's not anything as obvious or crude as quid pro quo. But when those ungodly sums of money are being thrown at you, you damn sure listen to the people doing the throwing. You shape yourself to them. You'll answer the phone when they call. You'll think twice when deciding whether to push for this legislative language or that departmental initiative.
You're beholden.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:12 PM on February 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
Yeah, I was clearly coming in at the tail end of a point raised in the debates, and it would certainly be nice to see those transcripts; she should get ’em out there, but probably won’t.
It's not just a point in the debate. See my point above or just cringe at the video.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:14 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not just a point in the debate. See my point above or just cringe at the video.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:14 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
The other thing about the private, highly-paid speeches is that it can create the impression that she's saying one thing out in public and another thing altogether in private to her wealthy donors (see also: Mitt Romney and the 47%). It doesn't really help that impression when powerful lobbyists go to Davos and tell people that she isn't really going to follow through on some of her positions e.g. TPP:
The Chamber president said he expected Hillary Clinton would ultimately support the TPP if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president and is elected. He argued that she has publicly opposed the deal chiefly because her main challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has also done so. "If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job," he said.
posted by dialetheia at 12:17 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
The Chamber president said he expected Hillary Clinton would ultimately support the TPP if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president and is elected. He argued that she has publicly opposed the deal chiefly because her main challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has also done so. "If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job," he said.
posted by dialetheia at 12:17 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
why did these companies feel it was worthwhile to pay such obscene amounts of money
Because that is what the market will bear. I would be just as interested in the content of the speeches if she were paid nothing. Public speakers get paid, this is what her speaking time is worth, according to the market. What's important is what was said. Was she talking about the challenges of being a woman in a male-dominated industry? Was she talking about how Wall Street has a duty to the American people? Or was she talking about how bankers are the backbone of the American economy and she'll make sure to protect their interests? Or something else?
posted by melissasaurus at 12:18 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Because that is what the market will bear. I would be just as interested in the content of the speeches if she were paid nothing. Public speakers get paid, this is what her speaking time is worth, according to the market. What's important is what was said. Was she talking about the challenges of being a woman in a male-dominated industry? Was she talking about how Wall Street has a duty to the American people? Or was she talking about how bankers are the backbone of the American economy and she'll make sure to protect their interests? Or something else?
posted by melissasaurus at 12:18 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Are people suggesting that she shouldn't be appropriately compensated for speaking? I haven't seen that.
People are suggesting that it's impossible to take $600,000 in speaking fees and remain uninfluenced by the ones paying you, or that you aren't getting repeatedly invited back unless Goldman Sachs believes they are getting a decent ROI. People are suggesting she perhaps made promises in those speeches or comments that played to the victim mentality among Wall Street bankers, that she perhaps expressed empathy for how hard they have it. People have suggested that perhaps no speech is really worth that much, so what was the rest of the money she received if not some sort of bribe or payoff? So just release them and prove you have Main Street and not Wall Street's interests in mind.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:30 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
People are suggesting that it's impossible to take $600,000 in speaking fees and remain uninfluenced by the ones paying you, or that you aren't getting repeatedly invited back unless Goldman Sachs believes they are getting a decent ROI. People are suggesting she perhaps made promises in those speeches or comments that played to the victim mentality among Wall Street bankers, that she perhaps expressed empathy for how hard they have it. People have suggested that perhaps no speech is really worth that much, so what was the rest of the money she received if not some sort of bribe or payoff? So just release them and prove you have Main Street and not Wall Street's interests in mind.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:30 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
If she spent that hour lecturing Goldman Sachs about feminism in the board room and the financial sector's obligation to society, I'll change my vote right now.
I agree with you about wanting to hear the content -- that's one troubling aspect about this whole thing, sure. But no one would be talking about this if she were getting paid a few thousand bucks, or even a few tens of thousands of dollars for these little engagements.
This is hundreds of thousands of dollars, tens of millions in total, paid by people who knew they were talking to someone who was probably going to be the next President.
At least Donald Trump is honest about how money works in politics. Sec. Clinton is pretending that she's uncorrupt, incorruptible, nothing to see here, awkward laugh. It's just so ridiculous on its face.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:31 PM on February 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
I agree with you about wanting to hear the content -- that's one troubling aspect about this whole thing, sure. But no one would be talking about this if she were getting paid a few thousand bucks, or even a few tens of thousands of dollars for these little engagements.
This is hundreds of thousands of dollars, tens of millions in total, paid by people who knew they were talking to someone who was probably going to be the next President.
At least Donald Trump is honest about how money works in politics. Sec. Clinton is pretending that she's uncorrupt, incorruptible, nothing to see here, awkward laugh. It's just so ridiculous on its face.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:31 PM on February 5, 2016 [16 favorites]
Goldman has the money, so why not make them have less?
By moving the money to another rich person? Where does this kind of analysis end? Is a hedge fund manager actually "doing good" by taking a huge salary/carried interest because it takes money away from the fund?
We live, alas, in a trickle down country, where the things we love are sustained by the money of wealthy people. We work in the country we have. I’d prefer it if Clinton had taken the money as a donation to the Clinton foundation or some other NGO, but that’d probably just make those groups look (more?) compromised in the public eye. By the same token, if Goldman offered Sanders a $500,000 campaign donation for a closed door speech on a topic of his choice and he didn’t take it, I’d consider him a bit foolish. (Assuming, of course, that public awareness of such a speech wouldn’t immediately compromise his brand.)
That is to say: this analysis ends nowhere, or with a fundamental restructuring of the world. But as is, I’d rather rich people whose views I like have the money rather than rich people whose views I am skeptical of.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:34 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
By moving the money to another rich person? Where does this kind of analysis end? Is a hedge fund manager actually "doing good" by taking a huge salary/carried interest because it takes money away from the fund?
We live, alas, in a trickle down country, where the things we love are sustained by the money of wealthy people. We work in the country we have. I’d prefer it if Clinton had taken the money as a donation to the Clinton foundation or some other NGO, but that’d probably just make those groups look (more?) compromised in the public eye. By the same token, if Goldman offered Sanders a $500,000 campaign donation for a closed door speech on a topic of his choice and he didn’t take it, I’d consider him a bit foolish. (Assuming, of course, that public awareness of such a speech wouldn’t immediately compromise his brand.)
That is to say: this analysis ends nowhere, or with a fundamental restructuring of the world. But as is, I’d rather rich people whose views I like have the money rather than rich people whose views I am skeptical of.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:34 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
We live, alas, in a trickle down country,
I'm sorry, is this the election of 1980?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:36 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm sorry, is this the election of 1980?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:36 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
As for the idea that Wall Street donations haven't changed Clinton's policy stances or behavior, I found this story from Elizabeth Warren re: Clinton's changing positions and her vote against bankruptcy reform quite interesting. It's just one example, but it's just downright silly to pretend that corporate donations have no impact on the way that they see public policy, or that this is somehow better than Goldman having that money (which is, as a defense, patently ludicrous). As Warren put it in this interview, "She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency."
posted by dialetheia at 12:38 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:38 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Bernie would absolutely ruin his "brand" if GS offered him a bunch of money for speeches and he accepted. And rightly so. It'd make him look corrupt. Hillary's problem is doing this sort of thing plays into her brand (whether you agree that it should or not). And a lot of people don't enjoy that brand.
posted by downtohisturtles at 12:40 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 12:40 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
IIRC Sanders told Martin Phamabro to take his money and [redact] it up [redact].
posted by phearlez at 12:42 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 12:42 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
The things I love are sustained by hard work, the emotional labor of my community, the (half-hearted, increasingly threadbare) commitment of my government to establish a society where everyone can have the things they need to live and thrive. The money of wealthy people isn't sustaining the objects of my love.
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:43 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:43 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
What matters is that political actors can do a lot to help, especially in state to state contests like presidential primaries. A governor has a big political toolkit -- they have networks of donors in their state, they have networks of volunteers in the state, they have networks of friendly organizations that can do their own organizing and volunteering
So does Bernie.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:44 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
So does Bernie.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:44 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
The paid speech gives the appearance of impropriety (to borrow a term from judicial ethics). When a major critique of your campaign is that you might be ethically compromised, the appearance of impropriety is not something you can just shake off.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:45 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:45 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hillary Brings Goldman Sachs Lobbyist and Fundraiser to Dem Debate
Here is a picture one of her fundraisers, former governor Howard Dean and Steve Elmendorf—a Goldman Sachs lobbyist.
Yahoo's Michael Isikoff notes Elmendorf is a "key player" in her campaign. Elmendorf runs Subject Matter, "a go-to Democratic lobbying firm for corporate interests, raking more than $10 million in fees last year." Its clients include Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Verizon, and Monsanto.
posted by futz at 12:45 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I’d prefer it if Clinton had taken the money as a donation to the Clinton foundation or some other NGO, but that’d probably just make those groups look (more?) compromised in the public eye.
You mean like this: The State Department under Hillary Clinton authorized arms sales to countries that had donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:47 PM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
You mean like this: The State Department under Hillary Clinton authorized arms sales to countries that had donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:47 PM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Hillary Brings Goldman Sachs Lobbyist and Fundraiser to Dem Debate
Worth noting that this is coming from noted mouthpiece of neoconservatism The Weekly Standard. If Clinton wins the primary, expect a deluge of similar populist lipservice from the right wing.
posted by fifthrider at 12:47 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Worth noting that this is coming from noted mouthpiece of neoconservatism The Weekly Standard. If Clinton wins the primary, expect a deluge of similar populist lipservice from the right wing.
posted by fifthrider at 12:47 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Her ties to Monsanto are equally, if not more, troubling than her ties to the big banks.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:48 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 12:48 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
[…] the appearance of impropriety is not something you can just shake off.
No, you laugh it off.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:49 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, you laugh it off.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:49 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree with the source fifthrider, but it is still true, no?
posted by futz at 12:50 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by futz at 12:50 PM on February 5, 2016
The things I love are sustained by hard work, the emotional labor of my community, the (half-hearted, increasingly threadbare) commitment of my government to establish a society where everyone can have the things they need to live and thrive. The money of wealthy people isn't sustaining the objects of my love.
Money is useful for buying most of those things.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:52 PM on February 5, 2016
Money is useful for buying most of those things.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:52 PM on February 5, 2016
I agree with the source fifthrider, but it is still true, no?
Oh, absolutely. More of a strategic point on just how bad it is that even the Standard thinks this is fair game.
posted by fifthrider at 12:52 PM on February 5, 2016
Oh, absolutely. More of a strategic point on just how bad it is that even the Standard thinks this is fair game.
posted by fifthrider at 12:52 PM on February 5, 2016
The paid speech gives the appearance of impropriety (to borrow a term from judicial ethics). When a major critique of your campaign is that you might be ethically compromised, the appearance of impropriety is not something you can just shake off.
Oh, absolutely. How I wish Lessig were still in the race and making that point.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:53 PM on February 5, 2016
Oh, absolutely. How I wish Lessig were still in the race and making that point.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:53 PM on February 5, 2016
Money is useful for buying most of those things.
If only there were a mechanism by which a society could redistribute wealth. Some sort of power to impose a tax on those who have the most and a power to spend the collective revenue for the public benefit.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:57 PM on February 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
If only there were a mechanism by which a society could redistribute wealth. Some sort of power to impose a tax on those who have the most and a power to spend the collective revenue for the public benefit.
posted by melissasaurus at 12:57 PM on February 5, 2016 [11 favorites]
If only there were a mechanism by which a society could redistribute wealth. Some sort of power to impose a tax on those who have the most and a power to spend the collective revenue for the public benefit.
They’re called taxes. But in the absence of taxes, I’ll have to settle for rich people with good taste.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:57 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
They’re called taxes. But in the absence of taxes, I’ll have to settle for rich people with good taste.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:57 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
You're on a roll today! Clinton 2016: I’ll have to settle for rich people with good taste
posted by dialetheia at 1:01 PM on February 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:01 PM on February 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
I mean, why do we take "in the absence of taxes" for granted? It's so striking to me that Clinton's main argument seems to be "our political system is broken and we have no hope of fixing it."
posted by dialetheia at 1:03 PM on February 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 1:03 PM on February 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
Seems like only last week when people were saying, "Hillary has a 20 point lead in Iowa. Sure, she's behind in New Hampshire, but those are two of the most favorable states to Sanders. She's way ahead nationally."
Yeah, not so much anymore.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:04 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, not so much anymore.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:04 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Her ties to Monsanto are equally, if not more, troubling than her ties to the big banks
Heh. Support for GMO labeling is one of my major misgivings with Sanders.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:04 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Heh. Support for GMO labeling is one of my major misgivings with Sanders.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:04 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's so striking to me that Clinton's main argument seems to be "our political system is broken and we have no hope of fixing it."
It's a pity NOPE already got taken for the Trump poster.
posted by Artw at 1:05 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's a pity NOPE already got taken for the Trump poster.
posted by Artw at 1:05 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton 2016: I’ll have to settle for rich people with good taste
No joke, I've seen precisely this attitude.
Two of my cousins are organizing for Clinton. They also once aggressively sealioned me for two hours over Thanksgiving dinner because they were offended that I would object to Uber's labor practices. I am convinced that both behaviors proceed from a common worldview.
posted by fifthrider at 1:06 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
No joke, I've seen precisely this attitude.
Two of my cousins are organizing for Clinton. They also once aggressively sealioned me for two hours over Thanksgiving dinner because they were offended that I would object to Uber's labor practices. I am convinced that both behaviors proceed from a common worldview.
posted by fifthrider at 1:06 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Steve Elmendorf—a Goldman Sachs lobbyist
i wonder if he's related to doug? "Elmendorf worked on a team that concluded President Bill Clinton's health reform package would cost much more than originally thought. This analysis helped cripple Clinton's attempt to reform health care."
posted by kliuless at 1:06 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
i wonder if he's related to doug? "Elmendorf worked on a team that concluded President Bill Clinton's health reform package would cost much more than originally thought. This analysis helped cripple Clinton's attempt to reform health care."
posted by kliuless at 1:06 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
You’re on a roll today! Clinton 2016: I’ll have to settle for rich people with good taste
I try.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:07 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I try.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:07 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
We live, alas, in a trickle down country,
haaaahahahahahahahahaha
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:08 PM on February 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
haaaahahahahahahahahaha
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:08 PM on February 5, 2016 [12 favorites]
i wonder if he's related to doug? "Elmendorf worked on a team that concluded President Bill Clinton's health reform package would cost much more than originally thought. This analysis helped cripple Clinton's attempt to reform health care."
That would make some sense given that she recently used the same CBO logic to argue against Sanders' Medicare For All program, calling the replacement of private premiums with taxes a "huge tax increase" without mentioning that nobody in the US would ever pay a copay or insurance premium for basic health care ever again.
posted by dialetheia at 1:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
That would make some sense given that she recently used the same CBO logic to argue against Sanders' Medicare For All program, calling the replacement of private premiums with taxes a "huge tax increase" without mentioning that nobody in the US would ever pay a copay or insurance premium for basic health care ever again.
posted by dialetheia at 1:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
And as evidenced in this thread we still have people who think he's not that good on foreign policy while thinking Clinton is.
Depends on if you think "good on foreign policy" means "agrees with my very humane and enlightened ideals about how the US should interface with the world" or "can appeal to voters who genuinely believe that the President is a magical ward that protects the USA from Terror."
Maybe I'm too old and bitter but I want a candidate who can win votes from dumbshits, not a candidate who can embody the highest hopes of my soul, y'know? I really wish the Bernie people would err more on the side of making the case for their candidate based on his many strengths rather than participating in the "lol Hillary, she's just AWFUL" song and dance that we'll be hearing from the other side nonstop if she wins the primary; personally I have no hopes for any Democratic president real or theoretical pushing much of a progressive agenda through congress and would just like to see a Supreme Court that doesn't make me want to claw my face into ribbons when all this is gone and done.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:13 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Depends on if you think "good on foreign policy" means "agrees with my very humane and enlightened ideals about how the US should interface with the world" or "can appeal to voters who genuinely believe that the President is a magical ward that protects the USA from Terror."
Maybe I'm too old and bitter but I want a candidate who can win votes from dumbshits, not a candidate who can embody the highest hopes of my soul, y'know? I really wish the Bernie people would err more on the side of making the case for their candidate based on his many strengths rather than participating in the "lol Hillary, she's just AWFUL" song and dance that we'll be hearing from the other side nonstop if she wins the primary; personally I have no hopes for any Democratic president real or theoretical pushing much of a progressive agenda through congress and would just like to see a Supreme Court that doesn't make me want to claw my face into ribbons when all this is gone and done.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:13 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe I'm too old and bitter but I want a candidate who can win votes from dumbshits, not a candidate who can embody the highest hopes of my soul, y'know?
I totally agree with you about the importance of the court and veto power over a R chamber, but at some point this slides into territory I'm not real comfortable with. There's a lot of really gross ways you get votes from dumbshits.
Personally a lot of my Bernie support stems from my sense of just how pointless it was for us in 2004 to obsess about electability. What did that get us? Trounced. Compare to a more optimistic 2008 campaign. I'm not going to listen to voices anymore that tell me to put aside what matters to me when picking a candidate.
I don't think Clinton is awful but I think listing problems some of us have with her is a pretty reasonable reaction to being told we can't have nice things and she's a perfectly great democrat anyway. Well, no, we don't all agree on that.
posted by phearlez at 1:33 PM on February 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
I totally agree with you about the importance of the court and veto power over a R chamber, but at some point this slides into territory I'm not real comfortable with. There's a lot of really gross ways you get votes from dumbshits.
Personally a lot of my Bernie support stems from my sense of just how pointless it was for us in 2004 to obsess about electability. What did that get us? Trounced. Compare to a more optimistic 2008 campaign. I'm not going to listen to voices anymore that tell me to put aside what matters to me when picking a candidate.
I don't think Clinton is awful but I think listing problems some of us have with her is a pretty reasonable reaction to being told we can't have nice things and she's a perfectly great democrat anyway. Well, no, we don't all agree on that.
posted by phearlez at 1:33 PM on February 5, 2016 [20 favorites]
I totally agree with you about the importance of the court and veto power over a R chamber, but at some point this slides into territory I'm not real comfortable with. There's a lot of really gross ways you get votes from dumbshits.
Well I sure as shit don't want to see Clinton promising to build border walls or internment camps, but it wouldn't take a whole lot of acting up from ISIS to turn the general election into a This Is All About Terror Now election, and considering how many times Sanders went to the 2003 Iraq vote well during the foreign policy part of the debate last night in the absence of deeper and more recent experience from him to reference, I see Clinton as having a much better chance of being able to weather that kind of storm.
Personally a lot of my Bernie support stems from my sense of just how pointless it was for us in 2004 to obsess about electability. What did that get us? Trounced. Compare to a more optimistic 2008 campaign. I'm not going to listen to voices anymore that tell me to put aside what matters to me when picking a candidate.
Obama ran as a fairly pragmatic centrist in 2008.
I'm just seeing a lot of carelessness about veering from a thoughtful from-the-left critique of Clinton to outright buying into the narrative the right has been making up for her for years (not so much here specifically on MetaFilter, not to say never) and it bums me out.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:45 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well I sure as shit don't want to see Clinton promising to build border walls or internment camps, but it wouldn't take a whole lot of acting up from ISIS to turn the general election into a This Is All About Terror Now election, and considering how many times Sanders went to the 2003 Iraq vote well during the foreign policy part of the debate last night in the absence of deeper and more recent experience from him to reference, I see Clinton as having a much better chance of being able to weather that kind of storm.
Personally a lot of my Bernie support stems from my sense of just how pointless it was for us in 2004 to obsess about electability. What did that get us? Trounced. Compare to a more optimistic 2008 campaign. I'm not going to listen to voices anymore that tell me to put aside what matters to me when picking a candidate.
Obama ran as a fairly pragmatic centrist in 2008.
I'm just seeing a lot of carelessness about veering from a thoughtful from-the-left critique of Clinton to outright buying into the narrative the right has been making up for her for years (not so much here specifically on MetaFilter, not to say never) and it bums me out.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:45 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, I think there is electable and there are contingencies that modify that, and there is the fact that someone who is electable may not actually get elected.
I really don't love Clinton, but the amount I don't love Clinton pales in comparison to how much I don't love everyone on the GOP side. I'm, frankly, frightened by them. I like that Sanders is in the race because he pulls the discourse to the Left, but I do think he is less electable than Clinton. He is not Obama. Obama was part of the establishment in a way that Sanders is not. My gut feeling is that this country, this one right now that has handed all of Congress to some of the worst human beings I can imagine, is not going to elect Bernie Sanders. When "New York" still works as an anti-Semitic dog whistle, I just don't think a basically secular Jew who is a democratic socialist to boot is going to get elected.
And I do think there is a cost here of the infighting (which is not to say that policies shouldn't be debated). We already see people in this thread saying they wouldn't vote for Hillary, and assuming that their vote counts in any way, that's simply insane. Because in the end, someone will be President. And that someone can either cause some damage (and maybe do some good) or cause a LOT of damage and do no good.
The thing about the Goldman Sachs comments is that they are essentially an attack on Hillary's character. I don't mean that I think they are unfair, I mean that Clinton is who she is, a figure of the establishment. She will not become not that between now and the election (or ever). It's her position in the establishment (the Power Elite) that will drive her ultimate worth for Wall Street, not the money they have paid to her. Sure, Sanders is not that, but that hampers his electability in some pretty fundamental ways.
posted by OmieWise at 1:48 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
I really don't love Clinton, but the amount I don't love Clinton pales in comparison to how much I don't love everyone on the GOP side. I'm, frankly, frightened by them. I like that Sanders is in the race because he pulls the discourse to the Left, but I do think he is less electable than Clinton. He is not Obama. Obama was part of the establishment in a way that Sanders is not. My gut feeling is that this country, this one right now that has handed all of Congress to some of the worst human beings I can imagine, is not going to elect Bernie Sanders. When "New York" still works as an anti-Semitic dog whistle, I just don't think a basically secular Jew who is a democratic socialist to boot is going to get elected.
And I do think there is a cost here of the infighting (which is not to say that policies shouldn't be debated). We already see people in this thread saying they wouldn't vote for Hillary, and assuming that their vote counts in any way, that's simply insane. Because in the end, someone will be President. And that someone can either cause some damage (and maybe do some good) or cause a LOT of damage and do no good.
The thing about the Goldman Sachs comments is that they are essentially an attack on Hillary's character. I don't mean that I think they are unfair, I mean that Clinton is who she is, a figure of the establishment. She will not become not that between now and the election (or ever). It's her position in the establishment (the Power Elite) that will drive her ultimate worth for Wall Street, not the money they have paid to her. Sure, Sanders is not that, but that hampers his electability in some pretty fundamental ways.
posted by OmieWise at 1:48 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Electability is a tough thing to predict this far ahead. All the polling I've seen so far actually has better numbers for Sanders in the general. HRC is probably suffering from having borne more scrutiny/Republican aggression than Sanders, so her numbers may appear artificially lower in that kind of polling, but on the flip side I think the size of that effect is not very obvious (and there's nothing to say her numbers couldn't also slide further in the face of an aggressive right-wing campaign). I definitely haven't seen anything to convince me that HRC has an obviously, solidly better chance of being elected than Sanders in the general, though.
posted by en forme de poire at 1:53 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 1:53 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
veering from a thoughtful from-the-left critique of Clinton to outright buying into the narrative the right has been making up for her for years
I think that's a fair critique. The lies, bullshit sexism directed at her for 20 years has been so damn pervasive and it's absolutely gotten into the atmosphere such that everyone, not just conservatives, are breathing it in.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:53 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think that's a fair critique. The lies, bullshit sexism directed at her for 20 years has been so damn pervasive and it's absolutely gotten into the atmosphere such that everyone, not just conservatives, are breathing it in.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:53 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
I definitely haven't seen anything to convince me that HRC has an obviously, solidly better chance of being elected than Sanders in the general, though.
The numbers from that Quinnipiac poll showing them basically tied (44% Clinton, 42% Sanders) at the national level also indicate that Sanders has a consistent 5-7 point advantage over Cilnton vs. the Republicans. Now certainly those polls are sketchy this early in the process, but data still beats gut feelings and anecdotes:
Clinton tops Trump 46 - 41 percent; Sanders thumps Trump 49 - 39 percent.
Clinton trails Rubio 48 - 41 percent; Sanders and Rubio are tied 43 - 43 percent.
Clinton ties Cruz 45 - 45 percent; Sanders edges Cruz 46 - 42 percent.
posted by dialetheia at 1:59 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
The numbers from that Quinnipiac poll showing them basically tied (44% Clinton, 42% Sanders) at the national level also indicate that Sanders has a consistent 5-7 point advantage over Cilnton vs. the Republicans. Now certainly those polls are sketchy this early in the process, but data still beats gut feelings and anecdotes:
Clinton tops Trump 46 - 41 percent; Sanders thumps Trump 49 - 39 percent.
Clinton trails Rubio 48 - 41 percent; Sanders and Rubio are tied 43 - 43 percent.
Clinton ties Cruz 45 - 45 percent; Sanders edges Cruz 46 - 42 percent.
posted by dialetheia at 1:59 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah. Again, the main criticisms I've heard of that polling are that 1. Clinton has been in the Republican crosshairs for longer and 2. those favorability numbers can change a lot over the span of an election season — but it's hard to know how big of an effect the first factor is (and it doesn't necessarily inoculate Clinton against a further slide), and the second factor cuts both ways IMHO.
posted by en forme de poire at 2:03 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 2:03 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hypothetical poll matchups are almost meaningless at this point, though. Consider that Clinton has weathered literally decades of continuous attacks from the right, and Sanders has really only faced respectful disagreement at a national level. I guarantee that will change if he gets the nomination.
posted by nicepersonality at 2:04 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by nicepersonality at 2:04 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
To derail a little, what happens with Supreme Court justices if a Democrat is elected but the House and Senate remain under Republican control? A plausible -- perhaps the most likely -- outcome, I think.
So you need a majority in the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court nomination. Even in the less ideological Senate, it's hard for me to imagine getting a majority to confirm another Sotomayor or Kagan (confirmed during Obama's brief window of Senate control). Would that seat be left vacant? What happens when the Supreme Court is tied?
posted by crazy with stars at 2:04 PM on February 5, 2016
So you need a majority in the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court nomination. Even in the less ideological Senate, it's hard for me to imagine getting a majority to confirm another Sotomayor or Kagan (confirmed during Obama's brief window of Senate control). Would that seat be left vacant? What happens when the Supreme Court is tied?
posted by crazy with stars at 2:04 PM on February 5, 2016
Hypothetical poll matchups are almost meaningless at this point, though.
I absolutely agree! The only things more meaningless are hypothetical mental models of poll matchups, which is most of what has been provided as evidence of electability so far.
posted by dialetheia at 2:07 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
I absolutely agree! The only things more meaningless are hypothetical mental models of poll matchups, which is most of what has been provided as evidence of electability so far.
posted by dialetheia at 2:07 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Bernie Sanders is known to John McCain as the Amendment King for all the amendments he's gotten passed. That says to me that he has a lot of experience working with both parties and that he'd try to find a nominee to the Supreme Court who both shared his integrity and was amenable to enough senators to pass.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 2:08 PM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 2:08 PM on February 5, 2016 [10 favorites]
Consider that Clinton has weathered literally decades of continuous attacks from the right, and Sanders has really only faced respectful disagreement at a national level.
Yes, but the right has spent the last eight years claiming that Obama is OMG THE MOST SOCIALIST POLITICIAN EVARRRR. To continue that critique with Bernie is (a) ineffective (because he adopts the label willfully) and (b) a bit boy-who-cried-wolf. Basically, they overplayed their hand with the last guy, and their biggest weapon against Bernie (he's a socialist!) won't be as effective as a result.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes, but the right has spent the last eight years claiming that Obama is OMG THE MOST SOCIALIST POLITICIAN EVARRRR. To continue that critique with Bernie is (a) ineffective (because he adopts the label willfully) and (b) a bit boy-who-cried-wolf. Basically, they overplayed their hand with the last guy, and their biggest weapon against Bernie (he's a socialist!) won't be as effective as a result.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:10 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, just to be clear, it's gut against gut at this point. No one is speaking with foreknowledge or much evidence one way or the other. For instance, mellisasaurus just wrote something that seems like a complete misreading of the GOP and their voters, but neither of us can say who is right.
posted by OmieWise at 2:13 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by OmieWise at 2:13 PM on February 5, 2016
The Liver of Piacenza has a thing or two to say to you doubters of gut-based predictive models
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:19 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:19 PM on February 5, 2016
Yeah, just to be clear, it's gut against gut at this point.
While again, I understand the shortcomings of those polls, I think this is still overstating it. We do have some data to go on: there's the head-to-head matchup polling, where Sanders does comparably if not better, and there are favorables, widely seen as decent indicators of electability, where Sanders also does very well (and in fact, he's viewed more favorably than anyone else in the race in most cases).
I would be very, very surprised if people refrained from citing those polls if they happened to confirm that Clinton did much better against Republicans than Sanders, so I find the claims that these polls are totally meaningless to be fairly unconvincing even while I'm aware of their shortcomings.
posted by dialetheia at 2:21 PM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
While again, I understand the shortcomings of those polls, I think this is still overstating it. We do have some data to go on: there's the head-to-head matchup polling, where Sanders does comparably if not better, and there are favorables, widely seen as decent indicators of electability, where Sanders also does very well (and in fact, he's viewed more favorably than anyone else in the race in most cases).
I would be very, very surprised if people refrained from citing those polls if they happened to confirm that Clinton did much better against Republicans than Sanders, so I find the claims that these polls are totally meaningless to be fairly unconvincing even while I'm aware of their shortcomings.
posted by dialetheia at 2:21 PM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Chris Christie is going to be on Rachel Maddow's show tonight, despite this comment.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:22 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:22 PM on February 5, 2016
The Liver of Piacenza has a thing or two to say to you doubters of gut-based predictive models
posted by clawsoon at 2:23 PM on February 5, 2016
The great major gods, substantially benevolent, inhabited the eastern sectors of the sky, especially the north-east sector; the gods of earth and nature were placed around noon; the infernal and fate gods, fearful and inexorable, occupied the regions at sunset, particularly the north-west sector, considered the most inauspicious.Hmm. Hmmmmmmmmm.
posted by clawsoon at 2:23 PM on February 5, 2016
For your nostalgic pleasure, here is how things were going in 2004 at around the same time in head-to-head matchups, when Howard Dean was making progressive hearts beat. And the same from 2008.
posted by clawsoon at 2:37 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 2:37 PM on February 5, 2016
Iowa Democratic party altered precinct's caucus results during chaotic night
Shift of one delegate from Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton raises questions about Iowa Democratic party’s management of first-in-the-nation vote
Iowa party boss holding onto contested vote totals drives car with the license plate ‘HRC 2016’
posted by Room 641-A at 2:42 PM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
Shift of one delegate from Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton raises questions about Iowa Democratic party’s management of first-in-the-nation vote
Iowa party boss holding onto contested vote totals drives car with the license plate ‘HRC 2016’
posted by Room 641-A at 2:42 PM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
For your nostalgic pleasure, here is how things were going in 2004 at around the same time in head-to-head matchups, when Howard Dean was making progressive hearts beat.
Yes, precisely! And I specifically remember those polls being used to make the case that Kerry was more electable, which... well, I think we all remember how that turned out. In any event, those polls seemed plenty valid to people in 2004 when they were used to help make the case that Dean was unelectable.
posted by dialetheia at 2:44 PM on February 5, 2016
Yes, precisely! And I specifically remember those polls being used to make the case that Kerry was more electable, which... well, I think we all remember how that turned out. In any event, those polls seemed plenty valid to people in 2004 when they were used to help make the case that Dean was unelectable.
posted by dialetheia at 2:44 PM on February 5, 2016
While again, I understand the shortcomings of those polls, I think this is still overstating it. We do have some data to go on: there's the head-to-head matchup polling, where Sanders does comparably if not better, and there are favorables, widely seen as decent indicators of electability, where Sanders also does very well (and in fact, he's viewed more favorably than anyone else in the race in most cases).
Exactly, this is exactly what I'm talking about. That's your narrative of what's happening, so the polls have meaning to you in a particular way. What I see is an unknown candidate who has never been oppo'ed before against a woman who has been basically painted as the literal anti-Christ for 20 years. I know what her numbers mean, I don't think his mean anything. As I said, gut v gut.
posted by OmieWise at 2:46 PM on February 5, 2016
Exactly, this is exactly what I'm talking about. That's your narrative of what's happening, so the polls have meaning to you in a particular way. What I see is an unknown candidate who has never been oppo'ed before against a woman who has been basically painted as the literal anti-Christ for 20 years. I know what her numbers mean, I don't think his mean anything. As I said, gut v gut.
posted by OmieWise at 2:46 PM on February 5, 2016
I honestly don't understand what you're saying about Kerry. Was he not more electable than other Dems? How would we know?
posted by OmieWise at 2:49 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by OmieWise at 2:49 PM on February 5, 2016
I looked over that poll this morning and I didn't see any breakouts beyond gender, age & political affiliation -- and there wasn't a huge difference on any of those things between Sec. Clinton and Sen. Sanders that I remember.
What I'd like to see is regional data. I feel like Sen. Sanders could break out in that vaunted white working class midwestern demo in a way that Sec. Clinton probably won't for various reasons including, sadly, sexism and the above-mentioned mud-flinging that she's experienced for 20 years.
But I also think he has that straight-talk attitude that plays well in the heartland. That populist disdain of the smooth and the schmoozing. Sanders, Trump and Christie have it. Clinton, Rubio and Santorum don't. Bush and Cruz just painfully don't.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:54 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
What I'd like to see is regional data. I feel like Sen. Sanders could break out in that vaunted white working class midwestern demo in a way that Sec. Clinton probably won't for various reasons including, sadly, sexism and the above-mentioned mud-flinging that she's experienced for 20 years.
But I also think he has that straight-talk attitude that plays well in the heartland. That populist disdain of the smooth and the schmoozing. Sanders, Trump and Christie have it. Clinton, Rubio and Santorum don't. Bush and Cruz just painfully don't.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:54 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm aware that this is a gut-based prediction.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:56 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:56 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I guess what I'm saying is that electability is not the same thing as a guarantee. I think it's profoundly misguided to use whether or not a particular candidate ended up getting elected as an indication of whether they were the best candidate to put forward. Elections are contingent on a lot more than who is at the head of the ticket, but because there are many things one can't control, picking the most electable candidate is important in combatting other contingencies.
posted by OmieWise at 3:00 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by OmieWise at 3:00 PM on February 5, 2016
Which I realize comes off as horribly utilitarian. I am not trying to suggest that electability is the only appropriate metric.
posted by OmieWise at 3:02 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by OmieWise at 3:02 PM on February 5, 2016
Sorry, I'm just saying that those polls show Kerry doing better against Republicans than Dean, which was one of the supporting pieces of evidence used to indicate that he would be more electable and which was probably accurate at the time. Now that they show that they're equally electable or that Sanders is possibly slightly more electable, people want to say that those polls are meaningless. In fact, they look much more similar to the 2008 polling, which showed Obama and Clinton doing equally well against Republicans (which was probably also accurate). They look fairly accurate to me, is what I'm saying. The general matchups even ended up being reasonable except that Obama was able to overtake and pull away from McCain following the big credit shakeup - that really changed the race.
You have a very fair point about the oppo research, although I'm not sure what they have to dig up on Sanders at this point - he's not exactly a scandalous guy and he already calls himself a socialist. Really, I'm not even trying to argue that they should be taken seriously - only that I suspect we would be taking them very seriously indeed if they showed Clinton outperforming Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 3:03 PM on February 5, 2016
You have a very fair point about the oppo research, although I'm not sure what they have to dig up on Sanders at this point - he's not exactly a scandalous guy and he already calls himself a socialist. Really, I'm not even trying to argue that they should be taken seriously - only that I suspect we would be taking them very seriously indeed if they showed Clinton outperforming Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 3:03 PM on February 5, 2016
When "New York" still works as an anti-Semitic dog whistle, I just don't think a basically secular Jew who is a democratic socialist to boot is going to get elected.
Dog whistles like "community organizer" and "Kenyan" still get used to this day, but Obama ended up a two-term President, regardless. Anti-semitism and racism are alive and well, no question, but I don't think we should discount that the US is a different place now than it was 10-20 years ago. Being Jewish is unlikely to be what beats Sanders, if anything. It seems more likely that the media will scare the majority of the public by continuing to cast his economic policies as un-American and un-realistic, at the behest of their wealthy owners.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:07 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dog whistles like "community organizer" and "Kenyan" still get used to this day, but Obama ended up a two-term President, regardless. Anti-semitism and racism are alive and well, no question, but I don't think we should discount that the US is a different place now than it was 10-20 years ago. Being Jewish is unlikely to be what beats Sanders, if anything. It seems more likely that the media will scare the majority of the public by continuing to cast his economic policies as un-American and un-realistic, at the behest of their wealthy owners.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:07 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I guess the issue is whether Sen. Sanders' current numbers are a floor of support or a ceiling. We know pretty well where Sec. Clinton stands (it could be close but I think the election is hers to lose) but it's just more of an unknown with Sen. Sanders as he does not have the recognition (or the history of being attacked and smeared) that Sec. Clinton does.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:11 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:11 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why Have New Hampshire Democrats Gone Gaga for Bernie Sanders? It's out of sync with the state's history
Through much of last year, Scala says, he was sure Sanders would be competitive in the New Hampshire primary but believed he wouldn't win, considering the state's history. Now, he says, "it could be something different." In fact, the overwhelming assumption these days is that Sanders will beat Clinton—and do so by a healthy margin. ...posted by dialetheia at 3:36 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Scala had a few possible explanations. He pointed out that for months last year, Sanders was promoting "a very positive, issue-based message without much pushback from the Clinton campaign." This allowed the fiery populist to make a good impression on liberal and moderate Democrats in the state. "He's a progressive insurgent," Scala says, "but he's doing very well among moderate Democrats." Scala also observes that Sanders—especially when compared with past insurgent-y candidates, such as Obama, Bradley, and Hart—is winning over working-class male voters in the state. "This is out of the ordinary," he comments, "especially for a progressive insurgent." In 2008, Hillary Clinton's core support in the primary was white, working-class voters. Their votes fueled her victory over Obama. (And in 1992, Bill Clinton did better with this group than Tsongas.) Scala speculates that in the wake of the Bush-Cheney recession, "this class of voters feels left behind"—and Sanders is addressing their worries and desires more so than Clinton.
I don't understand why Bernie's electability in the general is an issue anymore.
Both Bernie and Hillary out-poll every GOP candidate, they both have around the same amount of cash on hand (and scads more than any R, other than Trump), and together they have an overwhelming majority of the youth vote. If Bernie is the nom the only practical way I see him losing is if Hillary's people stay home. And I don't think most of them will, just as I believe most Bernie voters will vote for Hillary if she's the nom.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:51 PM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
Both Bernie and Hillary out-poll every GOP candidate, they both have around the same amount of cash on hand (and scads more than any R, other than Trump), and together they have an overwhelming majority of the youth vote. If Bernie is the nom the only practical way I see him losing is if Hillary's people stay home. And I don't think most of them will, just as I believe most Bernie voters will vote for Hillary if she's the nom.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:51 PM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hilary is looking beyond New Hampshire, her debating Bernie in Flint for example. The 92'/08' good turn out she and bill had locked in those Reagan Dems and indies. The UAW is withholding there support until after the debate or primary, which is right on with her slaying Bernies socialist dreams starting here in Flint-we had a socialist mayor once so it's gonna be exciting.
Plus Hiliary has all the locals enforcements.
posted by clavdivs at 4:15 PM on February 5, 2016
Plus Hiliary has all the locals enforcements.
posted by clavdivs at 4:15 PM on February 5, 2016
Both Bernie and Hillary out-poll every GOP candidate, they both have around the same amount of cash on hand (and scads more than any R, other than Trump), and together they have an overwhelming majority of the youth vote.
This isn't specific to Sanders, but whichever Democrat that will get into the general is gonna be portrayed as a continuation of President Obama's policies. And currently President Obama's approval rating is somewhere in the mid to high 40s. I don't want to take anything for granted and I think this time if the Dems pull of a win, it will be a squeaker.
posted by FJT at 4:26 PM on February 5, 2016
This isn't specific to Sanders, but whichever Democrat that will get into the general is gonna be portrayed as a continuation of President Obama's policies. And currently President Obama's approval rating is somewhere in the mid to high 40s. I don't want to take anything for granted and I think this time if the Dems pull of a win, it will be a squeaker.
posted by FJT at 4:26 PM on February 5, 2016
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Resists Releasing Transcripts From Goldman Speeches
posted by syzygy at 4:52 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by syzygy at 4:52 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
"I don't think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches"
UGH. Why don't you just release them and let voters decide whether they're interested? The bigger a deal they make this the more people will think there's something shady they're trying to hide.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:56 PM on February 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
UGH. Why don't you just release them and let voters decide whether they're interested? The bigger a deal they make this the more people will think there's something shady they're trying to hide.
posted by melissasaurus at 4:56 PM on February 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
I think the White House is pretty solid for Democrats, all things being equal. I was playing around with the electoral map at 270towin last night and based on the 2012 map it's just hard to see how the Republicans flip enough states in the Midwest to get to an Electoral College majority. If Rubio wins, he gets Florida. But the Republicans still have to get Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado... it's just a map where Democratic votes are more efficient. I think it gets cemented with a swing state VP and apart from a war/terrorism event or a series of unforced errors, Dems take it.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:58 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:58 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or widespread voting-related fuckery, which has pretty much been stated Republican strategy since it won them 2000
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:04 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:04 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Last night during the debate Hilary said she went to Goldman Sachs or wall street right before the financial crisis and yelled at them that they were about to send the country into chaos if they didn't fix the mortgage mess (am I remembering that exchange correctly?). Is there any truth to this story? Any documentation?
posted by futz at 5:15 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by futz at 5:15 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Some truth. But it's a bit milquetoasty.
posted by melissasaurus at 5:22 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 5:22 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Is there any truth to this story? Any documentation?
Well, if nothing else, it sure as hell didn't help much.
posted by dialetheia at 5:33 PM on February 5, 2016
Well, if nothing else, it sure as hell didn't help much.
posted by dialetheia at 5:33 PM on February 5, 2016
Politico ran a story on one of her speeches to Goldman Sachs back in 2013, it looks like (linked from this Matt Taibbi story about Blankfein being afraid of Sanders)
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Tim O’Neill, who heads the bank’s asset management business, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).posted by dialetheia at 5:38 PM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]
Certainly, Clinton offered the money men—and, yes, they are mostly men—at Goldman’s HQ a bit of a morale boost. “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game,’” said an attendee. “Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.”
Clinton’s remarks were hardly a sweeping absolution for the sins of Wall Street, whose leaders she courted assiduously for financial support over a decade, as a senator and a presidential candidate in 2008. But they did register as a repudiation of some of the angry anti-Wall Street rhetoric emanating from liberals rallying behind the likes of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). And perhaps even more than that, Clinton’s presence offered a glimpse to a future in which Wall Street might repair its frayed political relationships.
So a paid shill. Shocking!
posted by cjorgensen at 6:00 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 6:00 PM on February 5, 2016
Ben Jealous, former president of the NAACP, endorses Sanders.
posted by dhens at 6:27 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dhens at 6:27 PM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]
Was talking to my dad today, and he was like "you know my feelings on Hillary Clinton. No? You must know. I've said this a million times. I'll vote for her when she publicly apologizes to Tammy Wynette!"
(He was joking. Mostly.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:50 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
(He was joking. Mostly.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:50 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't understand why Bernie's electability in the general is an issue anymore.
Both Bernie and Hillary out-poll every GOP candidate
I keep rebutting this and it keeps coming up. You cannot poll Sanders in the general yet. It's no different than polling "generic Democrat" vs the Republican candidates. We here on Metafilter are very familiar with him but the general populace is not. Secondly, the Republicans are all still running against Clinton, they attack her every chance they get, and have done so for 25 years. Sanders has not faced even a microscopic amount of attack from Republicans by comparison.
About all that can be said about his general election polls is that its better for him to be ahead than behind. But the actual numbers mean almost literally nothing at this point in the race.
posted by Justinian at 7:04 PM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
Both Bernie and Hillary out-poll every GOP candidate
I keep rebutting this and it keeps coming up. You cannot poll Sanders in the general yet. It's no different than polling "generic Democrat" vs the Republican candidates. We here on Metafilter are very familiar with him but the general populace is not. Secondly, the Republicans are all still running against Clinton, they attack her every chance they get, and have done so for 25 years. Sanders has not faced even a microscopic amount of attack from Republicans by comparison.
About all that can be said about his general election polls is that its better for him to be ahead than behind. But the actual numbers mean almost literally nothing at this point in the race.
posted by Justinian at 7:04 PM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
You cannot poll Sanders in the general yet. It's no different than polling "generic Democrat" vs the Republican candidates. We here on Metafilter are very familiar with him but the general populace is not.
How many of your Republican friends have said "I don't know yet if I'll vote for Bernie but I sure do respect him"
And how many say that of Hillary?
The sword, it is double edged.
EDIT: I need to add that my mother has always been a diehard conservative Rush Limbaugh type and she straight up unprompted told me she respects Bernie Sanders. His popularity has not yet reached its limits.
posted by an animate objects at 7:38 PM on February 5, 2016
How many of your Republican friends have said "I don't know yet if I'll vote for Bernie but I sure do respect him"
And how many say that of Hillary?
The sword, it is double edged.
EDIT: I need to add that my mother has always been a diehard conservative Rush Limbaugh type and she straight up unprompted told me she respects Bernie Sanders. His popularity has not yet reached its limits.
posted by an animate objects at 7:38 PM on February 5, 2016
This whole election is so screwed up that anyone claiming anything related to electability or general election prospects is being ridiculous. We have no idea where we'll be this fall or what people will care about months from now. Vote for someone if you can support them. Don't if you can't. It's pretty simple and anyone trying to influence you one way or another is probably an asshole.
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:03 PM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:03 PM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]
$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented
Bought and paid for.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:57 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bought and paid for.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:57 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Indeed! In that companies bought and paid for some speeches.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:00 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 9:00 PM on February 5, 2016
Random companies, asking for random speeches, made to random groups of strangers.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:23 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:23 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm flabbergasted that Clinton invoked Kissinger positively in last night's debate. He has long seemed as counter to progressive values as anyone.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:28 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 9:28 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why on earth does anyone pay anyone that much money to give a talk? I'm a recovering academic philosopher, and I've been to some talks by some intellectual titans, people whose ideas will continue to influence higher education for decades on (and in that sense, continue to influence the way that elites think), and I paid nothing, and the speakers were not paid very much for those talks, if they were paid at all. Who pays $200k to hear Bill or Hill give a talk? What do they get for that money? It's gotta be something other than a fairly boring speech. What do they get besides a speech. It's gotta be something else.
posted by dis_integration at 9:31 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dis_integration at 9:31 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, to be fair, 'intellectual titans of academic philosophy' and 'the goddamn president' aren't on quite the same prestige level
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:35 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:35 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Can you imagine if some Republican presidential candidate was getting paid this much to give speeches to oil companies, banks, agribusiness, and fuck well anybody..... I wonder what the consensus here would be? I am guessing it wouldn't be "Don't worry they were just giving speeches..." I am sorry guys but if it quacks like a duck it's a god damned duck.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:42 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:42 PM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]
Article about Hillary Clinton's speaking events:
This is beginning to veer away from Wall St and the financial sector to targeting being rich in general.
posted by FJT at 9:45 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Her upcoming events include: the INSITE financial conference in Hollywood, Florida, on June 5; the Society for Human Resource Management's annual conference in Chicago on June 16; a meeting of the Economic Club of Grand Rapids on June 17; the Unique Lives & Experience women's conference in Toronto on June 20; the Global Business Travel Association convention in San Diego on August 7; the American Society for Clinical Pathology annual meeting in Chicago on September 18; the American Society of Travel Agents convention in Miami on September 19; and the REALTORS annual conference in San Francisco on November 9.It sounds like a combination of things: celebrity appearances, motivational speeches, industry conferences/conventions, etc. The Clinton's are rich, which I don't think was ever kept a secret at all. The article I used was from over two years ago.
This is beginning to veer away from Wall St and the financial sector to targeting being rich in general.
posted by FJT at 9:45 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also $200k isn't that much money to these banks (which is part of the problem).
posted by melissasaurus at 9:46 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 9:46 PM on February 5, 2016
Can you imagine if some Republican presidential candidate was getting paid this much to give speeches to oil companies, banks, agribusiness, and fuck well anybody..... I wonder what the consensus here would be?
I mean, I imagine it would be negative, but that’s because quite a few MeFites hate big companies. Me, I would probably assume that they were being paid a lot to give a talk.
I am sorry guys but if it quacks like a duck it's a god damned duck.
You’re right, but that’s why I prefer to think about Clinton’s career in toto rather than the speeches in isolation. Of course, everyone here is considering Clinton’s career as a whole, and it already seems like we’ve reached different conclusions about it.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:47 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, I imagine it would be negative, but that’s because quite a few MeFites hate big companies. Me, I would probably assume that they were being paid a lot to give a talk.
I am sorry guys but if it quacks like a duck it's a god damned duck.
You’re right, but that’s why I prefer to think about Clinton’s career in toto rather than the speeches in isolation. Of course, everyone here is considering Clinton’s career as a whole, and it already seems like we’ve reached different conclusions about it.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:47 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Much like the right to die thing, it turns out Clinton did answer the draft question in 2007. I would be much more impressed with her if she stood by those views today, especially since she expressed the correct views on these issues back then.
“Senator Clinton, do you think women should register for Selective Service?” Cooper asked at a South Carolina debate.
Clinton didn’t hesitate: “I do. I don’t support a draft. I think our all-volunteer military has performed superbly. But we’ve had women die in Iraq. We’ve had combat deaths of women in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I do think that women should register. I doubt very much that we’ll ever have to go back to a draft. But I think it is fair to call upon every young American.”
posted by Drinky Die at 9:50 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
“Senator Clinton, do you think women should register for Selective Service?” Cooper asked at a South Carolina debate.
Clinton didn’t hesitate: “I do. I don’t support a draft. I think our all-volunteer military has performed superbly. But we’ve had women die in Iraq. We’ve had combat deaths of women in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I do think that women should register. I doubt very much that we’ll ever have to go back to a draft. But I think it is fair to call upon every young American.”
posted by Drinky Die at 9:50 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is beginning to veer away from Wall St and the financial sector to targeting being rich in general.
No this is about being a politician and getting paid massive amounts of money by large corporations and banks to give speeches. If Bill and Hillary were software developers I doubt this would really be that big a deal.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:57 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
No this is about being a politician and getting paid massive amounts of money by large corporations and banks to give speeches. If Bill and Hillary were software developers I doubt this would really be that big a deal.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:57 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's not about hating big companies or anything. It's the incestuous relationship between money and power and how that influences laws that are passed and enforced. I don't care about Clinton or Sanders or their individual strengths and weaknesses. They're just faces for the conversation right now. Should those with the power to regulate be taking money from those they're expected to regulate?
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:59 PM on February 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:59 PM on February 5, 2016 [17 favorites]
WaPo: Sorry, Hillary: You are the establishment
For some reason all this makes me think of this story about Ted Cruz and George W. Bush:
In a never-before-reported meeting in Bush’s Dallas office, Cruz began to outline his 2012 campaign playbook for the former president, according to people familiar with the conversation. Cruz explained how he would consolidate conservatives yearning for a political outsider, how he would outflank the front-runner on the right, how he would proudly carry the mantle of the ascendant tea party to victory over entrenched elites. It was impressive foreshadowing.
But Bush cut Cruz off before he could finish. “I guess you don’t want my support,” Bush interrupted. “Ted, what the hell do you think I am?”
If you are trying to forge a political dynasty, you are the entrenched establishment. No way around it.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:07 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
For some reason all this makes me think of this story about Ted Cruz and George W. Bush:
In a never-before-reported meeting in Bush’s Dallas office, Cruz began to outline his 2012 campaign playbook for the former president, according to people familiar with the conversation. Cruz explained how he would consolidate conservatives yearning for a political outsider, how he would outflank the front-runner on the right, how he would proudly carry the mantle of the ascendant tea party to victory over entrenched elites. It was impressive foreshadowing.
But Bush cut Cruz off before he could finish. “I guess you don’t want my support,” Bush interrupted. “Ted, what the hell do you think I am?”
If you are trying to forge a political dynasty, you are the entrenched establishment. No way around it.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:07 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is beginning to veer away from Wall St and the financial sector to targeting being rich in general.
Rich people have undue, outsized influence on public policy. I hope rational people agree that their spending habits — when their spending influences people who may potentially be elected in our near future — are in the public interest.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:09 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Rich people have undue, outsized influence on public policy. I hope rational people agree that their spending habits — when their spending influences people who may potentially be elected in our near future — are in the public interest.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:09 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
I guess Cheney's connections to Halliburton and the Bush Family's connections to weapon system manufacturers via the Carlyle Group were all just fine and above board. It's amazing how partisans become selectively suspicious in one case and then selectively gullible in another depending on who the subject of the discussion is.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:16 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:16 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
No this is about being a politician and getting paid massive amounts of money by large corporations and banks to give speeches. If Bill and Hillary were software developers I doubt this would really be that big a deal.
It's not only corporations and banks. It's also a bunch of different social clubs, networking events, industry conferences, and yeah, probably, groups of software developers that are also paying for them to meet and greet. That $153 million figure cited is for the total of all these different types of speeches and events mixed together. The article does state that $7.7 million was attributed to big banks.
posted by FJT at 10:17 PM on February 5, 2016
It's not only corporations and banks. It's also a bunch of different social clubs, networking events, industry conferences, and yeah, probably, groups of software developers that are also paying for them to meet and greet. That $153 million figure cited is for the total of all these different types of speeches and events mixed together. The article does state that $7.7 million was attributed to big banks.
posted by FJT at 10:17 PM on February 5, 2016
The article does state that $7.7 million was attributed to big banks.
Yep, we can read. And we can also understand the fact that banks are not the only industry that might want to garner favor from politicians.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:20 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yep, we can read. And we can also understand the fact that banks are not the only industry that might want to garner favor from politicians.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:20 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
While concerns over influence peddling are focused on Wall Street and finance companies, it is unlikely that the breakdown matters all that much. There might be a valid point that it matters less how much Bill collects from giving talks, because he isn't the one running for office, but it is most certainly in the public interest how much Hillary (and every other candidate across the board) gets from these and other companies for her services.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:20 PM on February 5, 2016
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:20 PM on February 5, 2016
One other interesting thing from that report is that apparently Hillary gets paid more for speeches than Bill.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:23 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:23 PM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ah, only $7,700,000. For what is it, a few dozen talks?
That's more money than will pass through the hands of anyone in this thread in our lifetimes.
It's corrupt and it's dangerous and you don't get to call yourself a progressive if you're taking that kind of money from those kinds of people, full stop.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:23 PM on February 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
That's more money than will pass through the hands of anyone in this thread in our lifetimes.
It's corrupt and it's dangerous and you don't get to call yourself a progressive if you're taking that kind of money from those kinds of people, full stop.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:23 PM on February 5, 2016 [14 favorites]
And also what is in the content of her speeches? Romney lost his election, and a major part of why was likely because of his famous 47% speech. There's no reason to hide her speech transcripts, if she hasn't said anything questionable that would be to the benefit of her clients.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:25 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:25 PM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hillary gets paid more for speeches than Bill.
I noted that as well. At one point they both did a speech for GS a couple days apart, and she was paid $25,000 more than he. The difference isn't prestige -- he's a former President. The only difference is that he wasn't going to be running for high office in the future.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:26 PM on February 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
I noted that as well. At one point they both did a speech for GS a couple days apart, and she was paid $25,000 more than he. The difference isn't prestige -- he's a former President. The only difference is that he wasn't going to be running for high office in the future.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:26 PM on February 5, 2016 [13 favorites]
Maybe I'm being unfair, though. Maybe Goldman Sachs was trying to compensate for the gender gap. Maybe they care deeply enough about gender injustice that they decided to kick in a bit extra for Sec. Cilinton.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:30 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:30 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
Circumstantial, I know, but it has to make one wonder.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:56 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Circumstantial, I know, but it has to make one wonder.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:56 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
You cannot poll Sanders in the general yet. It's no different than polling "generic Democrat" vs the Republican candidates.
Okay, fair enough, but I still think Bernie has outgrown the "obviously unelectable" label and is on par with Hillary in most ways. And yes, she definitely has more (much more) name recognition but the more people get to know him the better his numbers get. (Sorry, DWS. See you at the next debate.)
It's funny, a year ago people were happy to have Bernie up there, "pulling Hillary to the left."
posted by Room 641-A at 11:36 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
Okay, fair enough, but I still think Bernie has outgrown the "obviously unelectable" label and is on par with Hillary in most ways. And yes, she definitely has more (much more) name recognition but the more people get to know him the better his numbers get. (Sorry, DWS. See you at the next debate.)
It's funny, a year ago people were happy to have Bernie up there, "pulling Hillary to the left."
posted by Room 641-A at 11:36 PM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]
FJT:The Clinton's are rich, which I don't think was ever kept a secret at all.
Hillary: You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," Clinton said.
Poltifact: Hilary Clinton said she and Bill were in debt and dead broke when they left the White House. The public record shows that they possibly had more liabilities than assets, but it doesn’t show that conclusively. More important, a balance sheet does not tell the full story and the experts we reached said the Clintons’ earning potential had a real economic value that the financial sector traditionally acknowledges and is willing to bank on. A few weeks before they left the White House, the Clintons were able to muster a cash down payment of $855,000 and secure a $1.995 million mortgage. This hardly fits the common meaning of "dead broke."
We rate the claim Mostly False.
posted by futz at 12:11 AM on February 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hillary: You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," Clinton said.
Poltifact: Hilary Clinton said she and Bill were in debt and dead broke when they left the White House. The public record shows that they possibly had more liabilities than assets, but it doesn’t show that conclusively. More important, a balance sheet does not tell the full story and the experts we reached said the Clintons’ earning potential had a real economic value that the financial sector traditionally acknowledges and is willing to bank on. A few weeks before they left the White House, the Clintons were able to muster a cash down payment of $855,000 and secure a $1.995 million mortgage. This hardly fits the common meaning of "dead broke."
We rate the claim Mostly False.
posted by futz at 12:11 AM on February 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
In other words, the Clinton's (hillary) were pleading poverty and it was a laughably disingenuous to say.
posted by futz at 12:19 AM on February 6, 2016
posted by futz at 12:19 AM on February 6, 2016
Okay, fair enough, but I still think Bernie has outgrown the "obviously unelectable" label and is on par with Hillary in most ways.
My feeling is that Clinton is a known quantity electorally. She would be likely to win either a narrow or a modest victory depending on who the Republicans nominate. No, she's not going to get 56% of the vote but she doesn't need to.
Sanders is a huge wildcard and a gamble. I could see him get 54% and winning quite handily or I could see him getting 44% of the vote and losing narrowly, depending on who the Republicans put forward and whether he keeps screwing the pooch on foreign affairs questions that don't involve just repeating "I voted against Iraq!".
Yeah, he has a bigger upside. But he could also give away a very winnable election for the Democrats.
posted by Justinian at 2:05 AM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
My feeling is that Clinton is a known quantity electorally. She would be likely to win either a narrow or a modest victory depending on who the Republicans nominate. No, she's not going to get 56% of the vote but she doesn't need to.
Sanders is a huge wildcard and a gamble. I could see him get 54% and winning quite handily or I could see him getting 44% of the vote and losing narrowly, depending on who the Republicans put forward and whether he keeps screwing the pooch on foreign affairs questions that don't involve just repeating "I voted against Iraq!".
Yeah, he has a bigger upside. But he could also give away a very winnable election for the Democrats.
posted by Justinian at 2:05 AM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I could see him get 54% and winning
So we agree, he is not "obviously unelectable." :-)
posted by Room 641-A at 4:42 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
So we agree, he is not "obviously unelectable." :-)
posted by Room 641-A at 4:42 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why on earth does anyone pay anyone that much money to give a talk?
So that in a year, they take your phonecall.
posted by mikelieman at 5:42 AM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
So that in a year, they take your phonecall.
posted by mikelieman at 5:42 AM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
I just want to speak up about all this speculation about her speaking fee. I book speakers as part of my work, and though I've never booked a speaker who charged more than $20K, I've had to learn about that world and deal with many of the same agencies as the big hitters. Speaker fees are kind of a Freakonomics thing - it's not exactly a 1:1 correspondence between fame and fee, nor is a high fee indicative of an expectation of future favors. There are a number of factors that go into determining a fee. Fame is only one. Availability is another. The fund paying for the fee are, frankly, another; as a nonprofit, even a well-funded one, I could get breaks on fees that a private organization would not, and would not ask for. Part of the story with firms like Goldman Sachs is that they're seriously overcapitalized - they need somewhere for their money to go, so it looks like they're actually delivering value instead of being parasites on society (same reason, incidentally, their staff is so repulsively overpaid). The desire of the organization to fill seats, attract meeting participants from all over the country/world, perhaps sell tickets to an add-on benefit or a VIP lunch to offset meeting costs, are all reasons for agreeing to a high fee. Most speakers quote different prices to private sector and public sector organizations like universities or museums. In short, Clinton's people would quote GS a fee like that because they can, because her availability is quite limited, and because they know GS can pay without batting an eye. It improves her profile and portfolio. Her set of speaking engagements, and her fees, lead the pack for women but are not unheard of for male speakers with as high a profile.
Bill, meanwhile, has absolutely nothing to prove and doesn't really care about his individual speaking fees as much; he's not building a profile, he's maintaining it. His critical limiting factor is availability, and his lens for taking gigs is different because he heads a global nonprofit. Still, in the aggregate, he earns apparently upwards of $10 million a year in speaking fees.
It would be great to see the content of the speech, I agree. But I think it's really speculative and unfair to assume a tit-for-tat relationship coming from the exchange of this fee. There is no real basis for thinking that. It's not really how speaking engagements work. It's not the right vehicle for the creation of such relationships.
posted by Miko at 7:18 AM on February 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Bill, meanwhile, has absolutely nothing to prove and doesn't really care about his individual speaking fees as much; he's not building a profile, he's maintaining it. His critical limiting factor is availability, and his lens for taking gigs is different because he heads a global nonprofit. Still, in the aggregate, he earns apparently upwards of $10 million a year in speaking fees.
It would be great to see the content of the speech, I agree. But I think it's really speculative and unfair to assume a tit-for-tat relationship coming from the exchange of this fee. There is no real basis for thinking that. It's not really how speaking engagements work. It's not the right vehicle for the creation of such relationships.
posted by Miko at 7:18 AM on February 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm sure you're right about speaking fees in general, but I think in the context of a politician who everyone knows will soon be running for President, going to the institution she wants to regulate and receiving lavish compensation really ought to raise eyebrows. It's a totally different thing from giving an academic lecture. Especially when reports from that speech indicate that she told the bankers that the "foolish" banker-bashing needs to end, that "we all" created the economic crisis and should "all" work to recover from it, and that she would work with them, not against them - which provides a stark contrast to her public statements on the issue and, indeed, indicates that she says one thing in public and another thing in private.
I'll just quote Elizabeth Warren on Hillary Clinton's bankruptcy reform reversal following Wall Street donations again: "She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency."
posted by dialetheia at 8:01 AM on February 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'll just quote Elizabeth Warren on Hillary Clinton's bankruptcy reform reversal following Wall Street donations again: "She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency."
posted by dialetheia at 8:01 AM on February 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
Justinian: agreed. Sen. Sanders definitely needs to articulate a strategy for getting the mess cleaned up, he can't just keep repeating the point that he wouldn't've gotten us here in the first place.
Unfortunately there are no simple solutions, and what is really needed -- US demilitarization, reform of the UN and establishment of genuinely multilateral, effective and human-rights oriented international institutions is just depressingly unthinkable.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:05 AM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unfortunately there are no simple solutions, and what is really needed -- US demilitarization, reform of the UN and establishment of genuinely multilateral, effective and human-rights oriented international institutions is just depressingly unthinkable.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:05 AM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Besides, if the speaking fees are a less convincing avenue of influence, the $20+ million in Wall Street donations she's received this election cycle alone might be more convincing.
Not here but in the broader discourse, I'm surprised and disappointed to see liberals defending these kinds of deals. We used to expect more of people who wanted to be our public servants. Just last cycle, I believe Romney was raked over the coals by Democrats for the exact same things.
posted by dialetheia at 8:08 AM on February 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
Not here but in the broader discourse, I'm surprised and disappointed to see liberals defending these kinds of deals. We used to expect more of people who wanted to be our public servants. Just last cycle, I believe Romney was raked over the coals by Democrats for the exact same things.
posted by dialetheia at 8:08 AM on February 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
Discrepancies have been found in the Iowa caucus count for the Democrats, and once a review is done, Iowa party officials will update the final tally.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:17 AM on February 6, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:17 AM on February 6, 2016
So that in a year, they take your phonecall.
Ding! ding! ding! This is not about quid pro quo. This is about access. This is about getting a seat at the table and having input into how bills are written. Or not written. Or who gets nominated for cabinet positions. Or not. In fact, I think the speaking fee is a red herring. There are plenty of things people do to curry favor that don't involve a direct financial transaction, not unlike the lobbying or corporate revolving door.
From the WaPo article link above (which is actually entitled "Clintons have made more than $25 million for speaking since January 2014"):
But Bill Clinton said this month that he intends to continue to collect speaking fees, even as his wife campaigns.
“I gotta pay our bills,” he told NBC News.
Jesus, could you be any more out of touch?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:23 AM on February 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
Ding! ding! ding! This is not about quid pro quo. This is about access. This is about getting a seat at the table and having input into how bills are written. Or not written. Or who gets nominated for cabinet positions. Or not. In fact, I think the speaking fee is a red herring. There are plenty of things people do to curry favor that don't involve a direct financial transaction, not unlike the lobbying or corporate revolving door.
From the WaPo article link above (which is actually entitled "Clintons have made more than $25 million for speaking since January 2014"):
But Bill Clinton said this month that he intends to continue to collect speaking fees, even as his wife campaigns.
“I gotta pay our bills,” he told NBC News.
Jesus, could you be any more out of touch?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:23 AM on February 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
Her set of speaking engagements, and her fees, lead the pack for women but are not unheard of for male speakers with as high a profile.
To me it has noting to do with profile or gender. It has to do with the fact that she is running for president. It looks bad. It's amateur. She's used the "I didn't know I was going to run" defense, so even she admits it looks bad. I have no problem believing that she was uncertain if she was going to run, just as I had no problem believing Elizabeth Warren when she said she wasn't, but I can't believe both didn't spend a lot of time thinking about it. So why would she do something that was so obviously sketchy for a presidential candidate? Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but seriously, taking money from Wall Street when the rest of the country absolutely despises them, at a time when many are still clamoring for arrests and for them to be broken up, just strikes me as absolutely oblivious to the damage it would potentially do. So either she's dumb (I don't believe so), she didn't think she'd run, so was fine with it looking bad (possible), or she just couldn't see the optics. That's the part that strikes me as typical for both Clintons. They live in a world incapable of seeing how others will see them. This is why Hillary thinks it's fine to corral journalists with a rope line line they are children crossing the street at a daycare.
There's also the whole, for the lack of a better word, morality of the whole thing. If it looks sketchy and bad for a presidential candidate to be cozying up to the banks, then perhaps it's just plain bad. If making more in one speech than a normal person makes in a whole year looks out of touch and wrong for a presidential candidate, maybe it just is. You pay that much for a speaker because you expect to get something from that speaker. Perhaps peddling her past office to the highest bidder isn't exactly what a presidential candidate wants to be doing. I have no idea.
What I can tell you for sure, with absolute certainty, is her handling of this, again for the lack of a better word, scandal has been atrocious. You don't get to run for office and then woodenly smile and ignore press questions like a Westworld candidate. That only insures you are going to be hounded with that question. At this point nothing is going to satisfy the press until she releases the transcripts. Doesn't matter if she (or her people) think voters care. The press cares now and one of their missions is to create an informed electorate (whether people listen or not is irrelevant to this). This isn't going away.
You also don't get to say, "I took the money because that's what they offered." You say what you said above. "I am in demand. My fee is comparable to other speakers with experience like mine." Hell, I bet she could have even spun it like, "I make my living through my speaking engagements. People pay a lot of money to hear my views on issues. It would be unfair of me to give away my intellectual property for free when other people paid good money for it." We don't expect writers and musicians and actors to work cheaply or for free, so why should we her? Sort of a, "You want the speeches? Pay me!" approach. Obviously that wouldn't fly, but it would have been far better than this wishy-washy "We'll look into it." It's the email scandal all over. If she's just released the speeches, and said she'd be happy to do so, when first asked this would no longer be a story.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:27 AM on February 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
To me it has noting to do with profile or gender. It has to do with the fact that she is running for president. It looks bad. It's amateur. She's used the "I didn't know I was going to run" defense, so even she admits it looks bad. I have no problem believing that she was uncertain if she was going to run, just as I had no problem believing Elizabeth Warren when she said she wasn't, but I can't believe both didn't spend a lot of time thinking about it. So why would she do something that was so obviously sketchy for a presidential candidate? Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but seriously, taking money from Wall Street when the rest of the country absolutely despises them, at a time when many are still clamoring for arrests and for them to be broken up, just strikes me as absolutely oblivious to the damage it would potentially do. So either she's dumb (I don't believe so), she didn't think she'd run, so was fine with it looking bad (possible), or she just couldn't see the optics. That's the part that strikes me as typical for both Clintons. They live in a world incapable of seeing how others will see them. This is why Hillary thinks it's fine to corral journalists with a rope line line they are children crossing the street at a daycare.
There's also the whole, for the lack of a better word, morality of the whole thing. If it looks sketchy and bad for a presidential candidate to be cozying up to the banks, then perhaps it's just plain bad. If making more in one speech than a normal person makes in a whole year looks out of touch and wrong for a presidential candidate, maybe it just is. You pay that much for a speaker because you expect to get something from that speaker. Perhaps peddling her past office to the highest bidder isn't exactly what a presidential candidate wants to be doing. I have no idea.
What I can tell you for sure, with absolute certainty, is her handling of this, again for the lack of a better word, scandal has been atrocious. You don't get to run for office and then woodenly smile and ignore press questions like a Westworld candidate. That only insures you are going to be hounded with that question. At this point nothing is going to satisfy the press until she releases the transcripts. Doesn't matter if she (or her people) think voters care. The press cares now and one of their missions is to create an informed electorate (whether people listen or not is irrelevant to this). This isn't going away.
You also don't get to say, "I took the money because that's what they offered." You say what you said above. "I am in demand. My fee is comparable to other speakers with experience like mine." Hell, I bet she could have even spun it like, "I make my living through my speaking engagements. People pay a lot of money to hear my views on issues. It would be unfair of me to give away my intellectual property for free when other people paid good money for it." We don't expect writers and musicians and actors to work cheaply or for free, so why should we her? Sort of a, "You want the speeches? Pay me!" approach. Obviously that wouldn't fly, but it would have been far better than this wishy-washy "We'll look into it." It's the email scandal all over. If she's just released the speeches, and said she'd be happy to do so, when first asked this would no longer be a story.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:27 AM on February 6, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm not exactly defending, I'm hoping to get past a naive focus on a set of speeches. She was the Senator for the region in which this industry is based, and they were in a real and direct way a large part of her constituency, as they would be of anyone in office representing that region. It would be silly to think she has not already had many meetings and exchanges with influencers in that sector - so why focus on the speeches? There's a broader relationship there and one that is not entirely, if at all, inappropriate. The focus on speeches tends to make people obsessing on it look a little non-savvy. I can understand not liking it, but it's not central to the set of concerns people are raising.
And, like it or not, giant banks will continue to be an enormous part of the American economy and need to be dealt with. I'm not convinced that wholly adversarial measures are going to be effective, because the decisionmakers at those banks really don't have to stay in the US, nor do their firms. They are no longer much tied to the statutes of any one nation. Sadly, they have a lot of weight to throw around, and that weight is made up of our savings, our educations, our homes, and our jobs. I'm not sure I like or approve of Hillary's relationship with banks. But I agree that I am not hearing plausible alternative solutions or proposals from her opponents.
I don't know, folks. I teeter on the fence of concluding that the oligarchy is now permanent and has been for decades, in which case I should really just be looking out for Supreme Court appointments and marginal victories, or whether we really have a revolutionary New New Deal moment here. Unless things start looking dramatically different, I'm afraid that I just doubt it. I love Bernie's views; I'm a socialist and have been for a long time. I think it's the only viable governance philosophy in an increasingly technologizing world which won't offer many jobs in the future. But I am not sure the moment is now or the voices in the ring are the ones to take it. The American electorate has never much had a taste for outright revolution - aside from the events underlying our origin mythos and the Southern secession it has basically not ever happened - and once you get out of the clusters where the Bern is being felt so strongly I don't see a tremendous number of reasons to be hopeful he can carry it. I don't have to make a decision until our primary, and don't plan to, but I am concerned about being overoptimistic of Bernie's chances of success.
posted by Miko at 8:28 AM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
And, like it or not, giant banks will continue to be an enormous part of the American economy and need to be dealt with. I'm not convinced that wholly adversarial measures are going to be effective, because the decisionmakers at those banks really don't have to stay in the US, nor do their firms. They are no longer much tied to the statutes of any one nation. Sadly, they have a lot of weight to throw around, and that weight is made up of our savings, our educations, our homes, and our jobs. I'm not sure I like or approve of Hillary's relationship with banks. But I agree that I am not hearing plausible alternative solutions or proposals from her opponents.
I don't know, folks. I teeter on the fence of concluding that the oligarchy is now permanent and has been for decades, in which case I should really just be looking out for Supreme Court appointments and marginal victories, or whether we really have a revolutionary New New Deal moment here. Unless things start looking dramatically different, I'm afraid that I just doubt it. I love Bernie's views; I'm a socialist and have been for a long time. I think it's the only viable governance philosophy in an increasingly technologizing world which won't offer many jobs in the future. But I am not sure the moment is now or the voices in the ring are the ones to take it. The American electorate has never much had a taste for outright revolution - aside from the events underlying our origin mythos and the Southern secession it has basically not ever happened - and once you get out of the clusters where the Bern is being felt so strongly I don't see a tremendous number of reasons to be hopeful he can carry it. I don't have to make a decision until our primary, and don't plan to, but I am concerned about being overoptimistic of Bernie's chances of success.
posted by Miko at 8:28 AM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
"I didn't know I was going to run" is the most BS excuse. She has known she was going to run ever since Barack Obama overtook her lead in 2008.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:30 AM on February 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:30 AM on February 6, 2016 [12 favorites]
Ding! ding! ding! This is not about quid pro quo. This is about access.
Exactly. As mentioned in the article I linked above:
“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group that seeks to tighten campaign finance disclosure rules. “This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these nonprofits is problematic.”
Hillary Clinton’s willingness to allow those with business before the State Department to finance her foundation heightens concerns about how she would manage such relationships as president, said Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics.
“These continuing revelations raise a fundamental question of judgment,” Lessig told IBTimes. “Can it really be that the Clintons didn't recognize the questions these transactions would raise? And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”
National security experts assert that the overlap between the list of Clinton Foundation donors and those with business before the the State Department presents a troubling conflict of interest.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:31 AM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Exactly. As mentioned in the article I linked above:
“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group that seeks to tighten campaign finance disclosure rules. “This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these nonprofits is problematic.”
Hillary Clinton’s willingness to allow those with business before the State Department to finance her foundation heightens concerns about how she would manage such relationships as president, said Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics.
“These continuing revelations raise a fundamental question of judgment,” Lessig told IBTimes. “Can it really be that the Clintons didn't recognize the questions these transactions would raise? And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”
National security experts assert that the overlap between the list of Clinton Foundation donors and those with business before the the State Department presents a troubling conflict of interest.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:31 AM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
the speaking fee is a red herring
Basically what was I saying. Focus on the bigger issue and ask for solution proposals, not just attacks.
Jesus, could you be any more out of touch?
Yeah, yeah. The Clintons are rich. They are, no denying. At the same time, they are an industry unto themselves. Their bills are like those of a large-ish NGO, because that is what they are. They have employees, serious office setups in multiple locations, travel costs that would make anyone blanch, etc. They enjoy their incredibly high profile because they work incredibly actively, and that has costs. I agree it sounds obnoxious, but there is a truth underling that.
posted by Miko at 8:31 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Basically what was I saying. Focus on the bigger issue and ask for solution proposals, not just attacks.
Jesus, could you be any more out of touch?
Yeah, yeah. The Clintons are rich. They are, no denying. At the same time, they are an industry unto themselves. Their bills are like those of a large-ish NGO, because that is what they are. They have employees, serious office setups in multiple locations, travel costs that would make anyone blanch, etc. They enjoy their incredibly high profile because they work incredibly actively, and that has costs. I agree it sounds obnoxious, but there is a truth underling that.
posted by Miko at 8:31 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Clinton 2016: Oligarchy is now permanent" would at least be honest.
posted by dialetheia at 8:33 AM on February 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:33 AM on February 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
Sure. I mean, zing. Question is, what to do about it? What does a reasonable person do in response?
posted by Miko at 8:35 AM on February 6, 2016
posted by Miko at 8:35 AM on February 6, 2016
Question is, what to do about it? What does a reasonable person do in response?
Vote for Bernie Sanders?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:37 AM on February 6, 2016 [15 favorites]
Vote for Bernie Sanders?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:37 AM on February 6, 2016 [15 favorites]
Well, it seems like the first step would be to take the Democratic party back by creating a popular movement based on small, non-corporate donations and expand the voting base by inspiring and motivating young people, minorities, poor people, and other underrepresented groups to go to the polls. At the end of the day, they still need our votes. I'm not saying Sanders will solve all the problems - that would be ridiculous - but if he can get disenfranchised people who have given up on politics back into the process, maybe we can at least start taking the Democratic party back from people who support oligarchy.
posted by dialetheia at 8:48 AM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:48 AM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yeah, yeah. The Clintons are rich.
I don't care how rich the Clintons are. I care that Bill Clinton said they need these kinds of fees to pay their bills, and how out of touch that sounds to someone who has had phone service disconnected more than once over a $30 phone bill. It reminds me of when George HW Bush encountered the supermarket scanner for the first time.
Question is, what to do about it?
Not accepting that money in the first place would be a good start.
They have employees, serious office setups in multiple locations, travel costs that would make anyone blanch, etc.
...Which goes to support their speaking careers, which raises money to pay for the office and personnel, which goes to support their speaking careers, rinse & repeat. I mean, come on. To paraphrase the late Senator Ted Kennedy, how much is enough?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:55 AM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't care how rich the Clintons are. I care that Bill Clinton said they need these kinds of fees to pay their bills, and how out of touch that sounds to someone who has had phone service disconnected more than once over a $30 phone bill. It reminds me of when George HW Bush encountered the supermarket scanner for the first time.
Question is, what to do about it?
Not accepting that money in the first place would be a good start.
They have employees, serious office setups in multiple locations, travel costs that would make anyone blanch, etc.
...Which goes to support their speaking careers, which raises money to pay for the office and personnel, which goes to support their speaking careers, rinse & repeat. I mean, come on. To paraphrase the late Senator Ted Kennedy, how much is enough?
posted by Room 641-A at 8:55 AM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
If Hillary Clinton was a judge she'd have to recuse herself from cases involving anyone she's taken money from. Not because of the money, because of the influence. The whole hand-wavy defense of this potential conflict is very surprising to me.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:01 AM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 9:01 AM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
I care that Bill Clinton said they need these kinds of fees to pay their bills, and how out of touch that sounds
Yeah, it's a bit Lucille Bluth "how much could a banana cost, $10?"
posted by melissasaurus at 9:03 AM on February 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, it's a bit Lucille Bluth "how much could a banana cost, $10?"
posted by melissasaurus at 9:03 AM on February 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't care how rich the Clintons are. I care that Bill Clinton said they need these kinds of fees to pay their bills, and how out of touch that sounds to someone who has had phone service disconnected more than once over a $30 phone bill. It reminds me of when George HW Bush encountered the supermarket scanner for the first time.
The Clintons have always had an openness to their desires for money and power that can come off as trashy compared to public figures who come from a level of society that already has the money and power. If anything it was an advantage to Bill when he was running for president because everyone can relate to wanting money when you have none, but now that they have been rich and powerful for decades it comes off much less positively, and they don't seem to have a handle on the ethics at all.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:07 AM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Clintons have always had an openness to their desires for money and power that can come off as trashy compared to public figures who come from a level of society that already has the money and power. If anything it was an advantage to Bill when he was running for president because everyone can relate to wanting money when you have none, but now that they have been rich and powerful for decades it comes off much less positively, and they don't seem to have a handle on the ethics at all.
posted by Dip Flash at 9:07 AM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Voter turnout, as always, is the key. Democrats do well when people turn out. People turn out when they believe their vote might matter. So we should support the candidate most likely to convince nonvoters that their vote might lead to change, and that person is Sen. Sanders.
Democrats are not going to get the votes of 30% of Americans who voted against Obama. They have a good chance of getting votes from the disproprtionately young, lower-income and minority nonvoters who make up 40% of potential voters. Let's fight to get 20-30% of those votes as opposed to slogging it out for the miniscule, mythical votes of the people who are politically engaged but swing between the parties.
There just are not that many David Brookses in country any more. Moderate-hunting is a fool's errand, as President Obama has demonstrated. The disaffected masses have to be engaged. Sen. Sanders understands that and Sec. Clinton does not.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:10 AM on February 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
Democrats are not going to get the votes of 30% of Americans who voted against Obama. They have a good chance of getting votes from the disproprtionately young, lower-income and minority nonvoters who make up 40% of potential voters. Let's fight to get 20-30% of those votes as opposed to slogging it out for the miniscule, mythical votes of the people who are politically engaged but swing between the parties.
There just are not that many David Brookses in country any more. Moderate-hunting is a fool's errand, as President Obama has demonstrated. The disaffected masses have to be engaged. Sen. Sanders understands that and Sec. Clinton does not.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:10 AM on February 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
There's often been a tight correlation in western politics between the companies affected by policy decisions and the speaking engagements and honorary directorships which they hand out to politicians as a kind of nod and a wink, but most at least have the grace to wait until they are no longer in office before cashing in ...
posted by walrus at 9:11 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by walrus at 9:11 AM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile, the Republicans take their turns debating in NH tonight.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:12 AM on February 6, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:12 AM on February 6, 2016
My feeling is that Clinton is a known quantity electorally.
She may have been in 2008, but a lot has happened since then. We still don't know how people are going to react to endless Benghazi ads (she may have done well enough to avoid further trouble at the hearing, but expect to hear that "what difference does it make?" quote 50,000 times), new developments in the private email server scandal (which looks legitimately bad for her at this point, with State classifying things badly for her too now and not just the CIA), and attacks on their Wall Street connections. Worst, god only knows what sort of weird stuff was going on with the Clinton Foundation during those years - there are already allegations that countries donated to the Foundation even as they lobbied Clinton at the State Department, and that those countries received significantly increased arms sales from Clinton's state after giving maximum donations to the Clinton Foundation (and that's from Mother Jones, not Fox News).
She may have withstood a lot of attacks over the years, but that doesn't mean that new attacks are meaningless or rooted in right-wing conspiracy, and I think Dems are foolish to dismiss these issues even if Sanders isn't attacking on them. I find the email server genuinely troubling, even as a Democrat, and the Clinton Foundation conflict of interest seems problematic on its face.
posted by dialetheia at 9:19 AM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
She may have been in 2008, but a lot has happened since then. We still don't know how people are going to react to endless Benghazi ads (she may have done well enough to avoid further trouble at the hearing, but expect to hear that "what difference does it make?" quote 50,000 times), new developments in the private email server scandal (which looks legitimately bad for her at this point, with State classifying things badly for her too now and not just the CIA), and attacks on their Wall Street connections. Worst, god only knows what sort of weird stuff was going on with the Clinton Foundation during those years - there are already allegations that countries donated to the Foundation even as they lobbied Clinton at the State Department, and that those countries received significantly increased arms sales from Clinton's state after giving maximum donations to the Clinton Foundation (and that's from Mother Jones, not Fox News).
She may have withstood a lot of attacks over the years, but that doesn't mean that new attacks are meaningless or rooted in right-wing conspiracy, and I think Dems are foolish to dismiss these issues even if Sanders isn't attacking on them. I find the email server genuinely troubling, even as a Democrat, and the Clinton Foundation conflict of interest seems problematic on its face.
posted by dialetheia at 9:19 AM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
If Hillary Clinton was a judge she'd have to recuse herself from cases involving anyone she's taken money from.
Bingo. There is a very traditional "conflict of interest" that comes into play when she takes money from large banking orgs that she also will be directly and indirectly involved in regulating. That sort of conflict of interest shouldn't involve just the Judicial branch, no matter how used to it we may have become with the other two branches. It's just as bad (if not worse) that the Legislative branch pretty much operates in direct opposition to that concept - If we have a chance to remove that conflict from the head of the executive branch, it's an opportunity that is exceptionally and sadly rare that can carry a lot of weight in an election, and I suspect considerably more weight during the actual term (not that I have any frame of reference whatsoever for that)
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:20 AM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bingo. There is a very traditional "conflict of interest" that comes into play when she takes money from large banking orgs that she also will be directly and indirectly involved in regulating. That sort of conflict of interest shouldn't involve just the Judicial branch, no matter how used to it we may have become with the other two branches. It's just as bad (if not worse) that the Legislative branch pretty much operates in direct opposition to that concept - If we have a chance to remove that conflict from the head of the executive branch, it's an opportunity that is exceptionally and sadly rare that can carry a lot of weight in an election, and I suspect considerably more weight during the actual term (not that I have any frame of reference whatsoever for that)
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:20 AM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Meanwhile, the Republicans take their turns debating in NH tonight.
Now that the Republicans don't have their own kiddie table we can just go ahead and call this the official Children's Table going forward, thanks.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:38 AM on February 6, 2016
Now that the Republicans don't have their own kiddie table we can just go ahead and call this the official Children's Table going forward, thanks.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:38 AM on February 6, 2016
increased arms
Republicans take their turns debating
Oh, hey, speaking of arms and Ted Cruz....
posted by Room 641-A at 10:02 AM on February 6, 2016
Republicans take their turns debating
Oh, hey, speaking of arms and Ted Cruz....
posted by Room 641-A at 10:02 AM on February 6, 2016
Moderate-hunting is a fool's errand, as President Obama has demonstrated. The disaffected masses have to be engaged.
Indeed. This is something that is demonstrably true in many regional elections, and something I've certainly seen first hand.
The big complication and variable that really screws up logical analysis: The electoral system, and specifically, "swing states."
I suspect - but do not know for certain - that these states are best won by exactly the strategy you mention. What I think tends to happen when we look at the whole concept of swing states is that people see a pile of blue on one side, a pile of red on the other, and see these "purple" states as being so stuck in the middle that from an ideological perspective, moderates will be the ones who determine the election. While that may have been true some time ago (although I suspect it has never been about the moderates), we have seen a fairly substantial increase in polarization and partisanship - even if it's just perception, I still think that guides the election some.
If the overall goal is to get more votes for one side than another, I see no reason to believe that competing for votes in the middle at the expense of those at the extremes makes any sense at all, and I have every reason to believe the opposite, since I've seen it in action on a regional scale. I just don't know for sure how that works with the states and regions that will actually determine this election.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:23 AM on February 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Indeed. This is something that is demonstrably true in many regional elections, and something I've certainly seen first hand.
The big complication and variable that really screws up logical analysis: The electoral system, and specifically, "swing states."
I suspect - but do not know for certain - that these states are best won by exactly the strategy you mention. What I think tends to happen when we look at the whole concept of swing states is that people see a pile of blue on one side, a pile of red on the other, and see these "purple" states as being so stuck in the middle that from an ideological perspective, moderates will be the ones who determine the election. While that may have been true some time ago (although I suspect it has never been about the moderates), we have seen a fairly substantial increase in polarization and partisanship - even if it's just perception, I still think that guides the election some.
If the overall goal is to get more votes for one side than another, I see no reason to believe that competing for votes in the middle at the expense of those at the extremes makes any sense at all, and I have every reason to believe the opposite, since I've seen it in action on a regional scale. I just don't know for sure how that works with the states and regions that will actually determine this election.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:23 AM on February 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
>I'll just quote Elizabeth Warren on Hillary Clinton's bankruptcy reform reversal following Wall Street donations again: "She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about them as a constituency."
I urge everyone to watch the video clip found in dialetheia's comment. Senator Warren testifies as to her own personal experience with Clinton insofar as the influence of money is concerned. On another note, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bill Moyers is a god damned national treasure.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:37 AM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
I urge everyone to watch the video clip found in dialetheia's comment. Senator Warren testifies as to her own personal experience with Clinton insofar as the influence of money is concerned. On another note, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bill Moyers is a god damned national treasure.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:37 AM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
Another quote I really liked from Senator Warren recently, from a speech on the 6th anniversary of Citizens United:
A new presidential election is upon us. The first votes will be cast in Iowa in just eleven days. Anyone who shrugs and claims that change is just too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run this country like some private club.posted by dialetheia at 11:05 AM on February 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
moderates will be the ones who determine the election
Uninformed voters determine elections. "Swing" voters aren't consistently moderate, conservative, or liberal. They're low-information.
posted by Miko at 11:06 AM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Uninformed voters determine elections. "Swing" voters aren't consistently moderate, conservative, or liberal. They're low-information.
posted by Miko at 11:06 AM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
The other real question I have: a lot of people have exciting ideas for what it would take to get Bernie elected. I hear and see a lot of that here. My great question is what he will do. How will he govern? How will he influence his party to actually change the course of the economy? These proposals, and his ideas for funding them, look great in concept and make you go "rah!", but imagine for a second how a push to institute them would play out. What is his plan to develop Congressional support for pursuing some of these measures? What happens downticket? How many reps do you know really have the stomach to, say, levy a tax against offshored profits against the major employers and funders in their states? On my mind is not just how right his policies are, but the realistic chances of them coming to pass, instead of a term full of gridlock and allowing the right to make hay of it and retain their chokehold on legislation.
posted by Miko at 11:21 AM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Miko at 11:21 AM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm flabbergasted that Clinton invoked Kissinger positively in last night's debate. He has long seemed as counter to progressive values as anyone.
Why on Earth Is 'Progressive' Hillary Clinton Touting This Endorsement?
posted by homunculus at 11:26 AM on February 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Why on Earth Is 'Progressive' Hillary Clinton Touting This Endorsement?
posted by homunculus at 11:26 AM on February 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Miko: What is Clinton's answer to all of those questions?
(legitimately wondering, not snarking)
posted by melissasaurus at 11:28 AM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
(legitimately wondering, not snarking)
posted by melissasaurus at 11:28 AM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
One of the reports Bernie links in his proposal page is this one, which ends with a long list of proposals and bills to limit international tax dodging that are mostly moldering in committee or have never been voted on by the full Senate or House. Why and how would this change? How will an appetite to take it on be developed?
posted by Miko at 11:30 AM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 11:30 AM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
But again, what is Clinton's proposal for achieving change other than "abandon hope, adopt the GOP's policies"?
posted by melissasaurus at 11:34 AM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 11:34 AM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
What is Clinton's answer to all of those questions?
She's got proposals too (of course they don't go as far as Sanders'), mostly focused on increased oversight. I mean, I think it would be responsible to know something about them. But my sense is that she simply has more influence, more hand, and is more capable of getting things done by organizing within the party. But honestly, even if she weren't, even if we faced the status quo, I am thinking about worst-case scenarios in the downticket races and what could happen if the Congress tips more right under a Sanders presidency.
posted by Miko at 11:35 AM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
She's got proposals too (of course they don't go as far as Sanders'), mostly focused on increased oversight. I mean, I think it would be responsible to know something about them. But my sense is that she simply has more influence, more hand, and is more capable of getting things done by organizing within the party. But honestly, even if she weren't, even if we faced the status quo, I am thinking about worst-case scenarios in the downticket races and what could happen if the Congress tips more right under a Sanders presidency.
posted by Miko at 11:35 AM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders' plan is to re-engage some of the 40-50% of (largely poor) America that has given up on the political process and doesn't vote, so that we might have some hope of taking those downticket races instead of writing them off as Clinton is doing. The main way he is going to do that is by demonstrating that he isn't bought and paid for, appealing to independents, and making a real argument for liberal policies instead of running away from them. Expanding the voting base and getting people involved in the political process (including running for office) is what he means by "political revolution."
Not being bought and paid for is a fairly winning strategy this year so far - if you listen to Trump and his voters, much of his outsider appeal is based on not taking Wall Street money, and he's been very critical of e.g. Ted Cruz for it (yes, you and I know that Trump is no corporate crusader, but that's largely what he's campaigning on, along with overt racism). Most of the poor people in this country believe that the economy is rigged, the deck is stacked against them, and politicians are bought and paid for. Sanders has a chance at winning their vote. It's not all about left/right ideology.
And Miko, you still didn't explain what Clinton intends to do to change the situation - so far her rhetoric on party-building has, again, been "it's hopeless and we are going to lose all the seats."
posted by dialetheia at 11:41 AM on February 6, 2016 [16 favorites]
Not being bought and paid for is a fairly winning strategy this year so far - if you listen to Trump and his voters, much of his outsider appeal is based on not taking Wall Street money, and he's been very critical of e.g. Ted Cruz for it (yes, you and I know that Trump is no corporate crusader, but that's largely what he's campaigning on, along with overt racism). Most of the poor people in this country believe that the economy is rigged, the deck is stacked against them, and politicians are bought and paid for. Sanders has a chance at winning their vote. It's not all about left/right ideology.
And Miko, you still didn't explain what Clinton intends to do to change the situation - so far her rhetoric on party-building has, again, been "it's hopeless and we are going to lose all the seats."
posted by dialetheia at 11:41 AM on February 6, 2016 [16 favorites]
From the 2nd link: My plan would also give regulators the authority they need to reorganize, downsize or even break apart any financial institution that is too large and risky to be managed effectively. It is a comprehensive and flexible approach. It allows regulators to adapt to changing markets and help ensure that large financial firms never pose a danger to our entire economy.
I agree that most change will come from regulation not legislation. Dodd-Frank essentially grants authority to regulate, rather than instituting anything itself. The question is who will be writing the regulations? Will Clinton hire another Tim Geithner? Will we continue to let the banks regulate themselves?
posted by melissasaurus at 11:42 AM on February 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
I agree that most change will come from regulation not legislation. Dodd-Frank essentially grants authority to regulate, rather than instituting anything itself. The question is who will be writing the regulations? Will Clinton hire another Tim Geithner? Will we continue to let the banks regulate themselves?
posted by melissasaurus at 11:42 AM on February 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
How will he govern? How will he influence his party to actually change the course of the economy?
To a first approximation, I think the answer is that it doesn't matter. Neither Clinton nor Sanders is likely to be able to implement any sweeping changes in the face of intransigent Republican obstructionism. So, these questions aren't very interesting and are mostly urged to make Clinton seem more serious and pragmatic.
At a second pass, the Democratic Party is not Sanders' party. So ... he wouldn't be influencing his party to do anything. What I expect he would do -- and probably in a more effective way than we've seen in a very long time -- is appeal directly to the people to put pressure on their representatives to enact his proposals. One thing that Sanders has clearly demonstrated is his ability to motivate grassroots. If he doesn't give up on that after being elected, I think he could be enormously successful in implementing his policies.
And changing the course of the economy isn't really what Sanders would be trying to do, anyway. His goal is to change the prospects for the vast run of ordinary Americans. In this respect, "the economy" is kind of a made-up thing. "The economy" can do very well based on the success of the very, very wealthy, while the poor and middle class struggle. Frankly, I don't care about "the economy" except insofar as it reflects how well off the individuals in our society are. And for a while now, I don't think there has been a very high-fidelity connection between those two things.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:51 AM on February 6, 2016 [17 favorites]
To a first approximation, I think the answer is that it doesn't matter. Neither Clinton nor Sanders is likely to be able to implement any sweeping changes in the face of intransigent Republican obstructionism. So, these questions aren't very interesting and are mostly urged to make Clinton seem more serious and pragmatic.
At a second pass, the Democratic Party is not Sanders' party. So ... he wouldn't be influencing his party to do anything. What I expect he would do -- and probably in a more effective way than we've seen in a very long time -- is appeal directly to the people to put pressure on their representatives to enact his proposals. One thing that Sanders has clearly demonstrated is his ability to motivate grassroots. If he doesn't give up on that after being elected, I think he could be enormously successful in implementing his policies.
And changing the course of the economy isn't really what Sanders would be trying to do, anyway. His goal is to change the prospects for the vast run of ordinary Americans. In this respect, "the economy" is kind of a made-up thing. "The economy" can do very well based on the success of the very, very wealthy, while the poor and middle class struggle. Frankly, I don't care about "the economy" except insofar as it reflects how well off the individuals in our society are. And for a while now, I don't think there has been a very high-fidelity connection between those two things.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:51 AM on February 6, 2016 [17 favorites]
I think that a lot of the Obama coalition dissolved (and thus didn't turn out in 2010) because, after election, he continued the same revolving door policies. A lot of us were really disappointed with that, and are skeptical that a Clinton administration would be any different.
posted by melissasaurus at 11:55 AM on February 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 11:55 AM on February 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
On my mind is not just how right his policies are, but the realistic chances of them coming to pass, instead of a term full of gridlock and allowing the right to make hay of it and retain their chokehold on legislation.
We've seen that the GOP is willing to shut down the government to get their way. I have no reason to think that congress would be more amenable to working with Hillary Clinton of all people. And as far as hand, Bernie has 25 years of congressional experience and relationships.
I agree that these are all legitimate questions to ask of every candidate. I strongly disagree that, all things considered, Hillary is the more attractive candidate.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:59 AM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
We've seen that the GOP is willing to shut down the government to get their way. I have no reason to think that congress would be more amenable to working with Hillary Clinton of all people. And as far as hand, Bernie has 25 years of congressional experience and relationships.
I agree that these are all legitimate questions to ask of every candidate. I strongly disagree that, all things considered, Hillary is the more attractive candidate.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:59 AM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
Or what five other people said better just before I posted without previewing.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:00 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 12:00 PM on February 6, 2016
Ah, only $7,700,000. For what is it, a few dozen talks?
That's more money than will pass through the hands of anyone in this thread in our lifetimes
Speak for yourself. I am just a temporarily disadvantaged millionaire.
posted by phearlez at 12:10 PM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's more money than will pass through the hands of anyone in this thread in our lifetimes
Speak for yourself. I am just a temporarily disadvantaged millionaire.
posted by phearlez at 12:10 PM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
I care that Bill Clinton said they need these kinds of fees to pay their bills, and how out of touch that sounds to someone who has had phone service disconnected more than once over a $30 phone bill.
My problem with the $675,000 in speaking fees is exactly this.
I don't fault her for making bank (literally). Something is worth what people will pay for it, and if people will pay that much, she should demand what she can get. Again, this is a much better way of saying it than, "I don't know why I took that much money. It's what they offered."
What I do fault her for is when she says it doesn't influence her and challenges anyone to find a vote where they can save she was. That's bad logic. People can point at pretty much every vote she makes or policy she's created and say, "That one!" It's impossible to cash fat stacks of cash and not be influenced. And if you are the kind of person that can, well, I can't relate to that.
She is indeed influenced by the money, or the banks got screwed on their ROI on those speeches. Somehow, I am confident Goldman Sachs would be happy to keep writing her checks because I am certain they believe they are getting influence regardless what Clinton believes.
$675,000 is probably about what I will take home over the next 25 years of my life if I get expected raises and work until I am 70. (I am newly solidly middle-class if it matters.) She got it for a handful of speeches. Like I said, something is worth what people are willing to pay for it, but I find it difficult to imagine that a handful of speeches have the same value as the entire amount of labor I will give for the rest of my life.
Getting $225,000 for a single speech, then saying $15 is too high for a minimum wage just shows…same planet, different worlds.
And this is all without knowing the content of these speeches. If she made promises, gave away information not available to everyone, held their hands and cried about their hard lot in life, or anything that portrays her as being sympathetic to the financial industry, then I see this going sideways.
She made a mistake trying to pretend that Sanders is making "insinuations." No he's not. He's flat out saying she's in the pocket of the banks and that corporations are backing her candidacy. It's what he's running on. People don't buy it. Even her supporters don't. She's trying to pretend she's not establishment when she is, she's trying to pretend she was broke when she wasn't, she's trying to pretend she's not beholden to the very industry that contributed to making her as wealthy as she is. At some point people start pointing out the empress is wearing no clothes.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:13 PM on February 6, 2016 [20 favorites]
My problem with the $675,000 in speaking fees is exactly this.
I don't fault her for making bank (literally). Something is worth what people will pay for it, and if people will pay that much, she should demand what she can get. Again, this is a much better way of saying it than, "I don't know why I took that much money. It's what they offered."
What I do fault her for is when she says it doesn't influence her and challenges anyone to find a vote where they can save she was. That's bad logic. People can point at pretty much every vote she makes or policy she's created and say, "That one!" It's impossible to cash fat stacks of cash and not be influenced. And if you are the kind of person that can, well, I can't relate to that.
She is indeed influenced by the money, or the banks got screwed on their ROI on those speeches. Somehow, I am confident Goldman Sachs would be happy to keep writing her checks because I am certain they believe they are getting influence regardless what Clinton believes.
$675,000 is probably about what I will take home over the next 25 years of my life if I get expected raises and work until I am 70. (I am newly solidly middle-class if it matters.) She got it for a handful of speeches. Like I said, something is worth what people are willing to pay for it, but I find it difficult to imagine that a handful of speeches have the same value as the entire amount of labor I will give for the rest of my life.
Getting $225,000 for a single speech, then saying $15 is too high for a minimum wage just shows…same planet, different worlds.
And this is all without knowing the content of these speeches. If she made promises, gave away information not available to everyone, held their hands and cried about their hard lot in life, or anything that portrays her as being sympathetic to the financial industry, then I see this going sideways.
She made a mistake trying to pretend that Sanders is making "insinuations." No he's not. He's flat out saying she's in the pocket of the banks and that corporations are backing her candidacy. It's what he's running on. People don't buy it. Even her supporters don't. She's trying to pretend she's not establishment when she is, she's trying to pretend she was broke when she wasn't, she's trying to pretend she's not beholden to the very industry that contributed to making her as wealthy as she is. At some point people start pointing out the empress is wearing no clothes.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:13 PM on February 6, 2016 [20 favorites]
I look at it this way. With Hillary Clinton, my kids need take out loans to go to college. With Bernie Sanders, they *might not have to*. Shit, even if all Bernie Sanders ends up doing there is getting college loans at prime, I'd call that a win. And Elizabeth Warren at Treasury vs. Hillary Clinton's appointment of a banker. Unless you're a banker, what's not to love?
posted by mikelieman at 12:22 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 12:22 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Just a reminder that 36 hours ago Lloyd Blankfein, chair of Goldman Sachs and frequent Clinton supporter, said the following things on national television:
Bernie Sanders' insurgent candidacy "has the potential to be a dangerous moment."
Sanders' attacks on the "billionaire class" and bankers could be dangerous.
“I don’t want to help or hurt anybody by giving them an endorsement."
posted by Room 641-A at 12:32 PM on February 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
Bernie Sanders' insurgent candidacy "has the potential to be a dangerous moment."
Sanders' attacks on the "billionaire class" and bankers could be dangerous.
“I don’t want to help or hurt anybody by giving them an endorsement."
posted by Room 641-A at 12:32 PM on February 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
How to Watch Tonight's Republican Debate Online
posted by homunculus at 12:40 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 12:40 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think just hovering over that link is all I need...
posted by Trochanter at 1:11 PM on February 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 1:11 PM on February 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Alternately: Don't watch. You won't vote for those people. Go hug your loved ones. Call that friend you've been meaning to. Work on that essay. Finish reading that novel, or watch a classic movie. Have a night for yourself, celebrating the good things in American life, courtesy of the GOP.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:27 PM on February 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 1:27 PM on February 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
Jeffrey Sachs: Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the war machine
Yet Hillary's connections with the military-industrial complex are also alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don't want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.posted by dialetheia at 1:35 PM on February 6, 2016 [14 favorites]
Hillary's record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria. ...
Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary's relentless promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria. Once again Hillary bought into the CIA propaganda that regime change to remove Bashir al-Assad would be quick, costless, and surely successful. In August 2011, Hillary led the US into disaster with her declaration Assad must "get out of the way," backed by secret CIA operations.
Five years later, no place on the planet is more ravaged by unending war, and no place poses a great threat to US security. More than 10 million Syrians are displaced, and the refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean or undermining the political stability of Greece, Turkey, and the European Union. Into the chaos created by the secret CIA-Saudi operations to overthrow Assad, ISIS has filled the vacuum, and has used Syria as the base for worldwide terrorist attacks.
Blankfein says: Sanders' attacks on the "billionaire class" and bankers could be dangerous.
Sounds good to me.
Recall that Blankfein is the one who at the height of the financial crisis, even as he was being bailed out by taxpayers, said that he and his bank were "doing God's work."
Somebody needs to cut these megalomaniacs down to size.
posted by JackFlash at 1:43 PM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
Sounds good to me.
Recall that Blankfein is the one who at the height of the financial crisis, even as he was being bailed out by taxpayers, said that he and his bank were "doing God's work."
Somebody needs to cut these megalomaniacs down to size.
posted by JackFlash at 1:43 PM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
Clinton's high-profile supporters sure know how to charm...
Gloria Steinem Says Young Women Support Bernie Sanders Because They're Boy Crazy
Madeline Albright: 'special place in hell' for women who don't support Clinton
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:46 PM on February 6, 2016 [16 favorites]
Gloria Steinem Says Young Women Support Bernie Sanders Because They're Boy Crazy
Madeline Albright: 'special place in hell' for women who don't support Clinton
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 1:46 PM on February 6, 2016 [16 favorites]
On preview, Noisy Pink Bubbles beat me to it with both links.
My bff who is a lesbian Bernie supporter will be thrilled to hear the news.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
My bff who is a lesbian Bernie supporter will be thrilled to hear the news.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's starting to sound like the main objection to Bernie Sanders is that he is not Hillary Clinton.
posted by Room 641-A at 1:53 PM on February 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 1:53 PM on February 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
The key Steinem quote from Noisy Pink Bubbles' first link really deserves its own post:
Seems to me that the only generalization you can draw from this is that people, even Gloria Steinem, sometimes get weird and sexist as they age.
posted by fifthrider at 2:02 PM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
- “Women are more for [Hillary Clinton] than men are...First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience...Not to over-generalize, but...Men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, women get more radical because they lose power as they age.
And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie...”
Seems to me that the only generalization you can draw from this is that people, even Gloria Steinem, sometimes get weird and sexist as they age.
posted by fifthrider at 2:02 PM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
Oh, hey, speaking of arms and Ted Cruz....
Honestly, most of those don't look that abnormal to me. There are some standouts that really work well in isolation, though:
Is this three kids stacked up together in a trenchcoat?
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU HUMANS MEAN BY DRINK
And this one - it kind of speaks for itself, and may be calling out for matthowies photoshoppery
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:03 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly, most of those don't look that abnormal to me. There are some standouts that really work well in isolation, though:
Is this three kids stacked up together in a trenchcoat?
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU HUMANS MEAN BY DRINK
And this one - it kind of speaks for itself, and may be calling out for matthowies photoshoppery
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:03 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Gloria Steinem Says Young Women Support Bernie Sanders Because They're Boy Crazy
Yeah, I just watched Bill Maher from last night. I love Steinem, but was SO disappointed that she said that. Just really out of character and shitty.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:07 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I just watched Bill Maher from last night. I love Steinem, but was SO disappointed that she said that. Just really out of character and shitty.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:07 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
She and Maher also had some shitty transphobic comments. Really just a bummer all around.
posted by melissasaurus at 2:10 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 2:10 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Sanders wins, I would rather it be because people like his ideas better than famous feminists turned so many women away from voting for Hillary.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:19 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:19 PM on February 6, 2016
If Sanders wins, I would rather it be because people like his ideas better than famous feminists turned so many women away from voting for Hillary.
Some from column A, and some from column B. Thing is, Hillary Clinton is vulnerable on *so many* sides.
Compared to Bernie Sanders, she lacks progressive street cred.
Compared to Bernie Sanders, she's appears being a front for Corporate Interests, (and thus unwilling to reign in the banks. The lack of transparency in her remarks to them is troubling, and I will admit an unnatural attraction to the idea of President Sanders putting making Elizabeth Warren Secretary of the Treasury in the interests of full disclosure. )
Compared to Bernie Sanders, she's made more errors in foreign policy.
Compared to Bernie Sanders, she's less able to move legislation forward.
And then there's this, the "Corporate Feminism/Pink-washing" issue...
So many, many reasons to choose Bernie Sanders...
posted by mikelieman at 2:40 PM on February 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
Some from column A, and some from column B. Thing is, Hillary Clinton is vulnerable on *so many* sides.
Compared to Bernie Sanders, she lacks progressive street cred.
Compared to Bernie Sanders, she's appears being a front for Corporate Interests, (and thus unwilling to reign in the banks. The lack of transparency in her remarks to them is troubling, and I will admit an unnatural attraction to the idea of President Sanders putting making Elizabeth Warren Secretary of the Treasury in the interests of full disclosure. )
Compared to Bernie Sanders, she's made more errors in foreign policy.
Compared to Bernie Sanders, she's less able to move legislation forward.
And then there's this, the "Corporate Feminism/Pink-washing" issue...
So many, many reasons to choose Bernie Sanders...
posted by mikelieman at 2:40 PM on February 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
The Time Gloria Steinem Made Bernie Sanders an "Honorary Woman" link: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/01/time-bernie-sanders-became-honorary-woman
(Sorry, I cannot link atm)
In the fall of 1996, locked in a tough re-election fight against Republican Susan Sweetser, then-Rep. Sanders got a big boost when feminist writer and activist Gloria Steinem came to Burlington. At the time, Sweetser was running negative ads attacking Sanders' liberal positions, and so the Sanders campaign held an event to highlight his support among progressive women. An opening act, a former state senator, told the audience that "a feminist is a person who challenges the power structure of our country" and "Bernie Sanders is that kind of feminist." When it was Steinem's turn, she started off with an announcement: "I'm only here today to make Bernie Sanders an honorary woman."
posted by futz at 2:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
(Sorry, I cannot link atm)
In the fall of 1996, locked in a tough re-election fight against Republican Susan Sweetser, then-Rep. Sanders got a big boost when feminist writer and activist Gloria Steinem came to Burlington. At the time, Sweetser was running negative ads attacking Sanders' liberal positions, and so the Sanders campaign held an event to highlight his support among progressive women. An opening act, a former state senator, told the audience that "a feminist is a person who challenges the power structure of our country" and "Bernie Sanders is that kind of feminist." When it was Steinem's turn, she started off with an announcement: "I'm only here today to make Bernie Sanders an honorary woman."
posted by futz at 2:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
D Wasserman Schultz
@DWStweets
Hmmm, wondering why @GOP trying to hide their #GOPdebate on the Saturday of #SuperBowl weekend no less?!
2:28 PM - 6 Feb 2016
:|
posted by Drinky Die at 4:26 PM on February 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
@DWStweets
Hmmm, wondering why @GOP trying to hide their #GOPdebate on the Saturday of #SuperBowl weekend no less?!
2:28 PM - 6 Feb 2016
:|
posted by Drinky Die at 4:26 PM on February 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
Just to clarify, is she implying that the Republicans have something to hide, or is she jealous that she's been bested in the debate-hiding game?
posted by indubitable at 4:35 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 4:35 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
She's implying that nobody is criticizing the GOP, but they blasted her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:36 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:36 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hmmm, wondering why @GOP trying to hide their #GOPdebate on the Saturday of #SuperBowl weekend no less?!
2:28 PM - 6 Feb 2016
Man, that displays such a lack of self-awareness that you have to wonder whether she attacks her own reflection in the bathroom mirror each morning.
posted by fifthrider at 4:38 PM on February 6, 2016 [15 favorites]
2:28 PM - 6 Feb 2016
Man, that displays such a lack of self-awareness that you have to wonder whether she attacks her own reflection in the bathroom mirror each morning.
posted by fifthrider at 4:38 PM on February 6, 2016 [15 favorites]
you have to wonder whether she attacks her own reflection in the bathroom mirror each morning.
Being a primate she is much like the male silverback gorilla and is incapable of attacking her foe (Bernie Sanders) head on and must use posturing and misdirection in attempts to frighten off potential contenders for the throne.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:10 PM on February 6, 2016
Being a primate she is much like the male silverback gorilla and is incapable of attacking her foe (Bernie Sanders) head on and must use posturing and misdirection in attempts to frighten off potential contenders for the throne.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:10 PM on February 6, 2016
Trump: "We're going to win with Trump!"
It always cracks me up when he refers to himself in the third person.
posted by homunculus at 5:24 PM on February 6, 2016
It always cracks me up when he refers to himself in the third person.
posted by homunculus at 5:24 PM on February 6, 2016
The republican debate on ABC is live streaming here right now, if anyone has the stomach
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:24 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:24 PM on February 6, 2016
Well, at least you're gonna see Carson's non-entrance analyzed 400 times on cable news.
posted by lauranesson at 5:27 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by lauranesson at 5:27 PM on February 6, 2016
I walked into the room just as it started, and for what felt like 40 minutes, Ben Carson and I were just standing there staring at each other, clearly the highest people in the room.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:29 PM on February 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 5:29 PM on February 6, 2016 [18 favorites]
Is there a thread goin' for this tonight, or are we the only couple of people watching?
posted by lauranesson at 5:32 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by lauranesson at 5:32 PM on February 6, 2016
Trump talks like he tweets now. I also just realized how much Alex Baldwin based Jack Donaghy on Trump.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:33 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 5:33 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
That was really weird how Rubio just repeated himself so verbatim.
posted by downtohisturtles at 5:34 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by downtohisturtles at 5:34 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I turned this on a bit late and all I see is Christie and Rubio RIPPING EACHOTHER UP.
posted by Justinian at 5:35 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:35 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Christie is really kicking Rubio's ass. Or helping Rubio kick his own ass.
posted by homunculus at 5:35 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by homunculus at 5:35 PM on February 6, 2016
He's tagging in Jeb!
posted by Room 641-A at 5:35 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 5:35 PM on February 6, 2016
I can stomach a few minutes before svengoolie..ABC you say? Is that AM or FM?
posted by vrakatar at 5:40 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vrakatar at 5:40 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
I realize that Obama's approval ratings aren't stellar, but don't these people have anything better to run on other than the Nobama rallying call?
posted by peeedro at 5:46 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by peeedro at 5:46 PM on February 6, 2016
Ooh, Tez Cruz and his single-spaced reports! Bet they're still in Courier, though.
posted by lauranesson at 5:51 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by lauranesson at 5:51 PM on February 6, 2016
Okay I see him now. Come on doc bring the crazy word poetry thing!
posted by vrakatar at 5:55 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by vrakatar at 5:55 PM on February 6, 2016
I realize that Obama's approval ratings aren't stellar, but don't these people have anything better to run on other than the Nobama rallying call?
Generalized xenophobia and peacocking?
posted by dis_integration at 5:55 PM on February 6, 2016
Generalized xenophobia and peacocking?
posted by dis_integration at 5:55 PM on February 6, 2016
We had a FPP about what happens when you just throw money at the Border Patrol and tell them to get bigger: The Green Monster - How the Border Patrol became America’s most out-of-control law enforcement agency.
posted by peeedro at 5:58 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by peeedro at 5:58 PM on February 6, 2016
They asked Ben Carson about health care, maybe in the hope that it is the one subject he knows about and thus won't cause him to start gibbering about space pyramids.
posted by Justinian at 6:02 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:02 PM on February 6, 2016
What? Donald Trump said something... true? About eminent domain?
posted by Justinian at 6:04 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:04 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Donald is losing it.
posted by peeedro at 6:06 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by peeedro at 6:06 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump just got booed several times, lol.
posted by SillyShepherd at 6:06 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by SillyShepherd at 6:06 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah his shtick does not play well in New England. So uncouth. *clutches pearls*
posted by Justinian at 6:06 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:06 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump just lost the room.
posted by vrakatar at 6:06 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by vrakatar at 6:06 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is glorious..
posted by johnpowell at 6:06 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by johnpowell at 6:06 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump was sort of right on eminent domain. But Bush(maybe? I'm listening on the radio) was also right that "public use" has been unreasonably expanded to include private commercial interests.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:09 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 6:09 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump got booed? Wow, didn't think I'd regret skipping this one.
posted by indubitable at 6:10 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 6:10 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Marco Rubio looks like me when I had to recite a book report to the class in 8th grade. This is not a compliment.
posted by Justinian at 6:16 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:16 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Marco Rubio: "I've never heard of foreign tax credits."
posted by melissasaurus at 6:23 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 6:23 PM on February 6, 2016
Ted Cruz: The Carpet Bombing I propose would be targeted and discriminate!
posted by Justinian at 6:26 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:26 PM on February 6, 2016
If we were running against a Mitt Romney instead of the Nighmare Idiot Clown College class of '16, I'd feel a hell of a lot better about taking a gamble on the cranky Socialist candidate.
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:33 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:33 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Romney sure does seem like a statesman by comparison to these buffoons.
posted by Justinian at 6:37 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Justinian at 6:37 PM on February 6, 2016
These candidates' command of the complexities of Middle East politics and military strategy is simply dazzling
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:37 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:37 PM on February 6, 2016
Ben Carson: I don't know karate but I do know crazy.
posted by peeedro at 6:37 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by peeedro at 6:37 PM on February 6, 2016
Did Cruz just get booed for saying he wouldn't bring back waterboarding?
posted by sporkwort at 6:38 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sporkwort at 6:38 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump: I like that Medieval Times restaurant. Also, waterboarding.
posted by melissasaurus at 6:39 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 6:39 PM on February 6, 2016
PREDATOR JONES
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:39 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:39 PM on February 6, 2016
Marco Rubio Short-Circuits, Repeats Same Scripted Line Four Times During GOP Debate
And we're not even done yet!
posted by zombieflanders at 6:40 PM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
And we're not even done yet!
posted by zombieflanders at 6:40 PM on February 6, 2016 [10 favorites]
Marco Rubio Short-Circuits, Repeats Same Scripted Line Four Times During GOP Debate
Marco Rubio is the American Ed Milliband.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:42 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Marco Rubio is the American Ed Milliband.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:42 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
just tuned in to the debate. wow, that youtube clip is brutal. Love to see Rubio's obvious memorization of talking points getting called out, he's been doing it in every debate. Cruz is so much better as a debater, but has the weakness of being insane.
posted by skewed at 6:43 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by skewed at 6:43 PM on February 6, 2016
A simple flat tax to abolish the IRS????? Are you kidding me!?!?!?! That makes no sense! AGRGHRGHRRRRR. :::tax attorney implosion:::
posted by melissasaurus at 6:43 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 6:43 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
yeah, that's been a Republican talking point for decades. I remember back in primary debates from 3-4 cycles ago talk about the postcard-sized IRS form making it possible to eliminte 99% of the fat-cat bureacrats, etc.. Bizarre fantasy.
posted by skewed at 6:47 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by skewed at 6:47 PM on February 6, 2016
I'd like to thank the brave soldiers watching this nonsense and posting about it in this thread, so that I don't have to.
Stay strong. Good luck. We're all counting on you.
posted by LooseFilter at 6:48 PM on February 6, 2016
Stay strong. Good luck. We're all counting on you.
posted by LooseFilter at 6:48 PM on February 6, 2016
I missed that last bit -- what was everybody laughing about?
posted by Rhaomi at 6:49 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Rhaomi at 6:49 PM on February 6, 2016
I feel exactly your pain, melissasaurus, whenever these fools talk about health insurance.
Return Medicaid to the states?!? IT'S ALREADY RUN AS FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIPS which is why it's so fucked up in red states ahhhhhhh
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Return Medicaid to the states?!? IT'S ALREADY RUN AS FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIPS which is why it's so fucked up in red states ahhhhhhh
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [5 favorites]
Love to see Rubio's obvious memorization of talking points getting called out, he's been doing it in every debate.
Are you saying Rubio doesn't know what he's doing? Because he knows exactly what he's doing.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
Are you saying Rubio doesn't know what he's doing? Because he knows exactly what he's doing.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [11 favorites]
Bush and Kasich are playing Uno gambit where they just keep playing the Reverse card back and forth for the hell of it.
posted by peeedro at 6:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 6:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's so much hate and suffering in the world already, it sickens me that these candidates can go on for hours pushing more hate, more suffering.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:49 PM on February 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
Cruz: [initiate humanoid personal story sequence #54632]
posted by melissasaurus at 6:50 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 6:50 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
yeah, I'm sure he and his campaign have decided it's worth the heat in order to get the message as digestible as possible, but it's nice for him to be called out anyway
posted by skewed at 6:51 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by skewed at 6:51 PM on February 6, 2016
Cruz: my sister was killed by drugs, so elect me because I don't think the federal govt has any business fixing this problem.
posted by peeedro at 6:52 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by peeedro at 6:52 PM on February 6, 2016
I wonder if they'll bring up Maine's governor calling for executions for drug dealers, seems like the holy grail for the republican candidate crowd.
Oh wait, they're pro-life.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:52 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh wait, they're pro-life.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:52 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Christie: "Of course I would" go into Mexico to pursue the drug traffickers, even without Mexican government's permission.
That's the great moderate's position, invading Mexico?
I mean I guess we did it 150 years ago and it worked out okay for us....
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:53 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's the great moderate's position, invading Mexico?
I mean I guess we did it 150 years ago and it worked out okay for us....
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:53 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
"When we come back, questions on race...."
This is gonna be good.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:58 PM on February 6, 2016
This is gonna be good.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:58 PM on February 6, 2016
JEB: Martha? Martha? Martha?
MODERATOR: Jeb, shut it
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:58 PM on February 6, 2016
MODERATOR: Jeb, shut it
posted by prize bull octorok at 6:58 PM on February 6, 2016
JEB: Martha? Martha? Martha?
Omg Jeb! is totally the Jan Brady candidate!
posted by Room 641-A at 7:02 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Omg Jeb! is totally the Jan Brady candidate!
posted by Room 641-A at 7:02 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Kasich might be the least stinky turd on stage, but he's playing the Martin O'Malley role in the debate.
posted by peeedro at 7:08 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by peeedro at 7:08 PM on February 6, 2016
Omg Jeb! is totally the Jan Brady candidate!
Checks. out.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:08 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Checks. out.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:08 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ben Carson gives a good answer about quarantines and using the government to ensure public health, gets zero response.
posted by skewed at 7:14 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by skewed at 7:14 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rubio: We need to grow the air force back to it's earlier strength under the Jefferson administration.
posted by peeedro at 7:15 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 7:15 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I just realized that Christie is wearing both New Jersey and New Hampshire lapel pins.
Clearly this distinguishes him as the candidate with those states' best interests at heart.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:18 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clearly this distinguishes him as the candidate with those states' best interests at heart.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 7:18 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can't find a transcript yet but here is a link to an interview with CNN's Poppy Harlow and Carl Bernstein about Hillary and releasing her big bank speeches. Bernstein comes down pretty hard on Hillary and claims that he has inside info about how mad the white house is with her. I found it riviting. The search feature on CNN.com is all kinds of worthless so this is the best I can do for now. No transcript yet.
https://t.co/xPTymG8qC8
posted by futz at 7:20 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
https://t.co/xPTymG8qC8
posted by futz at 7:20 PM on February 6, 2016 [4 favorites]
Cruz criticizing the guy who got Obama?
posted by benito.strauss at 7:24 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by benito.strauss at 7:24 PM on February 6, 2016
Between the account here and on Twitter... Wow. I guess all the insanity got saved up for when Trump came back?
posted by Artw at 7:27 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Artw at 7:27 PM on February 6, 2016
Rubio: Why hasn't the media asked Hillary when she stopped beating her husband?
posted by peeedro at 7:28 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by peeedro at 7:28 PM on February 6, 2016
I get so uncomfortable when these guys talk about reproductive issues.
posted by melissasaurus at 7:30 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 7:30 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Closing statements, closes tab the stream was in.
posted by johnpowell at 7:33 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by johnpowell at 7:33 PM on February 6, 2016
Thank you! Been having a hell of a time formatting and linking on my tablet. Don't know why.
posted by futz at 8:02 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by futz at 8:02 PM on February 6, 2016
Ted Cruz: The Carpet Bombing I propose would be targeted and discriminate!
Throw rug bombing?
posted by JackFlash at 8:25 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Throw rug bombing?
posted by JackFlash at 8:25 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rubio: We need to grow the air force back to it's earlier strength under the Jefferson administration.
I missed this, did he really say that?!
posted by Room 641-A at 8:27 PM on February 6, 2016
I missed this, did he really say that?!
posted by Room 641-A at 8:27 PM on February 6, 2016
The carpet bombing didn't tie the room together at all.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:29 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 8:29 PM on February 6, 2016
I missed this, did he really say that?!
Not literally, no. It's the same line he used in a previous debate, that the Air Force is now the smallest it's been in our nation's history. Which makes no sense.
posted by peeedro at 8:31 PM on February 6, 2016
Not literally, no. It's the same line he used in a previous debate, that the Air Force is now the smallest it's been in our nation's history. Which makes no sense.
posted by peeedro at 8:31 PM on February 6, 2016
America still has a fuck load of planes. Is the issue that they are Navy planes?
posted by Artw at 8:33 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Artw at 8:33 PM on February 6, 2016
Why Ted Cruz’s Facial Expression Makes Me Uneasy by neurologist Richard E. Cytowic M.D.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:33 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 8:33 PM on February 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why do they keep doing that? Mitt stepped on that rake already.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:35 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 8:35 PM on February 6, 2016
From the debate in Des Moines on Jan 28, "Today, we are on pace to have the smallest Army since the end of World War II, the smallest Navy in 100 years, the smallest Air Force in our history." (WashPo transcript link)
This time he said, "Our Air Force is about to be the smallest it's been in 100 years. I'm sorry, in our history. Our Army is set to be smaller than it's been since the second World War, and our Navy is about to be the smallest than it's been in 100 years." (WashPo transcript link)
Like you said, Rubio recycles Romney’s risible rubbish.
posted by peeedro at 8:53 PM on February 6, 2016
This time he said, "Our Air Force is about to be the smallest it's been in 100 years. I'm sorry, in our history. Our Army is set to be smaller than it's been since the second World War, and our Navy is about to be the smallest than it's been in 100 years." (WashPo transcript link)
Like you said, Rubio recycles Romney’s risible rubbish.
posted by peeedro at 8:53 PM on February 6, 2016
From Room 641-A's link: "The distaste for Cruz even extends beyond the US: Germans say Backpfeifengesicht, meaning a face in need of a good punch."
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:09 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:09 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
The exchange where Christie destroys Rubio
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:39 PM on February 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:39 PM on February 6, 2016 [9 favorites]
Rubio has been canned and compartmentalized. Governor Christie came off very strong in that exchange.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 9:56 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by PROD_TPSL at 9:56 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
So in Marco Rubio's world, the best example of someone not qualified to be president is...the sitting Vice President? Okay.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:00 PM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 10:00 PM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
That was like watching a bear tear apart an origami bunny rabbit.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:03 PM on February 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by benito.strauss at 10:03 PM on February 6, 2016 [6 favorites]
> So in Marco Rubio's world, the best example of someone not qualified to be president is...the sitting Vice President?
He really can't think on his feet at all, can he?
posted by benito.strauss at 10:04 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
He really can't think on his feet at all, can he?
posted by benito.strauss at 10:04 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders was on SNL. Good sport, no chill. He was like how Obama, when he knows he's got a good joke coming, giggles before the punchline. (But then, SNL is always more charming when someone's trying not to break, so ...)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:05 PM on February 6, 2016
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:05 PM on February 6, 2016
If Clinton thinks that Medicare For All is impossible, she should explain what she intends to do to change the system to make it possible. If she doesn't think that I have a human right to health care, she should be honest about it.
I dunno, there's a difference between not thinking you have the right and not believing that the political process can deliver on that right (which is what many accuse Hillary of) or not believing that Medicare-for-All is the best way to achieve the goal of universal coverage (which is what I think she actually believes.) I do think it's possible for a Sanders administration to be incrementalist about moving toward single-payer just as it's possible for a Clinton administration to be incrementalist about expanding the ACA's provisions, so I think there's a bit of a false dilemma there from many in the pundit class.
I also think this post makes some good points in support of universality as the focus instead of who pays, and the fact that different countries get to universal care and better outcomes using a variety of models. I do prefer the simplicity of the government cutting out the middlemen, but since those middlemen can probably slow down or stop any and all reform from happening, I'm not sure about what the best strategy is to move the ball forward in the next decade or so. My gut wants to get someone in who will welcome the GOP's hatred and force them to go to their districts and explain why they're voting against their uncle's cancer treatment, but given that the ACA has already delivered some progress after decades of trying and failing, part of me wants to give it some more time and crank some of its levers a bit more before trying a different approach. I really don't have a good sense of which plan is going to lead to more people getting better coverage sooner.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:28 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
I dunno, there's a difference between not thinking you have the right and not believing that the political process can deliver on that right (which is what many accuse Hillary of) or not believing that Medicare-for-All is the best way to achieve the goal of universal coverage (which is what I think she actually believes.) I do think it's possible for a Sanders administration to be incrementalist about moving toward single-payer just as it's possible for a Clinton administration to be incrementalist about expanding the ACA's provisions, so I think there's a bit of a false dilemma there from many in the pundit class.
I also think this post makes some good points in support of universality as the focus instead of who pays, and the fact that different countries get to universal care and better outcomes using a variety of models. I do prefer the simplicity of the government cutting out the middlemen, but since those middlemen can probably slow down or stop any and all reform from happening, I'm not sure about what the best strategy is to move the ball forward in the next decade or so. My gut wants to get someone in who will welcome the GOP's hatred and force them to go to their districts and explain why they're voting against their uncle's cancer treatment, but given that the ACA has already delivered some progress after decades of trying and failing, part of me wants to give it some more time and crank some of its levers a bit more before trying a different approach. I really don't have a good sense of which plan is going to lead to more people getting better coverage sooner.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:28 PM on February 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
(But then, SNL is always more charming when someone's trying not to break, so ...)
Indeed.
posted by homunculus at 10:59 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Indeed.
posted by homunculus at 10:59 PM on February 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Incrementalism in putting Health Insurers our of our misery is capitulation to them. "One you've paid Danegeld, you can't get rid of the Dane..."
This is our best and only shot at addressing the root cause of the issue. The *existence* of Health Insurance Companies and their rationing of care to only those who "Fuck you, pay me...", which in terms of people getting medical care -- inhumane.
Every single dollar spent on Health Insurance companies *existance* is one less dollar for patient care.
posted by mikelieman at 11:12 PM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is our best and only shot at addressing the root cause of the issue. The *existence* of Health Insurance Companies and their rationing of care to only those who "Fuck you, pay me...", which in terms of people getting medical care -- inhumane.
Every single dollar spent on Health Insurance companies *existance* is one less dollar for patient care.
posted by mikelieman at 11:12 PM on February 6, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is our best and only shot at addressing the root cause of the issue.
Why is this our best shot? Why is this the right time to go fight exactly the same battle again?
posted by Going To Maine at 12:22 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why is this our best shot? Why is this the right time to go fight exactly the same battle again?
posted by Going To Maine at 12:22 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
If not now, when?
If tomorrow is ok, today is better.
There are sick people, dying, as policy is discussed. The priority is THEM. Not deferring their treatment until ( from the POV of the Health Insurer ) the problem solves itself..
posted by mikelieman at 1:06 AM on February 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
If tomorrow is ok, today is better.
There are sick people, dying, as policy is discussed. The priority is THEM. Not deferring their treatment until ( from the POV of the Health Insurer ) the problem solves itself..
posted by mikelieman at 1:06 AM on February 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
Rubio just needs a factory reset and he'll be fine. From an (international) outsider's perspective, although I strongly dislike his politics, Christie does at least appear to have the virtue of being the one candidate in the line-up who can produce a birth certificate from this planet.
posted by reynir at 1:49 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by reynir at 1:49 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
Until one of your bridges has a "little acccident" because he doesn't like one of your local officials.
posted by indubitable at 5:28 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 5:28 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Until one of your bridges has a "little acccident" because he doesn't like one of your local officials.
corrupt > insane.
posted by leotrotsky at 5:46 AM on February 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
corrupt > insane.
posted by leotrotsky at 5:46 AM on February 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nice airlock you got there on your space craft. Shame if something happened to it.
But seriously, he's not out of the woods yet: N.J. 'Bridgegate' defendants can subpoena Christie papers -reports
Rubio just needs a factory reset and he'll be fine.
Ah, so "Marco Rubio - R" indicates he's a refurb.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:23 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
But seriously, he's not out of the woods yet: N.J. 'Bridgegate' defendants can subpoena Christie papers -reports
Rubio just needs a factory reset and he'll be fine.
Ah, so "Marco Rubio - R" indicates he's a refurb.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:23 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders on his Bernie Bros via @jaketapper and CNN
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:33 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:33 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
> "Ah, so 'Marco Rubio - R' indicates he's a refurb."
I assumed it was as in "R. Daneel Olivaw".
posted by kyrademon at 6:44 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
I assumed it was as in "R. Daneel Olivaw".
posted by kyrademon at 6:44 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sanders on his Bernie Bros via @jaketapper and CNN
From a frequent responder in that tweet thread (a woman I will not name or link to here):
Emcee Of ‘African-Americans For Hillary’ Event Used Gay And Jewish Slurs On Twitter [TW: nasty slurs]
And of course those tweets have been deleted. When Bernie disavows the bros it's not good enough, but when Clinton does it it's okay?
When this all started I was a Hillary supporter, albeit because there wasn't much choice. But I was fine with voting for her if I couldn't vote for Bernie. I will still vote for her, no question, but now I'm really fucking unhappy about it.
I think it's clear now that Hillary's support has never been as solid as it appeared. She polls well when she essentially runs uncontested but now there's a pattern over two elections of her supporters jumping ship as soon as there is a reasonable alternative.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:40 AM on February 7, 2016 [17 favorites]
From a frequent responder in that tweet thread (a woman I will not name or link to here):
I've seen some pretty terrible racial slurs as well in Sanders supporters tweets. Appalling.Is that all they have left? Personally attacking Bernie Supporters? The boys are bros and the girls are just boy-crazy? Plus racist? Because that's not a winning strategy:
Emcee Of ‘African-Americans For Hillary’ Event Used Gay And Jewish Slurs On Twitter [TW: nasty slurs]
And of course those tweets have been deleted. When Bernie disavows the bros it's not good enough, but when Clinton does it it's okay?
“While we welcome the support of everyone, we’re only able to control that which is said by our campaign,” a Clinton campaign official told BuzzFeed News.(And that's not even me looking for tweets; that one showed up in my buzzfeed rss a few days ago. Which, incidentally, I did not think was necessary to post here as a gotcha because I have legitimate criticisms about her policies and fundraising.)
When this all started I was a Hillary supporter, albeit because there wasn't much choice. But I was fine with voting for her if I couldn't vote for Bernie. I will still vote for her, no question, but now I'm really fucking unhappy about it.
I think it's clear now that Hillary's support has never been as solid as it appeared. She polls well when she essentially runs uncontested but now there's a pattern over two elections of her supporters jumping ship as soon as there is a reasonable alternative.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:40 AM on February 7, 2016 [17 favorites]
I just realized something:
Bernie's response: "I have heard about it. It's disgusting. Look we don't want that crap. We can't you know, and we will do everything we can and I think we have tried. Look you know that-that anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things is-we don't want them. I don't want that. That is not what this campaign is about."
Hillary's response: While we welcome the support of everyone, we’re only able to control that which is said by our campaign,” a Clinton campaign official told BuzzFeed News.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:47 AM on February 7, 2016 [21 favorites]
Bernie's response: "I have heard about it. It's disgusting. Look we don't want that crap. We can't you know, and we will do everything we can and I think we have tried. Look you know that-that anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things is-we don't want them. I don't want that. That is not what this campaign is about."
Hillary's response: While we welcome the support of everyone, we’re only able to control that which is said by our campaign,” a Clinton campaign official told BuzzFeed News.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:47 AM on February 7, 2016 [21 favorites]
Hillary is in town today.
Never let a diaster go to waste.
posted by clavdivs at 7:57 AM on February 7, 2016
Never let a diaster go to waste.
posted by clavdivs at 7:57 AM on February 7, 2016
Where's home, exactly? Which disaster?
posted by fifthrider at 8:00 AM on February 7, 2016
posted by fifthrider at 8:00 AM on February 7, 2016
Of course I tuned in late, apparently after all the good parts. Anybody have a link to a replay of last night's debate?
posted by cashman at 9:41 AM on February 7, 2016
posted by cashman at 9:41 AM on February 7, 2016
For a one-trick Twitter account I found Marco Rubio Glitch pretty funny.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:52 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by benito.strauss at 9:52 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Storify of David Frum's tweets on Marco Rubio's performance last night.
posted by melissasaurus at 9:55 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 9:55 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry, David Frum, but Phyllis Schlafly? Talk about someone who was fringe 30 years ago.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:58 AM on February 7, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:58 AM on February 7, 2016
Of course I tuned in late, apparently after all the good parts. Anybody have a link to a replay of last night's debate?
ABC will let you watch it here. There's some bootleg uploads on youtube, search for "republican debate new hampshire".
I had missed the beginning last night. Ben Carson's non-entrance was so awkward.
posted by peeedro at 10:14 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
ABC will let you watch it here. There's some bootleg uploads on youtube, search for "republican debate new hampshire".
I had missed the beginning last night. Ben Carson's non-entrance was so awkward.
posted by peeedro at 10:14 AM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
You know who else welcomed the support of everyone?
That's right: Trump.
Seriously, if you can't even repudiate what is said by racists, homophobes, and anti-Semites then what the fuck kind of person are you?
Clinton's statement reminds me of when McCain and Palin were running around stoking the birther/Muslim crap. That shit came home to rest hard.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:28 AM on February 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
That's right: Trump.
Seriously, if you can't even repudiate what is said by racists, homophobes, and anti-Semites then what the fuck kind of person are you?
Clinton's statement reminds me of when McCain and Palin were running around stoking the birther/Muslim crap. That shit came home to rest hard.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:28 AM on February 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s older feminist supporters have a message for young women who are not backing her candidacy: Shame on you. [NYT]
posted by melissasaurus at 10:34 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by melissasaurus at 10:34 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Part way in Carson makes some gripe about not being introduced, clearly unaware that he actually was. The guys frantically waving him and Trump on should have been a clue perhaps?
posted by Artw at 10:42 AM on February 7, 2016
posted by Artw at 10:42 AM on February 7, 2016
Bernie’s army: Young voters propel unlikely Sanders rise
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:45 AM on February 7, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:45 AM on February 7, 2016
The Albright clip in that NYT piece gave me some serious fremdscham.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:45 AM on February 7, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 10:45 AM on February 7, 2016
The ongoing Republican theme appears to be various chips on shoulders animated and brought to a semblance of life.
posted by Artw at 10:46 AM on February 7, 2016
posted by Artw at 10:46 AM on February 7, 2016
The PUMAs should not be forgotten, Clinton has always had horrible taste in allies.
posted by Artw at 10:48 AM on February 7, 2016
posted by Artw at 10:48 AM on February 7, 2016
I do wish Christie were a more decent person/viable candidate. (And I'm normally a Dem voter). He is someone I could see myself voting for under different circumstances.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:48 AM on February 7, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:48 AM on February 7, 2016
Ben Carson Hilariously Blows GOP Debate Entrance
posted by homunculus at 10:49 AM on February 7, 2016
posted by homunculus at 10:49 AM on February 7, 2016
Explaining sanders popularity with younger women: “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’” Ms. Steinem said.
Wtf??
posted by skewed at 10:50 AM on February 7, 2016
Wtf??
posted by skewed at 10:50 AM on February 7, 2016
That he's not makes Rubio even more of a dumbfuck for trying to retaliate rather than mount an actual defense.
posted by Artw at 10:50 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:50 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Marco Rubio Responds to Repetition Criticism by Repeating Himself 3 More Times
posted by homunculus at 10:53 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 10:53 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary Clinton’s older feminist supporters have a message for young women who are not backing her candidacy: Shame on you.
Because being nagged by Mom really makes you reflect on your political choices...
posted by mikelieman at 10:55 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because being nagged by Mom really makes you reflect on your political choices...
posted by mikelieman at 10:55 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Albright clip in that NYT piece gave me some serious fremdscham.
Metafilter: Making me look up words since 2006.
posted by Trochanter at 10:59 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
Metafilter: Making me look up words since 2006.
posted by Trochanter at 10:59 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think that from this point forward, I am going to ignore anything said by any supporter of any candidate as completely irrelevant to me, unless they are actively describing a policy statement made by that candidate or another candidate.
I am considering ignoring everything said by the actual candidates themselves, except for policy statements.
posted by kyrademon at 11:00 AM on February 7, 2016 [9 favorites]
I am considering ignoring everything said by the actual candidates themselves, except for policy statements.
posted by kyrademon at 11:00 AM on February 7, 2016 [9 favorites]
“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’”
Meta-feminism.
That's an equal mixture of condescension and insult. Young women can only think with their vaginas? I guess it's wonderful this insult gets lobbed on the other side of the gender aisle for once. Shine on you crazy feminist.
Me? I like to think women are intelligent human beings with their own agency and aren't going to burn in hell for supporting the wrong candidate or do so because it's an easy way to get laid, but what do I know?
posted by cjorgensen at 11:19 AM on February 7, 2016 [10 favorites]
Meta-feminism.
That's an equal mixture of condescension and insult. Young women can only think with their vaginas? I guess it's wonderful this insult gets lobbed on the other side of the gender aisle for once. Shine on you crazy feminist.
Me? I like to think women are intelligent human beings with their own agency and aren't going to burn in hell for supporting the wrong candidate or do so because it's an easy way to get laid, but what do I know?
posted by cjorgensen at 11:19 AM on February 7, 2016 [10 favorites]
Is it just me, or is the Democratic side of things incredibly vicious this year in a way it hasn't been before? I don't mean specifically in attack ads, but I mean more "You are a bad person if you pick Clinton/Sanders"
posted by corb at 11:21 AM on February 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by corb at 11:21 AM on February 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think it's really worse than Obama/Hillary...yet. But what I do find new is a rather nasty edge about making it generational/about age.
posted by Miko at 11:25 AM on February 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Miko at 11:25 AM on February 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
A lot of it, I think, is that Hillary has been running for POTUS for seemingly decades, and people who don't like her are really, really tired of it.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:29 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:29 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
Is it just me, or is the Democratic side of things incredibly vicious this year in a way it hasn't been before? I don't mean specifically in attack ads, but I mean more "You are a bad person if you pick Clinton/Sanders"
The late stage in the primary between Clinton and Obama felt dirtier and nastier to me. That, like this year, was largely indirect statements through proxies, not direct attacks by the campaigns. (And interestingly stands in contrast with the GOP primary, where the attacks are being made by the candidates themselves. I suspect the second is more damaging because you don't have the deniability of the indirect attacks.)
posted by Dip Flash at 11:36 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
The late stage in the primary between Clinton and Obama felt dirtier and nastier to me. That, like this year, was largely indirect statements through proxies, not direct attacks by the campaigns. (And interestingly stands in contrast with the GOP primary, where the attacks are being made by the candidates themselves. I suspect the second is more damaging because you don't have the deniability of the indirect attacks.)
posted by Dip Flash at 11:36 AM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
corb, yes, I think it is more personal on the Democratic side this year, and points to something emerging that will be dangerous for Clinton: entitlement.
Steinem, Albright, and other feminists of a certain generation want a female president in their lifetimes and know that Clinton is likely their last chance at that, so are very alarmed at Sanders' growing popularity. Their anger and resentment about this is coming across strongly as entitlement: look at how hard Hillary Clinton has had to work, and how much she has had to endure! Doesn't she deserve to be president this time??
And the answer, of course, is no. No one deserves to be president any more than anyone deserves to be rich or lucky or attractive or whatever. If Clinton's campaign theme continues to become some version of 'Hillary Clinton: It's Her Turn, God Dammit,' then she is sunk.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:37 AM on February 7, 2016 [19 favorites]
Steinem, Albright, and other feminists of a certain generation want a female president in their lifetimes and know that Clinton is likely their last chance at that, so are very alarmed at Sanders' growing popularity. Their anger and resentment about this is coming across strongly as entitlement: look at how hard Hillary Clinton has had to work, and how much she has had to endure! Doesn't she deserve to be president this time??
And the answer, of course, is no. No one deserves to be president any more than anyone deserves to be rich or lucky or attractive or whatever. If Clinton's campaign theme continues to become some version of 'Hillary Clinton: It's Her Turn, God Dammit,' then she is sunk.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:37 AM on February 7, 2016 [19 favorites]
I honestly think they'd both make fine presidents. I'm going to vote for Sanders in the primary because I want the Dems to swing farther left (if I even still have the option, I'm in one of the later states), and I'd be very happy to see him get the nom, but I will vote for Clinton without hesitation in the general if it should be her. And it's not just a 'lesser of two evils' thing. Despite disagreeing with her on a lot of issues I really do think she'd be a good president, not just better than whatever insane Republican candidate winds up winning but actually good in her own right.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:39 AM on February 7, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:39 AM on February 7, 2016 [12 favorites]
Storify of David Frum's tweets on Marco Rubio's performance last night.
Seeing this guy repeatedly compared to Obama reinforces the impression that who Obama is and why he might be popular is a massive blindspot for republicans that they are somehow unable to comprehend, "Obama was inexperienced, lets throw up a spooky child doll that repeats talking points" being the new "Obama is black, lets throw up a random black dude.' - the man himself is utterly invisible to them.
posted by Artw at 11:41 AM on February 7, 2016 [15 favorites]
Seeing this guy repeatedly compared to Obama reinforces the impression that who Obama is and why he might be popular is a massive blindspot for republicans that they are somehow unable to comprehend, "Obama was inexperienced, lets throw up a spooky child doll that repeats talking points" being the new "Obama is black, lets throw up a random black dude.' - the man himself is utterly invisible to them.
posted by Artw at 11:41 AM on February 7, 2016 [15 favorites]
If Clinton's campaign theme continues to become some version of 'Hillary Clinton: It's Her Turn, God Dammit,' then she is sunk.
And if what she's offering in return to young people is debt, wage-slavery and no healthcare it;s no suprise whatsoever that she has little to no support there.
posted by Artw at 11:43 AM on February 7, 2016 [14 favorites]
And if what she's offering in return to young people is debt, wage-slavery and no healthcare it;s no suprise whatsoever that she has little to no support there.
posted by Artw at 11:43 AM on February 7, 2016 [14 favorites]
Also, I think many younger women (and men) have confidence about a female American president as inevitable that Baby Boomers do not. Maybe they're just impatient to see it happen before they die.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:44 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by LooseFilter at 11:44 AM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
A couple videos from the "Bernie's army" link:
Bernie Sanders: The Problem of Poverty in America (7/27/1993) [speech to an empty house chamber]
Sanders Defends Gay Soldiers, 1995
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:00 PM on February 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie Sanders: The Problem of Poverty in America (7/27/1993) [speech to an empty house chamber]
Sanders Defends Gay Soldiers, 1995
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 12:00 PM on February 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton hangs on in revised delegate count
Some delegates were switched to Clinton arbitrarily. Precinct captains woke up and read different counts than what they had reported. Still Iowa Democrat part chair Andy "HRC 2016" McGuire won't release the raw vote totals. How many captains didn't bother to check? Where are the precincts that were arbitrarily switched to Sanders? Regardless of which candidate you support you should be in favor of fairness and transparency. Hell, without it how do we know Microsoft didn't pick the winners?
I noped right out of the Democratic Party the next day. I feel cleaner as a "no party" voter.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:27 PM on February 7, 2016
Some delegates were switched to Clinton arbitrarily. Precinct captains woke up and read different counts than what they had reported. Still Iowa Democrat part chair Andy "HRC 2016" McGuire won't release the raw vote totals. How many captains didn't bother to check? Where are the precincts that were arbitrarily switched to Sanders? Regardless of which candidate you support you should be in favor of fairness and transparency. Hell, without it how do we know Microsoft didn't pick the winners?
I noped right out of the Democratic Party the next day. I feel cleaner as a "no party" voter.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:27 PM on February 7, 2016
There are a lot of things I don't like about living in Virginia. Not having to pick a party allegiance is not one of them.
posted by phearlez at 12:38 PM on February 7, 2016
posted by phearlez at 12:38 PM on February 7, 2016
Let's just stop boomersplaining politics to millennials
posted by Artw at 1:02 PM on February 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 1:02 PM on February 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
There are only a few things that can completely and rapidly tear the democratic party apart in a relatively small timeframe, like a presidential primary cycle - A lack of confidence and suspicion of corruption in the caucus procedure is one of those things. I can think of no single better way to ensure that those who are already feeling on the fringe of the democratic party would abandon it completely. In the long term, that could possibly be a good thing - I think it could lead to massive reform of a party that is desperately in need of it, but I'm rather cynical about that. In the sort term, it could mean even lower turnout of democratic voters - While you'd still have people turning out for the critical key issues where the parties are definitely in opposition, such as abortion rights, it would be much more difficult to engage the base overall, and it would certainly be with less enthusiasm.
There was some question as to if I could be an independent and still participate in the primary one of the last times I mentioned this, but after verifying, it looks like I am in a state with an open caucus, and I do not have to formally declare an affiliation in order to participate.
Good map - I generally prefer to link to more neutral resources as opposed to one that was is affiliated with a candidate, but this is by far the most clear and concise map I've seen.
That site also speaks a great truth, the thing that I am incredibly cynical about that I feel works against the favor or Sanders over all else: ...there is a significant hurdle that might prevent Bernie from facing off against the GOP nominee, which is that the typical Bernie supporter doesn’t vote!
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:11 PM on February 7, 2016
There was some question as to if I could be an independent and still participate in the primary one of the last times I mentioned this, but after verifying, it looks like I am in a state with an open caucus, and I do not have to formally declare an affiliation in order to participate.
Good map - I generally prefer to link to more neutral resources as opposed to one that was is affiliated with a candidate, but this is by far the most clear and concise map I've seen.
That site also speaks a great truth, the thing that I am incredibly cynical about that I feel works against the favor or Sanders over all else: ...there is a significant hurdle that might prevent Bernie from facing off against the GOP nominee, which is that the typical Bernie supporter doesn’t vote!
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:11 PM on February 7, 2016
Regarding Madeleine Albright's "special place in hell" comment, ABC News (Australia) this morning read a comment from a viewer who asked what I thought was a valid question. To paraphrase, "so what about Sarah Palin, did Albright support her?"
posted by barnacles at 1:18 PM on February 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by barnacles at 1:18 PM on February 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
there is a significant hurdle that might prevent Bernie from facing off against the GOP nominee, which is that the typical Bernie supporter doesn’t vote!
The typical Bernie support hasn't been voting because there haven't been Bernies to vote for. The typical Bernie supporter is ready, able and willing to vote in both this and future contests if they believe their vote and involvement can compel meaningful, revolutionary-scale change in the political process. The typical Bernie supporter regards Bernie's success as evidence supporting this belief. The typical Bernie supporter is relatively more enthusiastic and engaged than any other group of voters in the 2016 election cycle. And the typical Bernie voter will be 100% showing up to vote for Bernie and subsequently the people who share his vision for a better tomorrow at the state and local levels of government because the typical Bernie supporter takes the notion of political revolution seriously.
posted by an animate objects at 1:19 PM on February 7, 2016 [10 favorites]
The typical Bernie support hasn't been voting because there haven't been Bernies to vote for. The typical Bernie supporter is ready, able and willing to vote in both this and future contests if they believe their vote and involvement can compel meaningful, revolutionary-scale change in the political process. The typical Bernie supporter regards Bernie's success as evidence supporting this belief. The typical Bernie supporter is relatively more enthusiastic and engaged than any other group of voters in the 2016 election cycle. And the typical Bernie voter will be 100% showing up to vote for Bernie and subsequently the people who share his vision for a better tomorrow at the state and local levels of government because the typical Bernie supporter takes the notion of political revolution seriously.
posted by an animate objects at 1:19 PM on February 7, 2016 [10 favorites]
The New Yorker: The New Hampshire primary is all about Bernie Sanders
As Sanders' criticisms of Clinton's Wall Street/corporate ties demonstrate, it's pretty easy to paint her as not only a part of the establishment, but as untrustworthy, someone who tells you they're on your side but says something different in private. If they run her against someone like Trump who (even though we all know he'd participate even more in the corporate giveaways) can claim not to be bought, who has a history of having supported health care (he even supported single payer!) and emphasizes how he wants to replace Obamacare with something "better", he could get a lot of lower-income voters who have otherwise checked out of the political process (which seems to be his primary constituency so far, too).
These folks are furious that their incomes aren't keeping up with inflation and that finding good jobs is difficult (the unemployment rate is falling, but that says nothing about the jobs people are getting, and wages will remain stagnant if they keep raising interest rates every time wages even start to rise). They are currently blaming much of this situation on immigration. Some people also blame Wall Street, corporations, and trade deals like NAFTA and TPP, while still others are persuadable - where Trump drives their xenophobia by preying on their economic insecurity (classic Southern strategy, but against Latin@s this time), it's possible that Sanders could present a credible alternative that still addresses their core economic insecurities without the bigotry. Clinton, by contrast, will never ever appear to be a credible alternative to these people because she's taken their money, she goes to their parties, she's in the club - and most of all, her wing of the party has had decades to solve these problems and they still get worse and worse. They definitely won't trust her after NAFTA and her grudging opposition to TPP. Trump doesn't have to prove that he's on their side - he just has to prove that Clinton isn't, which won't be that difficult to be quite honest.
Dems also need to be careful they don't get stuck looking responsible for all the worst aspects of our health care system with no plans to improve it. It was one of the big risks of going for incremental reform: if it looks like all you did is rearrange things a little so your people can profit from it better (see: health insurance corporation donations to Democrats), people won't trust you next time - especially if you tell them that improving it has suddenly become impossible. Worst case, the other side can now blame you for all the problems that remain. It looks like that's part of the GOP plan this year - several candidates last night delivered touching stories of the horrible ordeals that the working class goes through to access health care, except this time they were blaming Democrats. We need good answers for the legitimately serious problems that remain after our reform, and "we can't fix them" won't do it.
posted by dialetheia at 1:24 PM on February 7, 2016 [17 favorites]
But, inside, the Trump phenomenon seemed to have adapted; Trump has been studying Sanders. The billionaire lamented the companies that are taking jobs and profits overseas through relocations and corporate inversions, and singled out the pharmaceutical industry. “They have tremendous power,” he said. Elected representatives, Trump said, “live for the special interests and the lobbyists, and they work for them.” A woman in the crowd suggested that illegal immigrants provide the country’s “backbone.” When she was booed, Trump, who in similar situations in the past has snarled for security, just calmed the crowd. “Who told you to be here? Bernie?” He asked.Democrats need to be very careful not to get outflanked by Republicans on poverty and corporate donor issues this year, given how much Trump is emphasizing economic populism and attacking special interest donors. He even pledged not to let poor people die in the street from lack of health care at yesterday's debate - to a pointed lack of applause from the Republican donor audience. Dems make a huge mistake to dismiss the Trump phenomenon as nothing more than overt racism (though it certainly is that). He's also breaking a lot of GOP unspoken rules about talking about outsourcing, the working class, and improving health care.
As Sanders' criticisms of Clinton's Wall Street/corporate ties demonstrate, it's pretty easy to paint her as not only a part of the establishment, but as untrustworthy, someone who tells you they're on your side but says something different in private. If they run her against someone like Trump who (even though we all know he'd participate even more in the corporate giveaways) can claim not to be bought, who has a history of having supported health care (he even supported single payer!) and emphasizes how he wants to replace Obamacare with something "better", he could get a lot of lower-income voters who have otherwise checked out of the political process (which seems to be his primary constituency so far, too).
These folks are furious that their incomes aren't keeping up with inflation and that finding good jobs is difficult (the unemployment rate is falling, but that says nothing about the jobs people are getting, and wages will remain stagnant if they keep raising interest rates every time wages even start to rise). They are currently blaming much of this situation on immigration. Some people also blame Wall Street, corporations, and trade deals like NAFTA and TPP, while still others are persuadable - where Trump drives their xenophobia by preying on their economic insecurity (classic Southern strategy, but against Latin@s this time), it's possible that Sanders could present a credible alternative that still addresses their core economic insecurities without the bigotry. Clinton, by contrast, will never ever appear to be a credible alternative to these people because she's taken their money, she goes to their parties, she's in the club - and most of all, her wing of the party has had decades to solve these problems and they still get worse and worse. They definitely won't trust her after NAFTA and her grudging opposition to TPP. Trump doesn't have to prove that he's on their side - he just has to prove that Clinton isn't, which won't be that difficult to be quite honest.
Dems also need to be careful they don't get stuck looking responsible for all the worst aspects of our health care system with no plans to improve it. It was one of the big risks of going for incremental reform: if it looks like all you did is rearrange things a little so your people can profit from it better (see: health insurance corporation donations to Democrats), people won't trust you next time - especially if you tell them that improving it has suddenly become impossible. Worst case, the other side can now blame you for all the problems that remain. It looks like that's part of the GOP plan this year - several candidates last night delivered touching stories of the horrible ordeals that the working class goes through to access health care, except this time they were blaming Democrats. We need good answers for the legitimately serious problems that remain after our reform, and "we can't fix them" won't do it.
posted by dialetheia at 1:24 PM on February 7, 2016 [17 favorites]
In a case of talk-show Interruptus, I misspoke on the Bill Maher show recently, and apologize for what's been misinterpreted as implying young women aren't serious in their politics. What I had just said on the same show was the opposite: young women are active, mad as hell about what's happening to them, graduating in debt, but averaging a million dollars less over their lifetimes to pay it back. Whether they gravitate to Bernie or Hillary, young women are activist and feminist in greater numbers than ever before. - Gloria Steinam
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:28 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:28 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
an animate objects, that came from a Sanders site, not me. I'm personally tempted to agree with you - I've been repeatedly saying that engaging those who have been traditionally left out is the way to go. I think maybe it could be said better as "the typical supporter doesn't vote" - Leaving Sanders out of it, voter turnout is pathetically small in primaries, and pathetically small in general. Call me skeptical that it's suddenly going to change with Sanders. I think it will be stronger than maybe it has before due to Sanders supporters, but I ultimately believe that those who express support in person or online way outnumber those who actually act on their support. If every single person who supported Bernie actually showed up to vote, I don't think it would be much of a competition.
If voter turnout numbers are shown to be drastically different from what history has demonstrated, I will be very happy to be wrong and to have misplaced cynicism. I have little faith in those who claim support for anything to actually take any action whatsoever, even one as simple as showing up for a caucus or primary.
This is just one of many reasons that the raw numbers not being released from Iowa are bullshit, by the way. I'd love to be able to see how turnout looked here compared to earlier caucuses.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:33 PM on February 7, 2016
If voter turnout numbers are shown to be drastically different from what history has demonstrated, I will be very happy to be wrong and to have misplaced cynicism. I have little faith in those who claim support for anything to actually take any action whatsoever, even one as simple as showing up for a caucus or primary.
This is just one of many reasons that the raw numbers not being released from Iowa are bullshit, by the way. I'd love to be able to see how turnout looked here compared to earlier caucuses.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:33 PM on February 7, 2016
The typical Bernie support hasn't been voting because there haven't been Bernies to vote for. The typical Bernie supporter is ready, able and willing to vote in both this and future contests
That's one theory. But history doesn't tend to bear it out. The vast majority of candidates who depend on the youth vote to win end up disappointed.
posted by Justinian at 1:33 PM on February 7, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's one theory. But history doesn't tend to bear it out. The vast majority of candidates who depend on the youth vote to win end up disappointed.
posted by Justinian at 1:33 PM on February 7, 2016 [7 favorites]
Absolutely correct, Justinian. I'd love to see history made here, but my first hand experience has made me extremely cynical about the youth vote in particular. Every generation brings the potential of change, of course...
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:39 PM on February 7, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:39 PM on February 7, 2016
Clinton defends Albright and Steinem apologises as sexism claims dominate Democratic race
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:46 PM on February 7, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:46 PM on February 7, 2016
That's one theory. But history doesn't tend to bear it out. The vast majority of candidates who depend on the youth vote to win end up disappointed.
The vast majority of candidates who depended on the youth vote tried it before the internet, though. Youth turned out for Obama in 2008, and it was decisive in 2012.
posted by dialetheia at 1:47 PM on February 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
The vast majority of candidates who depended on the youth vote tried it before the internet, though. Youth turned out for Obama in 2008, and it was decisive in 2012.
posted by dialetheia at 1:47 PM on February 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
More thoughts on young people and political engagement from the Pew Research Center in 2012:
posted by dialetheia at 1:52 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
Then about six months ago we did a report on generational trends in voting, in which we showed that the partisan age gap is bigger than it’s ever been. There was a 34 percentage point difference in 2008 between how 18-to-29-year-olds voted and how 65-and-overs voted. As recently as ten years ago, there was no difference between those two cohorts. So something very profound has happened. The current youth cohort is coming of age with a very pro-government, pro-Obama mindset. Will that last for the course of their lives? We have no idea how that story ends – we only know how it has begun.Young people are far more liberal than older voters, which is a huge departure from even 10 years ago, and Democrats are right to try to take advantage of that enthusiasm instead of squandering it.
posted by dialetheia at 1:52 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
From roomthreeseventeern's Guardian link:
Good grief, we’re getting offended by everything these days! People can’t say anything without offending somebody. -Clinton
posted by melissasaurus at 1:57 PM on February 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
Good grief, we’re getting offended by everything these days! People can’t say anything without offending somebody. -Clinton
posted by melissasaurus at 1:57 PM on February 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's political correctness gone mad, I tell you.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:03 PM on February 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:03 PM on February 7, 2016 [3 favorites]
Youth turned out for Obama in 2008, and it was decisive in 2012.
My instincts want to respond that you are referring to the general - which is a whole different game - but as I've been digging for data, I'm starting to think I may be just going off of gut feeling. I'm having a hard time finding raw numbers, but it does look like there's been a consistent increase in the youth vote every presidential primary for a while, with every rise greater than the one before - Source
Maybe this is all just me proxy-grumbling about past experience in more regional non-presidential elections - I've spent more time from a participation as well as a research perspective there, as opposed to the presidential. The data seems to be pretty squarely against me regarding the presidential election, and I'm willing to revise my stance to "cynically hopeful" as opposed to just "cynical" - I can only wish we'd have the same involvement in regional elections as we do in presidential.
I'm certainly willing to admit that I'm likely wrong regarding youth vote, I'd love to see other sources before I change that to "definitely wrong."
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:10 PM on February 7, 2016
My instincts want to respond that you are referring to the general - which is a whole different game - but as I've been digging for data, I'm starting to think I may be just going off of gut feeling. I'm having a hard time finding raw numbers, but it does look like there's been a consistent increase in the youth vote every presidential primary for a while, with every rise greater than the one before - Source
Maybe this is all just me proxy-grumbling about past experience in more regional non-presidential elections - I've spent more time from a participation as well as a research perspective there, as opposed to the presidential. The data seems to be pretty squarely against me regarding the presidential election, and I'm willing to revise my stance to "cynically hopeful" as opposed to just "cynical" - I can only wish we'd have the same involvement in regional elections as we do in presidential.
I'm certainly willing to admit that I'm likely wrong regarding youth vote, I'd love to see other sources before I change that to "definitely wrong."
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:10 PM on February 7, 2016
Maybe this is all just me proxy-grumbling about past experience could probably sum up more of my thoughts than I care to admit.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:11 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:11 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it's impossible to predict how the youth vote will behave, because we don't have enough data points from before the internet became commonplace. Young people these days are exposed to a much wider variety of viewpoints, and engage with politics differently, than they would have been 10 or 20 years ago, all because of the internet. And I credit that with a lot of the momentum we've already seen on LGBT rights and the drug war and Black Lives Matter. Conversations that would have happened in a lefty bookstore in an urban center are now happening on Twitter or whatever for the whole world to see, and it makes a difference.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:15 PM on February 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:15 PM on February 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
Good grief, we’re getting offended by everything these days! People can’t say anything without offending somebody
Who is advising Hillary? Why is she defending the awful comments made on her behalf? Sometimes it seems like she's deliberately trying to implode her campaign.
Also, the above remark was only in reference to the comment Steinem made. About the quip Albright made, Clinton defended it by saying that Albright made similar comments many times previously. True, but that doesn't speak well of her!
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 2:21 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Who is advising Hillary? Why is she defending the awful comments made on her behalf? Sometimes it seems like she's deliberately trying to implode her campaign.
Also, the above remark was only in reference to the comment Steinem made. About the quip Albright made, Clinton defended it by saying that Albright made similar comments many times previously. True, but that doesn't speak well of her!
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 2:21 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Check out this chart. Second Clinton election, ~25% of adults use the internet. First Bush election, ~50%. Second Bush election, ~65%. First Obama election, ~74%. Second Obama election, ~81%. Now it's probably 90% or more.
I think it would be difficult to overstate how significantly this changes the game.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:24 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think it would be difficult to overstate how significantly this changes the game.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:24 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
Young people these days are exposed to a much wider variety of viewpoints, and engage with politics differently, than they would have been 10 or 20 years ago, all because of the internet
I agree with most of that, except for the part about being exposed to a much wider variety of viewpoints - There's some truth to this in that many of the movements you mentioned are gaining traction, but these same services have made it very easy to avoid voices that may express different viewpoints, and find many that will reinforce your own. I think that while it's gaining attention for many of these issues, it's also polarizing them much more rapidly than before. You don't find these issues on Twitter or other service unless those who you follow already are advocating for them, or unless you make a point to dig further into them on your own.
When it comes down to it, I suspect it's a net positive for political involvement - voices are amplified, greatly, and it becomes much easier to raise awareness and communicate issues. However, I think it has also simplified the ability to limit your exposure to others views that you don't actively seek out on your own. The upshot of that is that much more momentum can be built up if your online experiences are constantly reiterating political issues and themes.
It will be interesting to look back upon this period of time, and how it has changed engagement.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:29 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
I agree with most of that, except for the part about being exposed to a much wider variety of viewpoints - There's some truth to this in that many of the movements you mentioned are gaining traction, but these same services have made it very easy to avoid voices that may express different viewpoints, and find many that will reinforce your own. I think that while it's gaining attention for many of these issues, it's also polarizing them much more rapidly than before. You don't find these issues on Twitter or other service unless those who you follow already are advocating for them, or unless you make a point to dig further into them on your own.
When it comes down to it, I suspect it's a net positive for political involvement - voices are amplified, greatly, and it becomes much easier to raise awareness and communicate issues. However, I think it has also simplified the ability to limit your exposure to others views that you don't actively seek out on your own. The upshot of that is that much more momentum can be built up if your online experiences are constantly reiterating political issues and themes.
It will be interesting to look back upon this period of time, and how it has changed engagement.
posted by MysticMCJ at 2:29 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton’s Tutor in War and Peace
posted by indubitable at 3:28 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 3:28 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
It was Clinton who required transcripts of her speeches
From the article, her latest response to the issue:
On Sunday, she said she would release the transcripts - if everyone who has ever given a paid speech also did. “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them,” she said on ABC’s This Week program. “We’ll all release them at the same time. ... These rules need to apply to everybody.”
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:43 PM on February 7, 2016
From the article, her latest response to the issue:
On Sunday, she said she would release the transcripts - if everyone who has ever given a paid speech also did. “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them,” she said on ABC’s This Week program. “We’ll all release them at the same time. ... These rules need to apply to everybody.”
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:43 PM on February 7, 2016
That's a better answer than what she's been giving, but tell you what, let's just worry about the speeches Democrats have given to the banking sector. Bernie's done. Your turn.
This is actually kind of a stupid and shitty response, better than "Lots of people want to hear my opinion and that's what they offered," but still crappy.
It's like the excuse a teenager gives. But Mom, all the kids were doing it!
Also, if you are wanting to be a leader you go first. Just saying.
BAWK BAWK BAWK!
posted by cjorgensen at 6:01 PM on February 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is actually kind of a stupid and shitty response, better than "Lots of people want to hear my opinion and that's what they offered," but still crappy.
It's like the excuse a teenager gives. But Mom, all the kids were doing it!
Also, if you are wanting to be a leader you go first. Just saying.
BAWK BAWK BAWK!
posted by cjorgensen at 6:01 PM on February 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why is this our best shot? Why is this the right time to go fight exactly the same battle again?
If not now, when?
If tomorrow is ok, today is better.
SANDERS 2016: REPEAL & REPLACE.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:21 PM on February 7, 2016
If not now, when?
If tomorrow is ok, today is better.
SANDERS 2016: REPEAL & REPLACE.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:21 PM on February 7, 2016
A bill that replaces the ACA with something better isn't the same thing as repealing the ACA.
CLINTON 2016: KEEP THE STATUS QUO, IT'S WORKING FOR ME!
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:45 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
CLINTON 2016: KEEP THE STATUS QUO, IT'S WORKING FOR ME!
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:45 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
Clinton Says She's Unsure What Sanders Means by 'Wall Street'
This is why the Onion sold itself to Univision. Seriously, it was time to cash out. Satire is dead.
It's sad Hillary is uncertain what Sanders means, since I think the rest of us know what he means. I want my candidate to be the smartest person in the room, so either Clinton is honest and dumb or disingenuous as all get out.
I guess it depends on what your definition of is is.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:01 PM on February 7, 2016 [15 favorites]
This is why the Onion sold itself to Univision. Seriously, it was time to cash out. Satire is dead.
It's sad Hillary is uncertain what Sanders means, since I think the rest of us know what he means. I want my candidate to be the smartest person in the room, so either Clinton is honest and dumb or disingenuous as all get out.
I guess it depends on what your definition of is is.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:01 PM on February 7, 2016 [15 favorites]
It was Clinton who required transcripts of her speeches
Did she learn nothing from Nixon?
No tapes, no transcripts, no trouble.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:07 PM on February 7, 2016
Did she learn nothing from Nixon?
No tapes, no transcripts, no trouble.
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:07 PM on February 7, 2016
A bill that replaces the ACA with something better isn't the same thing as repealing the ACA.
That’s a ridiculous statement on its face. You are getting rid of the ACA, and you are replacing it with something else. You might want to spin it as something different, (“Replace”?) but attacks on those grounds are pretty much a gimme. Imagine a Republican saying “Sanders agrees with us! Obamacare is a bad law. We need to replace it.”
It’s sad Hillary is uncertain what Sanders means, since I think the rest of us know what he means.
From the article: “When you talk about Wall Street, are we talking about every bank or are we talking about a particular part of New York? That’s never really clarified. What I believe is that there are good actors and bad actors in every part of our economy.”
posted by Going To Maine at 8:00 PM on February 7, 2016
That’s a ridiculous statement on its face. You are getting rid of the ACA, and you are replacing it with something else. You might want to spin it as something different, (“Replace”?) but attacks on those grounds are pretty much a gimme. Imagine a Republican saying “Sanders agrees with us! Obamacare is a bad law. We need to replace it.”
It’s sad Hillary is uncertain what Sanders means, since I think the rest of us know what he means.
From the article: “When you talk about Wall Street, are we talking about every bank or are we talking about a particular part of New York? That’s never really clarified. What I believe is that there are good actors and bad actors in every part of our economy.”
posted by Going To Maine at 8:00 PM on February 7, 2016
Going to Maine: SANDERS 2016: REPEAL & REPLACE.
In response to Hillary during the last debate: "I am on the Health Education committee. That committee wrote The Affordable Care Act. The idea that I would dismantle healthcare in America while we're waiting to pass Medicare For All is just not accurate."
Considering that "repeal" is such a loaded word when it comes to the ACA I'm curious if you've actually seen or read anything by Bernie that says there will will be any period of time, any gap, when people wouldn't be covered by at least what the current system provides.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:05 PM on February 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
In response to Hillary during the last debate: "I am on the Health Education committee. That committee wrote The Affordable Care Act. The idea that I would dismantle healthcare in America while we're waiting to pass Medicare For All is just not accurate."
Considering that "repeal" is such a loaded word when it comes to the ACA I'm curious if you've actually seen or read anything by Bernie that says there will will be any period of time, any gap, when people wouldn't be covered by at least what the current system provides.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:05 PM on February 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
Oh no -I’m not saying that Sanders has said that. I’m saying that I’d bet dollars to donuts that that’s how it’d be spun in the general. It’s a super easy story to tell.
I'm curious if you've actually seen or read anything by Bernie that says there will will be any period of time, any gap, when people wouldn't be covered by at least what the current system provides.
Of course not. Why would he say that? But why does that matter? If the soundbite approximately fits, it’ll be used.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:24 PM on February 7, 2016
I'm curious if you've actually seen or read anything by Bernie that says there will will be any period of time, any gap, when people wouldn't be covered by at least what the current system provides.
Of course not. Why would he say that? But why does that matter? If the soundbite approximately fits, it’ll be used.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:24 PM on February 7, 2016
Fear is the mind-killer.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:27 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:27 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Just so we have this straight. You are proposing that we should put off fighting for a single payer system because of possible soundbites? Do you have any estimates as to what hypothetical point in the future soundbites will cease being a mortal threat to a single payer system? You know so we can let all those uninsured people know approximately when they can expect the Democratic party to get up off its moderate incrementalist asses and get it done.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:32 PM on February 7, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:32 PM on February 7, 2016 [15 favorites]
Oh no -I’m not saying that Sanders has said that. I’m saying that I’d bet dollars to donuts that that’s how it’d be spun in the general. It’s a super easy story to tell.
That makes no sense anyway, though. The Republicans are going to run on how bad Obamacare is. If Sanders is already acknowledging "yes, there are problems, we are going to improve it by moving toward this other system" then he's actually in a better position than trying to defend a bill that still leaves so many holes in our health care system. Did you watch the Republican debate last night? Did you notice all the sad stories about how hard it is to get health care as a working-class person? Those narratives work against Hillary Clinton who is arguing "Obamacare is the best we can do", not against Sanders who acknowledges that our health care system still needs work. That attack on Obamacare works largely because Obamacare doesn't actually solve many of the problems people still have accessing affordable health care.
posted by dialetheia at 8:47 PM on February 7, 2016 [17 favorites]
That makes no sense anyway, though. The Republicans are going to run on how bad Obamacare is. If Sanders is already acknowledging "yes, there are problems, we are going to improve it by moving toward this other system" then he's actually in a better position than trying to defend a bill that still leaves so many holes in our health care system. Did you watch the Republican debate last night? Did you notice all the sad stories about how hard it is to get health care as a working-class person? Those narratives work against Hillary Clinton who is arguing "Obamacare is the best we can do", not against Sanders who acknowledges that our health care system still needs work. That attack on Obamacare works largely because Obamacare doesn't actually solve many of the problems people still have accessing affordable health care.
posted by dialetheia at 8:47 PM on February 7, 2016 [17 favorites]
Clinton: “When you talk about Wall Street, are we talking about every bank or are we talking about a particular part of New York? That’s never really clarified. What I believe is that there are good actors and bad actors in every part of our economy.”
Yes, we are talking about every bank. Here are the top banks on Wall Street and their fines and penalties for their crimes.
Bank of America -- $58 billion in penalties
JP Morgan -- $31 billion in penalties
Citigroup -- $13 billion in penalties
Wells Fargo -- $10 billion in penalties
BNP -- $9 billion in penalties
Credit Suisse -- $4 billion in penalties
Deutsche Bank -- $4 billion in penalties
HSBC -- $4 billion in penalties
UBS -- $4 billion in penalties
SunTrust -- $3 billion in penalties
Goldman Sachs -- $2 billion in penalties
Barkleys -- $2 billion in penalties
Morgan Stanley -- $2 billion in penalties
Ally -- $1 billion in penalties
US Bank -- $0.5 billion in penalties
PNC -- $0.5 billion in penalties
Lloyds -- $0.5 billion in penalties
That's a lot of criminal behavior. So it would be incumbent upon Clinton to state which firms on Wall Street are not bad actors if she could find one.
posted by JackFlash at 8:51 PM on February 7, 2016 [17 favorites]
Yes, we are talking about every bank. Here are the top banks on Wall Street and their fines and penalties for their crimes.
Bank of America -- $58 billion in penalties
JP Morgan -- $31 billion in penalties
Citigroup -- $13 billion in penalties
Wells Fargo -- $10 billion in penalties
BNP -- $9 billion in penalties
Credit Suisse -- $4 billion in penalties
Deutsche Bank -- $4 billion in penalties
HSBC -- $4 billion in penalties
UBS -- $4 billion in penalties
SunTrust -- $3 billion in penalties
Goldman Sachs -- $2 billion in penalties
Barkleys -- $2 billion in penalties
Morgan Stanley -- $2 billion in penalties
Ally -- $1 billion in penalties
US Bank -- $0.5 billion in penalties
PNC -- $0.5 billion in penalties
Lloyds -- $0.5 billion in penalties
That's a lot of criminal behavior. So it would be incumbent upon Clinton to state which firms on Wall Street are not bad actors if she could find one.
posted by JackFlash at 8:51 PM on February 7, 2016 [17 favorites]
To put those fines in perspective, an audit of the Federal Reserve (enacted into law under an amendment from none other than Bernie Sanders) found that $16 trillion went to bail out the banks and other corporations during and after the banking and credit crisis in 2008.
In the face of a systemic issue like this, Hillary Clinton haggling over the precise definition of Wall Street is absolutely appalling.
posted by dialetheia at 8:59 PM on February 7, 2016 [7 favorites]
In the face of a systemic issue like this, Hillary Clinton haggling over the precise definition of Wall Street is absolutely appalling.
posted by dialetheia at 8:59 PM on February 7, 2016 [7 favorites]
I am saying that we should put off fighting for a single payer system because politics is the art of the possible. The country has just accomplished the most dramatic re-altering of the health care system in ages, and that accomplishment itself still isn't completely rolled out. Meanwhile, the opposition is campaigning (disingenuously or no) on destroying Obamacare. For the democratic nominee to join with the Republicans in attacking that achievement is a dumb move. It also seems infeasible. Obamacare was a compromise that barely got through. The argument that you will cede that ground and say, “yeah, we screwed this up, let’s redo it” is going to be a massive concession to those who fought against it in the first place.
That makes no sense anyway, though. The Republicans are going to run on how bad Obamacare is. If Sanders is already acknowledging "yes, there are problems, we are going to improve it by moving toward this other system" then he's actually in a better position than trying to defend a bill that still leaves so many holes in our health care system. Did you watch the Republican debate last night?
Nope - see my earlier comment. We are no doubt simply at a philosophical impasse here, however. I simply don’t see how conceding that the bill is broken instead of saying “Yeah, we’re having issues, but that’s because y’all aren’t helping it work, and have been working against it.” isn’t a better fit. “Y’all aren’t helping it work, but also we kind of fucked up too.” just seems like weak sauce to me. I’d need a much stronger case than “there are still lots of uninsured people!” to need to think that this was the moment to fight everything over again.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:04 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
That makes no sense anyway, though. The Republicans are going to run on how bad Obamacare is. If Sanders is already acknowledging "yes, there are problems, we are going to improve it by moving toward this other system" then he's actually in a better position than trying to defend a bill that still leaves so many holes in our health care system. Did you watch the Republican debate last night?
Nope - see my earlier comment. We are no doubt simply at a philosophical impasse here, however. I simply don’t see how conceding that the bill is broken instead of saying “Yeah, we’re having issues, but that’s because y’all aren’t helping it work, and have been working against it.” isn’t a better fit. “Y’all aren’t helping it work, but also we kind of fucked up too.” just seems like weak sauce to me. I’d need a much stronger case than “there are still lots of uninsured people!” to need to think that this was the moment to fight everything over again.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:04 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's a better source on that Federal Reserve audit story. Even if you don't count the $16 trillion in secret 0% loans, the banks received $1.1 trillion in bailout funds and were fined the mere pittances listed above for the inconvenience to the American economy. No wonder that American is furious about Wall Street and thinks their economy is rigged. They're right, too.
We already have socialism for wealthy corporations, but nothing to offer working people but rugged individualism.
posted by dialetheia at 9:22 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
We already have socialism for wealthy corporations, but nothing to offer working people but rugged individualism.
posted by dialetheia at 9:22 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
In the face of a systemic issue like this, Hillary Clinton haggling over the precise definition of Wall Street is absolutely appalling.
The reason Sanders can't be blamed for this (or for anything else) is that he wasn't a member of the administration and never had executive authority or shared in collective responsibility.
I suppose an argument could be made that no former member of the executive should run for President, but unless you make that argument explicitly you're treating the candidates with a double standard. Of course bad things happened on her watch, and of course she is (at least partially) responsible. The question is whether Sanders would be a better Chief Executive, but faffing about with demands for transcripts doesn't help us measure that.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:34 PM on February 7, 2016
The reason Sanders can't be blamed for this (or for anything else) is that he wasn't a member of the administration and never had executive authority or shared in collective responsibility.
I suppose an argument could be made that no former member of the executive should run for President, but unless you make that argument explicitly you're treating the candidates with a double standard. Of course bad things happened on her watch, and of course she is (at least partially) responsible. The question is whether Sanders would be a better Chief Executive, but faffing about with demands for transcripts doesn't help us measure that.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:34 PM on February 7, 2016
So apparently Bill Clinton is going on the attack against Sanders in New Hampshire, and even he is not immune to the incredible lack of self-awareness plaguing Hillary's campaign surrogates:
"He fights courageously against big money, big business, and big banks for the interests of students, the poor, the oppressed, and the shrinking middle class. Bernie Sanders: Champion of all things small and enemy of all things big."
posted by Rhaomi at 9:35 PM on February 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Without mentioning Sanders by name, Clinton recited a laundry list of double standards and lack of details in policy proposals he has identified in Sanders’ campaign — and labeled “her opponent the champion of all things small and the enemy of all things big.”Apart from the nonsensical quality of the charge -- Sanders' platform is the most ambitious in decades -- the pro-Sanders ads just write themselves:
"He fights courageously against big money, big business, and big banks for the interests of students, the poor, the oppressed, and the shrinking middle class. Bernie Sanders: Champion of all things small and enemy of all things big."
posted by Rhaomi at 9:35 PM on February 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
Bernie Sanders: Champion of all things small and enemy of all things big.
That sounds romantic, but I’m not sure it will play well for people who work for large companies. (Sanders: he wants everything small except for the government.)
posted by Going To Maine at 9:46 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
That sounds romantic, but I’m not sure it will play well for people who work for large companies. (Sanders: he wants everything small except for the government.)
posted by Going To Maine at 9:46 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
The reason Sanders can't be blamed for this (or for anything else) is that he wasn't a member of the administration and never had executive authority or shared in collective responsibility.
Huh? The reason Sanders can't be blamed for this is that he made speeches against it, voted against it, wrote the amendment to discover it, and was one of the only people trying to hold people responsible for it. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton's super PAC took $15 million from Wall Street this election cycle alone.
posted by dialetheia at 9:50 PM on February 7, 2016 [18 favorites]
Huh? The reason Sanders can't be blamed for this is that he made speeches against it, voted against it, wrote the amendment to discover it, and was one of the only people trying to hold people responsible for it. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton's super PAC took $15 million from Wall Street this election cycle alone.
posted by dialetheia at 9:50 PM on February 7, 2016 [18 favorites]
I’d need a much stronger case than “there are still lots of uninsured people!” to need to think that this was the moment to fight everything over again.
Those "lots of uninsured people" are mostly low income working families and the elderly. So basically, some of the most vulnerable populations among us. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree about what constitutes a "strong case" for universal coverage.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:56 PM on February 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
Those "lots of uninsured people" are mostly low income working families and the elderly. So basically, some of the most vulnerable populations among us. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree about what constitutes a "strong case" for universal coverage.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:56 PM on February 7, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yep. Alas.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:58 PM on February 7, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 9:58 PM on February 7, 2016
(Well, to be clear: we are disagreeing about the case for electing a politician who will prioritize trying to pass universal health care coverage at this particular political moment, not about whether or not it’s cool that millions of people don’t have health care coverage. Because that, obviously, is not good.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:01 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:01 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
(But also: the elderly get medicaid, so those should be left out of your total. The 32.3 million uninsured figure covers the non-elderly.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:04 PM on February 7, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 10:04 PM on February 7, 2016
(Er. Medicare.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:10 PM on February 7, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 10:10 PM on February 7, 2016
not about whether or not it’s cool that millions of people don’t have health care coverage. Because that, obviously, is not good.
And then you made another comment about just that:
(But also: the elderly get medicaid, so those should be left out of your total. The 32.3 million uninsured figure covers the non-elderly.)
posted by futz at 10:12 PM on February 7, 2016
And then you made another comment about just that:
(But also: the elderly get medicaid, so those should be left out of your total. The 32.3 million uninsured figure covers the non-elderly.)
posted by futz at 10:12 PM on February 7, 2016
Going To Maine: "That sounds romantic, but I’m not sure it will play well for people who work for large companies."
If he were railing against big companies as a concept, maybe -- and even then I suspect there are a lot of non-management folks working for such companies who'd be perfectly happy taking them down a peg in order to win better protections for workers.
This comment from the Sanders subreddit on the above-mentioned Clinton comment cuts to the heart of the issue with a hypothetical response (and makes a good case for being Bernie's next speechwriter):
Also, re: the Rubio debate malfunction: All Four Marco Rubios. I'm feeling a little uneasy having picked him to go all the way this year.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:14 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
If he were railing against big companies as a concept, maybe -- and even then I suspect there are a lot of non-management folks working for such companies who'd be perfectly happy taking them down a peg in order to win better protections for workers.
This comment from the Sanders subreddit on the above-mentioned Clinton comment cuts to the heart of the issue with a hypothetical response (and makes a good case for being Bernie's next speechwriter):
"Bill Clinton recently said that I was .. quote 'a champion of all things small and enemy of all things big', I imagine that it was a slight of some sort, but I don't really take it that way; in a sense, I have been a champion of all things small. I'm a fierce defender of 'the little guy', the single mother trying to take care of her kids on a salary that's way to small. The small farmers in this state and many others just trying to survive in the face of large multinational corporations trying to squeeze them out. The small community bank being choked by big guys on wall street. Small family businesses in small towns throughout this country. So ya, I guess guilty as charged, I'm a champion of the small things. I think more importantly however I am the enemy of a lot of 'things big'; big banks, to big to fail; big executives, to big to jail; massive super PAC's and huge campaign contributions meant to buy elections. Gigantic use of military force when it isn't needed and the never ending huge tax breaks for the rich. There is one sense where he's wrong however, the one "big" thing that I am a champion of is ideas. I think we have to think big; not small. if we all stand together there is nothing that we cannot accomplish, so I would say that I'm a champion of thinking big; about the little things."It's definitely a strong rhetorical angle.
Also, re: the Rubio debate malfunction: All Four Marco Rubios. I'm feeling a little uneasy having picked him to go all the way this year.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:14 PM on February 7, 2016 [5 favorites]
not about whether or not it’s cool that millions of people don’t have health care coverage. Because that, obviously, is not good.
And then you made another comment about just that:
(But also: the elderly getmedicaid, medicare, so those should be left out of your total. The 32.3 million uninsured figure covers the non-elderly.)
posted by futz at 10:12 PM
Sorry, I don’t understand. It sucks that 32.3 million folks don’t have insurance, though that number should continue to shrink as Obamacare kicks in and medicaid continues to expand to cover more people. It also doesn’t seem politically expedient to me to make that an issue right now. My comment about the elderly was in regards to this comment that bulked the elderly among the uninsured.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:33 PM on February 7, 2016
And then you made another comment about just that:
(But also: the elderly get
posted by futz at 10:12 PM
Sorry, I don’t understand. It sucks that 32.3 million folks don’t have insurance, though that number should continue to shrink as Obamacare kicks in and medicaid continues to expand to cover more people. It also doesn’t seem politically expedient to me to make that an issue right now. My comment about the elderly was in regards to this comment that bulked the elderly among the uninsured.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:33 PM on February 7, 2016
I rather like David Axelrod’s op-ed, “The Obama Theory of Trump” because it foregrounds the importance of Obama in this campaign. While it’s true for the GOP side, it’s true here as well: the lens through which we view Obama as president weighs into how we assess the Clinton and Sanders candidacies.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:37 PM on February 7, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 10:37 PM on February 7, 2016
One of my very favorite things about Bernie Sanders is that his YouTube channel has all the old C-SPAN footage of his speeches in Congress calling out many of the biggest mistakes we've made since the early 90s. It's pretty striking.
Here are a few of my favorites, in no particular order -
Bernie Sanders predicting the 2008 crash in 1998
Bernie Sanders against the first war in Iraq
Bernie Sanders against the second war in Iraq
Bernie Sanders against "welfare reform"
Bernie Sanders filibusters for 8.5 hours against the Bush tax cuts
Bernie Sanders against the PATRIOT act
Bernie Sanders defending gay people during Don't Ask, Don't Tell (can skip to 2:20 or so)
Bernie Sanders against the bailout
Bernie Sanders against torture
Bernie Sanders against NAFTA
Bernie Sanders against the prison-industrial complex, in 1991
Bernie Sanders against the repeal of Glass-Steagall
Bernie Sanders vs. Alan Greenspan, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004
Bernie Sanders vs. Ben Bernanke, 2009, 2013
Bernie Sanders on the war on the middle class
posted by dialetheia at 10:47 PM on February 7, 2016 [35 favorites]
Here are a few of my favorites, in no particular order -
Bernie Sanders predicting the 2008 crash in 1998
Bernie Sanders against the first war in Iraq
Bernie Sanders against the second war in Iraq
Bernie Sanders against "welfare reform"
Bernie Sanders filibusters for 8.5 hours against the Bush tax cuts
Bernie Sanders against the PATRIOT act
Bernie Sanders defending gay people during Don't Ask, Don't Tell (can skip to 2:20 or so)
Bernie Sanders against the bailout
Bernie Sanders against torture
Bernie Sanders against NAFTA
Bernie Sanders against the prison-industrial complex, in 1991
Bernie Sanders against the repeal of Glass-Steagall
Bernie Sanders vs. Alan Greenspan, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2004
Bernie Sanders vs. Ben Bernanke, 2009, 2013
Bernie Sanders on the war on the middle class
posted by dialetheia at 10:47 PM on February 7, 2016 [35 favorites]
The Republicans are going to run on how bad Obamacare is. If Sanders is already acknowledging "yes, there are problems, we are going to improve it by moving toward this other system" then he's actually in a better position than trying to defend a bill that still leaves so many holes in our health care system.
Yeah, and when Bernie Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, the debates are going to be VERY interesting, since his opponent, whomever that will be doesn't have a plan to execute and deliver on getting healthcare to everyone, but rather spent the last few years screaming 'repeal and replace...'
Bernie Sanders will explain *exactly* what the current flawed system will be replaced with. The GOP has no counter for that...
“her opponent the champion of all things small and the enemy of all things big.”
So, Bill Clinton just framed this as Bernie Sanders is fighting for the underdog. That's a bad framing for Hillary Clinton. Americans likes seeing the underdog win. The question is how many republicans -- who have been rallying against Hillary Clinton for years -- will welcome her defeat?
posted by mikelieman at 11:02 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, and when Bernie Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, the debates are going to be VERY interesting, since his opponent, whomever that will be doesn't have a plan to execute and deliver on getting healthcare to everyone, but rather spent the last few years screaming 'repeal and replace...'
Bernie Sanders will explain *exactly* what the current flawed system will be replaced with. The GOP has no counter for that...
“her opponent the champion of all things small and the enemy of all things big.”
So, Bill Clinton just framed this as Bernie Sanders is fighting for the underdog. That's a bad framing for Hillary Clinton. Americans likes seeing the underdog win. The question is how many republicans -- who have been rallying against Hillary Clinton for years -- will welcome her defeat?
posted by mikelieman at 11:02 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
I guess we're at that point where I'm concerned about issues with the security of the tabulating machines. From what I've heard in Iowa, my confidence is still undefined. They can't seem to run Excel right...
posted by mikelieman at 11:03 PM on February 7, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 11:03 PM on February 7, 2016
Seems to this outsider that Clinton is really blowing her credibility, soundbite by soundbite.
posted by walrus at 11:27 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by walrus at 11:27 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Bernie Sanders will explain exactly what the current flawed system will be replaced with. The GOP has no counter for that...
The GOP candidate will counter that Sanders wants to replace the plan with a socialist plot to destroy everything we hold dear; his plan will cost trillions of dollars in tax increases, and will give us those death panels right back, but in triplicate. Our health care system costs too much, and Sanders will drive those costs up more. What we need is a good capitalist system that increases market competition to drive down costs for everybody. & so on. I suspect that come that match up, the candidate will have a nice, vague outline together that will sound like a plan. It’ll no doubt have screwy internals, but it will pass the test well enough for them to claim that they have a nice Republican solution that keeps that ’orrible government hand off your health.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:29 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
The GOP candidate will counter that Sanders wants to replace the plan with a socialist plot to destroy everything we hold dear; his plan will cost trillions of dollars in tax increases, and will give us those death panels right back, but in triplicate. Our health care system costs too much, and Sanders will drive those costs up more. What we need is a good capitalist system that increases market competition to drive down costs for everybody. & so on. I suspect that come that match up, the candidate will have a nice, vague outline together that will sound like a plan. It’ll no doubt have screwy internals, but it will pass the test well enough for them to claim that they have a nice Republican solution that keeps that ’orrible government hand off your health.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:29 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
The GOP candidate will counter that Sanders wants to replace the plan with a socialist plot to destroy everything we hold dear;
"Your rebuttal Senator Sanders?" will be a moment in TV history.
posted by mikelieman at 11:36 PM on February 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Your rebuttal Senator Sanders?" will be a moment in TV history.
posted by mikelieman at 11:36 PM on February 7, 2016 [4 favorites]
How do you think it would go? I’m curious.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:41 PM on February 7, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 11:41 PM on February 7, 2016
It’ll no doubt have screwy internals, but it will pass the test well enough for them to claim that they have a nice Republican solution that keeps that ’orrible government hand off your health.
And all that works for the status-quo GOP voter, who pulls the lever because they always have. But I wonder, exactly how many registered republicans are tired of the GOP status quo... Always being TOLD that the gop will change things, but you know, they control both houses, and still haven't repealed the ACA...
posted by mikelieman at 11:41 PM on February 7, 2016
And all that works for the status-quo GOP voter, who pulls the lever because they always have. But I wonder, exactly how many registered republicans are tired of the GOP status quo... Always being TOLD that the gop will change things, but you know, they control both houses, and still haven't repealed the ACA...
posted by mikelieman at 11:41 PM on February 7, 2016
(Not specifically, I mean. A line-by-line thing is both hard to do, and kind of unhelpful. We don’t have an ur-text.)
posted by Going To Maine at 11:42 PM on February 7, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 11:42 PM on February 7, 2016
I think with the internet, facts matter. All the handwavey shit Clinton is doing doesn't work for a huge constituency.
It won't work on the other side either. Whether or not Bill Clinton intended it, he framed this as "It's a Wonderful Life", and Bernie Sanders is George...
posted by mikelieman at 11:43 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
It won't work on the other side either. Whether or not Bill Clinton intended it, he framed this as "It's a Wonderful Life", and Bernie Sanders is George...
posted by mikelieman at 11:43 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
And all that works for the status-quo GOP voter, who pulls the lever because they always have. But I wonder, exactly how many registered republicans are tired of the GOP status quo... Always being TOLD that the gop will change things, but you know, they control both houses, and still haven't repealed the ACA...
Because of that ’orrible man in the white house! You elect me, Republican Joe Everydude, and we’ll fix it right away.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:44 PM on February 7, 2016
Because of that ’orrible man in the white house! You elect me, Republican Joe Everydude, and we’ll fix it right away.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:44 PM on February 7, 2016
Americans love the underdog. The GOP plays that role well, and for their team it works...
But there isn't anyone more of an underdog than an old Jew from Brooklyn by way of vermont going up against The Establishment... The Banking Establishment... The DNC establishment... The GOP establishment...
posted by mikelieman at 11:45 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
But there isn't anyone more of an underdog than an old Jew from Brooklyn by way of vermont going up against The Establishment... The Banking Establishment... The DNC establishment... The GOP establishment...
posted by mikelieman at 11:45 PM on February 7, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the 'orrible man pitch works for their loyal fans.
But there's a lot who, I suspect, don't give a shit about that and want to see how the candidate will execute and deliver on their policies to resolve the real issues *I* have *RIGHT FUCKING NOW*, like getting treatment denied, or paying too much for meds...
Bernie Sanders *has* those answers, and not in handwavy terms... He can link to legislation he's already written an proposed in a lot of cases...
posted by mikelieman at 11:47 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
But there's a lot who, I suspect, don't give a shit about that and want to see how the candidate will execute and deliver on their policies to resolve the real issues *I* have *RIGHT FUCKING NOW*, like getting treatment denied, or paying too much for meds...
Bernie Sanders *has* those answers, and not in handwavy terms... He can link to legislation he's already written an proposed in a lot of cases...
posted by mikelieman at 11:47 PM on February 7, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because of that ’orrible man in the white house! You elect me, Republican Joe Everydude, and we’ll fix it right away.
You're grasping at straws. Clinton has lost all credibility. America is done with the Clintons and Bushes. It's time for some new blood and not a rehash of crony capitalism followed by the old Potomac two step.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:49 PM on February 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
You're grasping at straws. Clinton has lost all credibility. America is done with the Clintons and Bushes. It's time for some new blood and not a rehash of crony capitalism followed by the old Potomac two step.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:49 PM on February 7, 2016 [8 favorites]
IOW, 'orrible man suffers from 'boy who cried wolf", and while the ignorant redneck image is prevalent, it's not the reality, and there's a lot who don't like the clown show going on in the GOP.
There's a lot of people looking at Cristie right now, because he seemed *sane* dismantling Rubio... And given his out-trump-trump style, worked for him...
posted by mikelieman at 11:50 PM on February 7, 2016
There's a lot of people looking at Cristie right now, because he seemed *sane* dismantling Rubio... And given his out-trump-trump style, worked for him...
posted by mikelieman at 11:50 PM on February 7, 2016
FWIW, I expect the computers are rigged, and the result will be President Clinton. But that's only because I have a 30 year career in IT and financial audit in the insurance, finance, banking, and revenue sectors, and haven't been shown anything to inspire confidence in the computers, network infrastructure, and/or operations to even define a confidence level.
But I'm in it for the entertainment value. If we can actually get root-causes of our sick civilization fixed, that would be cool.
Mel Brooks' theme from The 12 Chairs. Hope for the best, expect the worst...
posted by mikelieman at 11:55 PM on February 7, 2016
But I'm in it for the entertainment value. If we can actually get root-causes of our sick civilization fixed, that would be cool.
Mel Brooks' theme from The 12 Chairs. Hope for the best, expect the worst...
posted by mikelieman at 11:55 PM on February 7, 2016
I think with the internet, facts matter. All the handwavey shit Clinton is doing doesn't work for a huge constituency.
In that it doesn’t get her one, or doesn’t satisfy one? It’ll be interesting to see how it plays, but given that the GOP is big on talking about how Obama is planning on ruining America, when another liberal comes along actually trying to effect more radical changes to the status quo…
But there isn't anyone more of an underdog than an old Jew from Brooklyn by way of vermont going up against The Establishment... The Banking Establishment... The DNC establishment... The GOP establishment...
Truly, it will be difficult to paint a New York Jew as a member of the left-wing, god-hating liberal establishment. He’ll be lucky if he only gets called a communist.
But there's a lot who, I suspect, don't give a shit about that and want to see how the candidate will execute and deliver on their policies to resolve the real issues I have RIGHT FUCKING NOW, like getting treatment denied, or paying too much for meds...
A Republican president, working with a Republican congress, will able to deliver on many more promises more effectively than a Socialist president with a Republican congress.
You're grasping at straws. Clinton has lost all credibility. America is done with the Clintons and Bushes. It's time for some new blood and not a rehash of crony capitalism followed by the old Potomac two step.
… I don’t think so. I legitimately think that that’s how it would play out. I’m not trying to change minds here - this clearly isn’t that kind of thread. Talking about how we should throw the bums out is fine too - it’s what got us Obama, and the Tea Party, and if we get a Republican president that’ll likely be the same anger fueling it. But saying that people are tired of Clinton - I dunno, maybe, but I put a lot of faith (perhaps too much) in that graph of the endorsement primary from 538. There’s going to have to be a lot more in the way of catastrophic gaffes rather than just mealy-mouthedness before she loses.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:01 AM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
In that it doesn’t get her one, or doesn’t satisfy one? It’ll be interesting to see how it plays, but given that the GOP is big on talking about how Obama is planning on ruining America, when another liberal comes along actually trying to effect more radical changes to the status quo…
But there isn't anyone more of an underdog than an old Jew from Brooklyn by way of vermont going up against The Establishment... The Banking Establishment... The DNC establishment... The GOP establishment...
Truly, it will be difficult to paint a New York Jew as a member of the left-wing, god-hating liberal establishment. He’ll be lucky if he only gets called a communist.
But there's a lot who, I suspect, don't give a shit about that and want to see how the candidate will execute and deliver on their policies to resolve the real issues I have RIGHT FUCKING NOW, like getting treatment denied, or paying too much for meds...
A Republican president, working with a Republican congress, will able to deliver on many more promises more effectively than a Socialist president with a Republican congress.
You're grasping at straws. Clinton has lost all credibility. America is done with the Clintons and Bushes. It's time for some new blood and not a rehash of crony capitalism followed by the old Potomac two step.
… I don’t think so. I legitimately think that that’s how it would play out. I’m not trying to change minds here - this clearly isn’t that kind of thread. Talking about how we should throw the bums out is fine too - it’s what got us Obama, and the Tea Party, and if we get a Republican president that’ll likely be the same anger fueling it. But saying that people are tired of Clinton - I dunno, maybe, but I put a lot of faith (perhaps too much) in that graph of the endorsement primary from 538. There’s going to have to be a lot more in the way of catastrophic gaffes rather than just mealy-mouthedness before she loses.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:01 AM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because of that ’orrible man in the white house! You elect me, Republican Joe Everydude, and we’ll fix it right away.
Going To Maine, if you start from a baseline assumption that voters will always find the GOP more convincing, I'm not sure what the point of your exercise is. All we can do is make the best argument we can for our policies. All this concern trolling about what the other side might say never gets us anywhere anyway, and it makes Democrats look weak to voters. We should stand up for what we believe in.
posted by dialetheia at 12:02 AM on February 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
Going To Maine, if you start from a baseline assumption that voters will always find the GOP more convincing, I'm not sure what the point of your exercise is. All we can do is make the best argument we can for our policies. All this concern trolling about what the other side might say never gets us anywhere anyway, and it makes Democrats look weak to voters. We should stand up for what we believe in.
posted by dialetheia at 12:02 AM on February 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
Oh no -I’m not saying that Sanders has said that.
I know. You're saying that:
I wasn't trying to argue, I was setting the record straight.
I am saying that we should put off fighting for a single payer system because politics is the art of the possible.
Well now I'm confused. That's not what Hillary is saying. Not "put off." From the start of the debate link: "There is no disagreement between us on universal healthcare, the disagreement is where do we start from and where do we end?" That's not about putting off the fight. "Where do we start?" refers to (allegedly) rolling back Obama care. That's why she keeps saying Bernie wants to "start over." As in, the beginning. As in, repeal. Are you saying you din't agree with either of them?
I’m saying that I’d bet dollars to donuts that that’s how it’d be spun in the general.
Your comment does not have any context of that sort. It's actually a snarky reply to this comment. Comments like yours, and what Hillary says about starting over (and let's not forget when they sent Chelsea out once -- key word, once -- to scare poor and old people), and the implication that Bernie wants to repeal the ACA? They only help Republicans.
On preview: I don't understand who the Cockney person who says the word 'orrible is supposed to be so I think it's time for bed.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:04 AM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know. You're saying that:
SANDERS 2016: REPEAL & REPLACE.That's why I responded with a link to the debate clip where Bernie flat-out refutes that: "I am on the Health Education committee. That committee wrote The Affordable Care Act. The idea that I would dismantle healthcare in America while we're waiting to pass Medicare For All is just not accurate."
posted by Going To Maine at 6:21 PM on February 7 [+] [!]
I wasn't trying to argue, I was setting the record straight.
I am saying that we should put off fighting for a single payer system because politics is the art of the possible.
Well now I'm confused. That's not what Hillary is saying. Not "put off." From the start of the debate link: "There is no disagreement between us on universal healthcare, the disagreement is where do we start from and where do we end?" That's not about putting off the fight. "Where do we start?" refers to (allegedly) rolling back Obama care. That's why she keeps saying Bernie wants to "start over." As in, the beginning. As in, repeal. Are you saying you din't agree with either of them?
I’m saying that I’d bet dollars to donuts that that’s how it’d be spun in the general.
Your comment does not have any context of that sort. It's actually a snarky reply to this comment. Comments like yours, and what Hillary says about starting over (and let's not forget when they sent Chelsea out once -- key word, once -- to scare poor and old people), and the implication that Bernie wants to repeal the ACA? They only help Republicans.
On preview: I don't understand who the Cockney person who says the word 'orrible is supposed to be so I think it's time for bed.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:04 AM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Here's Trump speaking vaguely approvingly of single payer health care in 2015 while castigating Obamacare, by the way. Dems are in big trouble if we cede health care to the Republicans. I'm fully aware that he has no intention of going with single payer, but Obamacare is disappointing enough to enough people (especially poor people) that he could get pretty far with this sort of thing if he was opposing someone who said Obamacare is the best we can do.
posted by dialetheia at 12:09 AM on February 8, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 12:09 AM on February 8, 2016
Going To Maine, if you start from a baseline assumption that voters will always find the GOP more convincing, I'm not sure what the point of your exercise is.
A fair cop. But I don’t think that the voters necessarily find the GOP more convincing - I just think that certain arguments don’t play. If the GOP is truly as disliked as I would hope, it doesn’t matter if Clinton or Sanders is nominated; either one would win. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t try to guess what moves they would make. Still - you’re right, this isn’t going to be useful in a big-picture sense.
All this concern trolling about what the other side might say never gets us anywhere anyway, and it makes Democrats look weak to voters. We should stand up for what we believe in.
I suppose I believe, as I’ve said before, that politics is the art of the possible.
Your comment does not have any context of that sort. It's actually a snarky reply to this comment.
It is a snarky reply to that comment, but it’s also how I believe it’ll be spun in the general. Just as I see the comments of “if not now, then when?” as being a different way of framing it in the general.
They only help Republicans.
Well let’s be clear: I’m making these comments on a teeny forum in the back of the beyond. I don’t believe that they’re helping any sort of republican. I made that comment because I believe it is a comment they will make.
let's not forget when they sent Chelsea out once -- key word, once -- to scare poor and old people
It’s true - maybe it won’t play in the general, after all.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:13 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
A fair cop. But I don’t think that the voters necessarily find the GOP more convincing - I just think that certain arguments don’t play. If the GOP is truly as disliked as I would hope, it doesn’t matter if Clinton or Sanders is nominated; either one would win. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t try to guess what moves they would make. Still - you’re right, this isn’t going to be useful in a big-picture sense.
All this concern trolling about what the other side might say never gets us anywhere anyway, and it makes Democrats look weak to voters. We should stand up for what we believe in.
I suppose I believe, as I’ve said before, that politics is the art of the possible.
Your comment does not have any context of that sort. It's actually a snarky reply to this comment.
It is a snarky reply to that comment, but it’s also how I believe it’ll be spun in the general. Just as I see the comments of “if not now, then when?” as being a different way of framing it in the general.
They only help Republicans.
Well let’s be clear: I’m making these comments on a teeny forum in the back of the beyond. I don’t believe that they’re helping any sort of republican. I made that comment because I believe it is a comment they will make.
let's not forget when they sent Chelsea out once -- key word, once -- to scare poor and old people
It’s true - maybe it won’t play in the general, after all.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:13 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Talking about how we should throw the bums out is fine too - it’s what got us Obama, and the Tea Party, and if we get a Republican president that’ll likely be the same anger fueling it.
The Tea Party is holed up in a wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon. Obama repaired the economic damage done before his election.
That anger? #feelthebern .
That's where that anger is going. YES. There is a core GOP constituency who leaves the tv on fox news unless there's something else to watch. There's a percentage of nitwits who will do anything. I think Howard Stern coined the phrase "Wacky Vote" during his short run for governor.
But I already questioned how many of those registered GOP fall into that subset of 'guaranteed votes', and when people actually get the facts, as opposed to the spin, there's not a lot to object to in what Bernie Sanders has to say...
posted by mikelieman at 12:36 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Tea Party is holed up in a wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon. Obama repaired the economic damage done before his election.
That anger? #feelthebern .
That's where that anger is going. YES. There is a core GOP constituency who leaves the tv on fox news unless there's something else to watch. There's a percentage of nitwits who will do anything. I think Howard Stern coined the phrase "Wacky Vote" during his short run for governor.
But I already questioned how many of those registered GOP fall into that subset of 'guaranteed votes', and when people actually get the facts, as opposed to the spin, there's not a lot to object to in what Bernie Sanders has to say...
posted by mikelieman at 12:36 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
This story about people in my state helped remind me why it remains urgent and crucial to keep pressing hard for improvements to our health care system and reductions in income inequality, even if you've got yours. People are dying.
Financial despair, addiction and the rise of suicide in white America: The death rate for white Americans aged 45 to 54 has risen sharply since 1999, but Montana officials wrestle to explain why the state has the highest rate of suicide in the US at nearly twice the national average – and it’s rising.
Financial despair, addiction and the rise of suicide in white America: The death rate for white Americans aged 45 to 54 has risen sharply since 1999, but Montana officials wrestle to explain why the state has the highest rate of suicide in the US at nearly twice the national average – and it’s rising.
“Probably the biggest reason is socio-economic. We have about 150,000 people in our state that don’t have access to any type of healthcare, which is a major issue. We have a lot of people living in poverty. Wages are not going up at the same pace as rising health costs, rising cost of living and inflation,” Rosston said.posted by dialetheia at 12:41 AM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
“Definitely you see a lot of people that all of a sudden they hit 45 or 50 and they don’t see retirement as a bonus. They see something that they’re going to have struggle with and they’re not going to be able to retire.” ...
According to the Butte-Silver Bow Community Health Needs Assessment for 2014 23% of people in Montana have no health insurance.
But the report said that even among those with insurance, nearly 40% faced obstacles to receiving needed healthcare. About one-third said they could not afford the cost of the doctor or prescription. Nearly 8% said they lacked transport to get to a clinic. More than 11% said they skipped or reduced prescription doses in order to save money.
The Tea Party is holed up in a wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon
Sovereign citizens are a bit of a different breed than the Tea Party, I think. A lot of overlaps, but different.
That anger? #feelthebern .
Alternately, the Trump vote. Which, as has been noticed elsewhere here, could certainly end up going for Sanders. That outrage is real, and has to be reckoned with. Ron Paul was once an outrage candidate, and so (as I understand) was H. Ross Perot. Maybe this time is different.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:44 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sovereign citizens are a bit of a different breed than the Tea Party, I think. A lot of overlaps, but different.
That anger? #feelthebern .
Alternately, the Trump vote. Which, as has been noticed elsewhere here, could certainly end up going for Sanders. That outrage is real, and has to be reckoned with. Ron Paul was once an outrage candidate, and so (as I understand) was H. Ross Perot. Maybe this time is different.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:44 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
H. Ross Perot.
Man, did he turn out to be right on the money with "Giant Sucking Sound..."
posted by mikelieman at 1:02 AM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Man, did he turn out to be right on the money with "Giant Sucking Sound..."
posted by mikelieman at 1:02 AM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Libby Handros, producer of the 1991 film Trump: What's The Deal? (previously) that was prevented from screening by The Best Litigious Censorship Ever, Just The Best and is now freely viewable online, was interviewed yesterday on Radio New Zealand.
posted by XMLicious at 2:53 AM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 2:53 AM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Bernie and the New Left," Harold Meyerson, The American Prospect.
Meyerson doesn't support Sanders at this point, but his argument is a lot more nuanced and appreciative of the Sanders campaign than some other views I've encountered. Moreover, he realizes the dangers of the "excitement gap" for the Clinton campaign. He looks toward a Democratic Party where the energy of younger Americans, inspired by their harrowing economic experiences, can result in down-ballot electoral successes beyond this presidential election.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:53 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Meyerson doesn't support Sanders at this point, but his argument is a lot more nuanced and appreciative of the Sanders campaign than some other views I've encountered. Moreover, he realizes the dangers of the "excitement gap" for the Clinton campaign. He looks toward a Democratic Party where the energy of younger Americans, inspired by their harrowing economic experiences, can result in down-ballot electoral successes beyond this presidential election.
posted by audi alteram partem at 5:53 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bill Clinton, After Months of Restraint, Unleashes Stinging Attack on Bernie Sanders
I like Bill Clinton. I voted for him twice. But I have to say he's the least qualified person to be lecturing on sexism and integrity. Dude cheated on his wife with an intern (the greatest egregious imbalance of power in the workplace in the history of the country) and then enlisted Hillary's help in vilifying the victim. The man was incapable of coming clean.
Personally, I can't wait for one of these politicians caught up in a sex scandal to say, "None of your fucking business. Anything I do is with consenting adults, so go fuck yourself," but he didn't do that. He lied to his cabinet, sent them out to repeat the lies, lied to Congress, and lied to the American people all while there was sure as fuck bigger fish to fry.
I'm just saying, if you want to have someone talk about how women are treated in this country, and how your opponent (who is fairly unassailable on issues of morality), you might want to reconsider sending Bill out there.
As a voter, you might want to reconsider putting this guy anywhere near the Oval office again.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:55 AM on February 8, 2016 [20 favorites]
I like Bill Clinton. I voted for him twice. But I have to say he's the least qualified person to be lecturing on sexism and integrity. Dude cheated on his wife with an intern (the greatest egregious imbalance of power in the workplace in the history of the country) and then enlisted Hillary's help in vilifying the victim. The man was incapable of coming clean.
Personally, I can't wait for one of these politicians caught up in a sex scandal to say, "None of your fucking business. Anything I do is with consenting adults, so go fuck yourself," but he didn't do that. He lied to his cabinet, sent them out to repeat the lies, lied to Congress, and lied to the American people all while there was sure as fuck bigger fish to fry.
I'm just saying, if you want to have someone talk about how women are treated in this country, and how your opponent (who is fairly unassailable on issues of morality), you might want to reconsider sending Bill out there.
As a voter, you might want to reconsider putting this guy anywhere near the Oval office again.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:55 AM on February 8, 2016 [20 favorites]
Here’s the free Bernie Sanders tattoo people are lining up for in Vermont
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:47 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:47 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here is a telegraph article which seems to suggest that the only reason people support Sanders (and Corbyn) is that they are not women.*
*I personally think this article is absolutely terrible and makes some very bad arguments, but it might be fun to read
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:55 AM on February 8, 2016
*I personally think this article is absolutely terrible and makes some very bad arguments, but it might be fun to read
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:55 AM on February 8, 2016
Personally, I blame Agrippina the Younger for why we don't elect women.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:11 AM on February 8, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 7:11 AM on February 8, 2016
I'm just saying, if you want to have someone talk about how women are treated in this country,
I'd just like to give a shout-out to one of my favorite comments ever, from last week:
You know that saying, "Every time you point a finger at someone, three are pointing back at you?" It's pretty dumb. But still. I don't recall -- was this argument brought out against Obama supporters? I guess if it was I didn't care. But it sure is a lot easier when it's an old white dude.
unrelated to anything, I just heard someone describe a modest neckline as "not revealing all your cash and prizes." And it's too awesome not share.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:23 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd just like to give a shout-out to one of my favorite comments ever, from last week:
I love that when Anderson Cooper asked Bernie what word his wife would use to describe him he asked her to speak instead of presuming to know her answer. That is feminism in action.telegraph article which seems to suggest that the only reason people support Sanders (and Corbyn) is that they are not women.*
posted by melissasaurus at 7:03 PM on February 3 [29 favorites −] [!]
You know that saying, "Every time you point a finger at someone, three are pointing back at you?" It's pretty dumb. But still. I don't recall -- was this argument brought out against Obama supporters? I guess if it was I didn't care. But it sure is a lot easier when it's an old white dude.
unrelated to anything, I just heard someone describe a modest neckline as "not revealing all your cash and prizes." And it's too awesome not share.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:23 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't recall -- was this argument brought out against Obama supporters?
Yup.
PUMA members pointed to charges that the media directed sexism and misogyny at Clinton during the primary campaign and expressed anger at the failure of Democratic Party leaders to speak out against them or otherwise respond appropriately.
posted by Artw at 7:32 AM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yup.
PUMA members pointed to charges that the media directed sexism and misogyny at Clinton during the primary campaign and expressed anger at the failure of Democratic Party leaders to speak out against them or otherwise respond appropriately.
posted by Artw at 7:32 AM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Top Hillary Clinton Advisors and Fundraisers Lobbied Against Obamacare
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:34 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:34 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
You almost have to feel bad for Clinton. Every attack she makes backfires. She says Sanders is "insinuating" she's an establishment shill, cementing her narrative as an establishment shill. She lobs the sexism grenade and it lands at her feet. She calls his supporters sexist and he distances himself, people call hers racist and homophobes and she says, "We welcome everyone's support."
I honestly believe this race is Hillary's to lose, and I also believe she's doing everything she can to do that. The establishment is doing its all to prop her up, but at some point she's going to get too heavy to carry. That's what baggage does.
My predictions: The email scandal will continue and not much hurt her unless there is an indictment (and there won't be an indictment), the Benghazi scandal will be a net positive for her (her supporters don't give two rips about either issue, so see her as the target of unfair criticism), financial industry ties will continue to tarnish, and her refusal to release her speeches will make her look guilty of something, even a whiff of an unfair primary in any state will make it look like the fix is in, and add to this that there will be more bombs ahead and she's done a shit job of damage control on just about everything…
She's attacking Sander's strengths and making him look better. Often in a manner that is transparently false (adding to the perception that she has a shaky connection to the truth). She's gone after him calling for universal healthcare when she's done the same and knows damn well he has no intention of dismantling Obamacare. She'd gone after him on foreign policy when hers is historically unquestionably poor.
She's doing a great job making the distinction between her and Bernie. Unfortunately she's making the choice clearer and clearer.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:40 AM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
I honestly believe this race is Hillary's to lose, and I also believe she's doing everything she can to do that. The establishment is doing its all to prop her up, but at some point she's going to get too heavy to carry. That's what baggage does.
My predictions: The email scandal will continue and not much hurt her unless there is an indictment (and there won't be an indictment), the Benghazi scandal will be a net positive for her (her supporters don't give two rips about either issue, so see her as the target of unfair criticism), financial industry ties will continue to tarnish, and her refusal to release her speeches will make her look guilty of something, even a whiff of an unfair primary in any state will make it look like the fix is in, and add to this that there will be more bombs ahead and she's done a shit job of damage control on just about everything…
She's attacking Sander's strengths and making him look better. Often in a manner that is transparently false (adding to the perception that she has a shaky connection to the truth). She's gone after him calling for universal healthcare when she's done the same and knows damn well he has no intention of dismantling Obamacare. She'd gone after him on foreign policy when hers is historically unquestionably poor.
She's doing a great job making the distinction between her and Bernie. Unfortunately she's making the choice clearer and clearer.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:40 AM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
And to Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright: since I am not a youth I assume you're saying that as an older person I must be a self-loathing woman to vote for Bernie. To paraphrase well-known Bernie Sanders impersonator, Larry David, I do hate myself, but it has nothing to do with being a woman. Where's your feminism?!"
posted by Room 641-A at 7:59 AM on February 8, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 7:59 AM on February 8, 2016
. To paraphrase well-known Bernie Sanders impersonator, Larry David,
Bern Your Enthusiasm - SNL
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:09 AM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bern Your Enthusiasm - SNL
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:09 AM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Gradualism and the fight over Single Payer
These random paragraphs and bullet points, needless to say, don’t exactly live up to even the basic requirements for a health care plan, let alone the more stringent standards being applied to Bernie Sanders’ proposals. And while Hillary Clinton’s campaign did send out a four page PDF last year, it’s notable that you can’t find it in the health care section of her own website, and even then it’s still rather bare-bones and small potatoes at that [...]posted by tonycpsu at 8:46 AM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
What’s missing in all of this is a sense of directionality – how any of these changes will lead to a genuine universal health care system. There’s nothing here about covering the seven million immigrants who don’t qualify for Medicaid or health insurance subsidies, or the four million Americans who are stuck in the Medicaid gap in the red states, or the 7.7 million young people who aren’t getting health insurance from their employers and who can’t afford the premiums on the exchanges, or the 14.4 million other Americans who aren’t going to be covered either. There’s nothing here about expanding the tax credit subsidies on the exchanges to make health insurance genuinely affordable, or increasing minimum insurance standards to make insurance plans provide quality health coverage. And there’s certainly nothing here about improving on the Medicaid expansion by creating a genuine public option – let alone how we could build upon public programs to gradually achieve a single payer system.
[...]
And this brings me to an important topic. There are genuine limitations to the ACA, but the ACA is being used by some Democrats to block further health care reform.
Ego, Envy or Airtime? Joe Scarborough’s Unusual Spat With Marco Rubio
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:48 AM on February 8, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:48 AM on February 8, 2016
Net Worths:
Hillary Clinton: $31,000,000
Madeline Albright: $10,000,000
Gloria Steinem: $3,000,000
Bernie Sanders: $500,000
65+ year old American, 50th percentile: $171,350
Hmm.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:08 AM on February 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hillary Clinton: $31,000,000
Madeline Albright: $10,000,000
Gloria Steinem: $3,000,000
Bernie Sanders: $500,000
65+ year old American, 50th percentile: $171,350
Hmm.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:08 AM on February 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
You're painting a picture the boomers don't want to see.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:14 AM on February 8, 2016
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:14 AM on February 8, 2016
Under Sanders' plan, jobs and incomes would soar, economist says
posted by dialetheia at 9:24 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 9:24 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Madeline Albright: $10,000,000
Gloria Steinem: $3,000,000
Bernie Sanders: $500,000
Wait, so it's not that Albright and Steinem want to see a woman president, but it's because they like being rich more and don't want to be taxed?
Or they're out of touch because they're rich?
posted by FJT at 9:25 AM on February 8, 2016
Gloria Steinem: $3,000,000
Bernie Sanders: $500,000
Wait, so it's not that Albright and Steinem want to see a woman president, but it's because they like being rich more and don't want to be taxed?
Or they're out of touch because they're rich?
posted by FJT at 9:25 AM on February 8, 2016
I wouldn't be that uncharitable.
I suspect it's more that they really want to see a woman president (as pretty much everyone on the left would, honestly) and that because of their wealth, they are insulated from the urgency for economic reform that Sen. Sanders is talking about.
If Sen. Sanders weren't where he is, someone else would be. If it were Liz Warren, she'd already be the nominee.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:29 AM on February 8, 2016 [15 favorites]
I suspect it's more that they really want to see a woman president (as pretty much everyone on the left would, honestly) and that because of their wealth, they are insulated from the urgency for economic reform that Sen. Sanders is talking about.
If Sen. Sanders weren't where he is, someone else would be. If it were Liz Warren, she'd already be the nominee.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:29 AM on February 8, 2016 [15 favorites]
Wait, so it's not that Albright and Steinem want to see a woman president, but it's because they like being rich more and don't want to be taxed?
Well, I think it's more "perhaps they don't see why someone would not support Clinton (other than sexism) because they're pretty far removed from the economic situation of your typical American."
posted by melissasaurus at 9:30 AM on February 8, 2016 [17 favorites]
Well, I think it's more "perhaps they don't see why someone would not support Clinton (other than sexism) because they're pretty far removed from the economic situation of your typical American."
posted by melissasaurus at 9:30 AM on February 8, 2016 [17 favorites]
“Could you let go of my breast, please?” Ms. Kramer demanded of an agent in a firm voice short of a yell but loud enough to be heard over the “Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump!” din.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:59 AM on February 8, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:59 AM on February 8, 2016
So Bernie will be called a socialist in the general and Hillary will be called an enabler of Bill's abusive ways. I wonder which one will hurt the respective candidates among people who will actually be voting for them rather than the extreme right wing who is never going to vote for Hillary or Bernie.
Woman who accused Bill Clinton of assault to campaign against Hillary presidential run
Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer who says Bill Clinton groped her in an Oval Office hallway in 1993 when she came to him tearfully seeking a paid job, said she had agreed to become a paid national spokeswoman for a group being created by Roger Stone.
Stone, a Republican strategist, said the group would become active should Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton's wife, win the Democratic nomination in the 2016 race for the White House. Clinton is currently the front runner.
"This gives me more of an opportunity to get this message out to young voters who weren't even born or don't even remember what happened and to the women who have suffered," Willey told Reuters.
Willey said she will give interviews and speeches and appear in political advertisements to ensure the accusations remain part of the political discourse during the election campaign.
"They're going to be confronted every day, on radio, on television, on billboards," Stone told Reuters, referring to the Clintons
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:12 AM on February 8, 2016
Woman who accused Bill Clinton of assault to campaign against Hillary presidential run
Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer who says Bill Clinton groped her in an Oval Office hallway in 1993 when she came to him tearfully seeking a paid job, said she had agreed to become a paid national spokeswoman for a group being created by Roger Stone.
Stone, a Republican strategist, said the group would become active should Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton's wife, win the Democratic nomination in the 2016 race for the White House. Clinton is currently the front runner.
"This gives me more of an opportunity to get this message out to young voters who weren't even born or don't even remember what happened and to the women who have suffered," Willey told Reuters.
Willey said she will give interviews and speeches and appear in political advertisements to ensure the accusations remain part of the political discourse during the election campaign.
"They're going to be confronted every day, on radio, on television, on billboards," Stone told Reuters, referring to the Clintons
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:12 AM on February 8, 2016
More about Trump running on populism and borrowing from Sanders' message from Byron York. This is why I'm especially skeptical of claims that Clinton (with her history of taking money from these groups) would be particularly electable vs. Trump:
In a nearly one-hour speech, Trump railed against pharmaceutical companies. He railed against oil companies. And insurance companies. And defense contractors. And he set himself against a political system that he said allows big-money corporate "bloodsuckers" to control the government with campaign contributions.posted by dialetheia at 11:29 AM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Whether it's the insurance companies, or the drug companies, or the oil companies, it's all the same thing," Trump said. "We're never going to get our country back if we keep doing this."
Trump promised to allow the government to negotiate drug prices — a common position among Democrats but rarely heard at nominally Republican events. He said he would not raise military spending, arguing that the nation's defenses can be improved without increasing its already huge Pentagon budget. He promised tough sanctions on American companies that move jobs overseas.
Trump was, in other words, in full populist mode as he wrapped up his New Hampshire campaign, in which he leads the closest Republican competition by about 15 points, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls.
There were portions of Trump's Plymouth speech that sounded like Bernie Sanders, if Sanders had Trump's sense of showmanship. In fact, Trump mentioned Sanders favorably, saying they agree on trade. Trump also said Sanders is correct in his charge that Hillary Clinton is compromised by the big-money contributions she has accepted — a charge the billionaire developer aimed at his Republican rivals as well.
Yeah. It's kind of the devil's deal - if it's Clinton, Trump would be the best choice to go against her, but then you have Trump in office, which no one sane wants. However, if you post a candidate with less populism, unless you have Rubio or Cruz peeling off the Latino vote, Clinton would win in the general. But hilariously, either way, the Republican Party's best chance is Hillary Clinton.
posted by corb at 11:33 AM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 11:33 AM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders Has a Point: What Good Are Private Insurers?
170 Top Economists endorse Sanders Wall Street reform plan
posted by cjorgensen at 11:41 AM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
170 Top Economists endorse Sanders Wall Street reform plan
posted by cjorgensen at 11:41 AM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
But hilariously, either way, the Republican Party's best chance is Hillary Clinton.
I'm not entirely convinced. There's been few or fewer mentions of Sanders by any of the Republican candidates. But I don't accept the narrative that it's simply because he's such an excellent candidate that Republicans can't or are too afraid to attack him.
I think it's because Hillary Clinton is still seen as the frontrunner, is a Clinton, and has worked in the Obama administration so nearly all the criticism and attacks are directed at her right now.
posted by FJT at 11:52 AM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not entirely convinced. There's been few or fewer mentions of Sanders by any of the Republican candidates. But I don't accept the narrative that it's simply because he's such an excellent candidate that Republicans can't or are too afraid to attack him.
I think it's because Hillary Clinton is still seen as the frontrunner, is a Clinton, and has worked in the Obama administration so nearly all the criticism and attacks are directed at her right now.
posted by FJT at 11:52 AM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
nearly all the criticism and attacks are directed at her right now.
The republicans haven't even begun to attack Clinton. They are too busy squabbling among themselves at the moment. If she is the nominee we will see withering attacks focused on Benghazi, email scandal, speaking fees, and most damaging her role in attacking women who claim to have been assaulted by Bill. Nevermind all the other crap they can dredge up from the 90's.
The majority of criticism coming towards Clinton atm is from progressives who don't buy her song and dance show.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:02 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
The republicans haven't even begun to attack Clinton. They are too busy squabbling among themselves at the moment. If she is the nominee we will see withering attacks focused on Benghazi, email scandal, speaking fees, and most damaging her role in attacking women who claim to have been assaulted by Bill. Nevermind all the other crap they can dredge up from the 90's.
The majority of criticism coming towards Clinton atm is from progressives who don't buy her song and dance show.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:02 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
In debates Clinton and Obama are mentioned by name a lot. I mean, the Republicans specifically mention how they are going to put Hillary Clinton on trial for Benghazi and/or the emails.
The speaking fees thing is a criticism, but I don't think the Right will pick on it in the general. I really don't think they can sufficiently attack her without implicating how they're heavily involved with big business and Wall Street as well.
posted by FJT at 12:14 PM on February 8, 2016
The speaking fees thing is a criticism, but I don't think the Right will pick on it in the general. I really don't think they can sufficiently attack her without implicating how they're heavily involved with big business and Wall Street as well.
posted by FJT at 12:14 PM on February 8, 2016
I really don't think they can sufficiently attack her without implicating how they're heavily involved with big business and Wall Street as well.
Charges of hypocrisy are often just "That person is doing what I would do!", but being a hypocrite is often seen as bad enough without getting into the details.
posted by Etrigan at 12:18 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Charges of hypocrisy are often just "That person is doing what I would do!", but being a hypocrite is often seen as bad enough without getting into the details.
posted by Etrigan at 12:18 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton responds to rumors about a staff shake-up
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:34 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:34 PM on February 8, 2016
I mean, the Republicans specifically mention how they are going to put Hillary Clinton on trial for Benghazi
That is the fault of the fucking news media.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:38 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
That is the fault of the fucking news media.
posted by Room 641-A at 12:38 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Re: the ongoing electability argument, I was curious so I looked up the two candidates' favorables, often used as a decent proxy for electability (with many caveats that electability can't be measured in a dynamic race). According to tracking polls, 54% of voters see Hillary Clinton unfavorably for a net of -10.9%, while only 37% of voters see Sanders unfavorably for a net of +10.8%. That's a nearly 22% gap in favorability between them, in Sanders' favor.
While I understand 100% that Sanders' numbers will likely decline as the media and his opponents criticize him more seriously, I have yet to see a good argument for why someone who 54% of voters view unfavorably is electable herself.
posted by dialetheia at 1:19 PM on February 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
While I understand 100% that Sanders' numbers will likely decline as the media and his opponents criticize him more seriously, I have yet to see a good argument for why someone who 54% of voters view unfavorably is electable herself.
posted by dialetheia at 1:19 PM on February 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
Google's new CEO gets a whopping $200 million in stock
posted by Room 641-A at 1:29 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 1:29 PM on February 8, 2016
Well, if I'm reading this right, Obama was re-elected with similar numbers, and higher unfavorability than Romney had. I'm not making any big argument out of that, but it doesn't seem unprecedented, and I think the supposition is that folks (me) see her unfavorability as at its nadir already.
posted by OmieWise at 1:37 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by OmieWise at 1:37 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, I will say that I continue to just completely discount the numbers for Sanders. I don't think they tell us anything meaningful about how people see Sanders because I think he is too much of an unknown. So, the gap between them looks big, but I have no idea if its real. My response was only comparing Clinton to Obama.
posted by OmieWise at 1:39 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by OmieWise at 1:39 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seems very unlikely, but do we have any sort of numbers for McGovern?
posted by Going To Maine at 1:42 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 1:42 PM on February 8, 2016
The republicans haven't even begun to attack Clinton
Not entirely true, I'm starting to see some stuff circling amongst my more conservative friends... Choice quote:
"THE PROBLEM ISN'T that Hillary Clinton is an unethical, corrupt, lying, criminal dirtbag - Everyone knows that. The problem is that her supporters don't care"
shared from "Conservative Post"
So it's there - although I'd argue it's something that I could see coming from an angrier sanders supporter if she retains a lead.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:43 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not entirely true, I'm starting to see some stuff circling amongst my more conservative friends... Choice quote:
"THE PROBLEM ISN'T that Hillary Clinton is an unethical, corrupt, lying, criminal dirtbag - Everyone knows that. The problem is that her supporters don't care"
shared from "Conservative Post"
So it's there - although I'd argue it's something that I could see coming from an angrier sanders supporter if she retains a lead.
posted by MysticMCJ at 1:43 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the supposition is that folks (me) see her unfavorability as at its nadir already.
I'm not sure that's accurate, though. There are a lot of stories like this out there from the 2008-2016 period that she has yet to be attacked on (the Clinton Foundation arms deal story is also big). Regardless of whether there was legal impropriety, which the FBI is supposedly investigating alongside their email stuff, there are tons of conflict of interest issues with her work and the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons: The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.
I'm not sure that's accurate, though. There are a lot of stories like this out there from the 2008-2016 period that she has yet to be attacked on (the Clinton Foundation arms deal story is also big). Regardless of whether there was legal impropriety, which the FBI is supposedly investigating alongside their email stuff, there are tons of conflict of interest issues with her work and the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons: The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.
“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”posted by dialetheia at 1:46 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
John McCormack at The Weekly Standard: “Jeb Bush: Overturn Citizens United”
posted by Going To Maine at 1:54 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 1:54 PM on February 8, 2016
while only 37% of voters see Sanders unfavorably for a net of +10.8%
According to that chart, his favorables vs unfavorables flipped on July 20. I was curious, and my first comment in support of Sanders was on July 3rd.
This happened on July 2nd and when I saw it I said, "I want to be a part of THAT."
posted by Room 641-A at 1:58 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
According to that chart, his favorables vs unfavorables flipped on July 20. I was curious, and my first comment in support of Sanders was on July 3rd.
This happened on July 2nd and when I saw it I said, "I want to be a part of THAT."
posted by Room 641-A at 1:58 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
When the exact same problems crop up in separate campaigns, with different staff, at what point do the principals say, "Hey, maybe it's US?"
David Axelrod
@davidaxelrod
Ouch.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:20 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
David Axelrod
@davidaxelrod
Ouch.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:20 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
That’s a pretty good burn.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:33 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 2:33 PM on February 8, 2016
"I have people skills. I'm good with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?"
posted by entropicamericana at 2:39 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 2:39 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bernie Sanders Is No Favorite Son, from Politico: "Hillary Clinton’s campaign says that she’s losing New Hampshire because Bernie Sanders, being from neighboring Vermont, is a “favorite son” in the state. But according to reporters and editors at four of the state’s top news outlets, that’s “a load of crock” and “would make most New Hampshire stomachs turn.” In fact, most New Hampshirites probably didn’t know who Bernie Sanders was until he launched his presidential campaign."
posted by dialetheia at 2:46 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 2:46 PM on February 8, 2016
I'm not sure that's accurate, though
I get that. As I said way up above, I think people are mostly seeing what they want to in the tea leaves, on both sides. My gut tells me I'm right, yours tells you the same thing. That's where we are right now. I think Clinton is a known quantity and people aren't really going to change their minds much about her.
posted by OmieWise at 2:48 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I get that. As I said way up above, I think people are mostly seeing what they want to in the tea leaves, on both sides. My gut tells me I'm right, yours tells you the same thing. That's where we are right now. I think Clinton is a known quantity and people aren't really going to change their minds much about her.
posted by OmieWise at 2:48 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Lawrence O'Donnell: Henry Kissinger just got applause @ HillaryClinton event when Bill Clinton quoted him complimenting Sec Clinton.
They're doubling down on the Kissinger thing now?
posted by downtohisturtles at 2:52 PM on February 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
They're doubling down on the Kissinger thing now?
posted by downtohisturtles at 2:52 PM on February 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
I think Clinton is a known quantity and people aren't really going to change their minds much about her.
So if people aren't changing their minds about her, why has her favorability dropped steadily since 2013, with another precipitous drop around March of 2015, followed by more steady decline? I think it's ridiculous to look at the data and say that people aren't changing their minds about her. Whether it will affect the election is one thing, but they very clearly are changing their minds - her favorables have completely flipped since the beginning of 2015. Those data are very clear.
posted by dialetheia at 2:55 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
So if people aren't changing their minds about her, why has her favorability dropped steadily since 2013, with another precipitous drop around March of 2015, followed by more steady decline? I think it's ridiculous to look at the data and say that people aren't changing their minds about her. Whether it will affect the election is one thing, but they very clearly are changing their minds - her favorables have completely flipped since the beginning of 2015. Those data are very clear.
posted by dialetheia at 2:55 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Has Hillary paid her staff from her 2008 run yet?
I joke, but barely.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:58 PM on February 8, 2016
I joke, but barely.
posted by cjorgensen at 2:58 PM on February 8, 2016
Came to link to a new article, but had been beaten to it by cjorgensen. Great thread.
posted by Lyme Drop at 3:02 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by Lyme Drop at 3:02 PM on February 8, 2016
Well, if Clinton does get the office, it looks like we may at least be on track to achieve parity between the approval ratings of congress and of the president.
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:02 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 3:02 PM on February 8, 2016
Sady Doyle on what's Progressive:
"Secretary Clinton, First Ladies, as you well know, have used their position to work on important causes like literacy and drug abuse,” the moderator says. “But they also supervise the menus, the flowers, the holiday ornaments and White House decor. I know you think you know where I’m going here.”
I watch Hillary Clinton’s face. She smiles. You always smile at the job interview. She smiles like a motherfucker, that woman.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 3:04 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Secretary Clinton, First Ladies, as you well know, have used their position to work on important causes like literacy and drug abuse,” the moderator says. “But they also supervise the menus, the flowers, the holiday ornaments and White House decor. I know you think you know where I’m going here.”
I watch Hillary Clinton’s face. She smiles. You always smile at the job interview. She smiles like a motherfucker, that woman.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 3:04 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Look, I get it, you don't like Clinton and you like Sanders. I think the support for Clinton in this thread has been largely pragmatic. I under that you think that's wrong. But you've got blinders on if you think there is only one group fooling themselves here. Someone in this thread seriously argued that Sander's proud proclamation of his Socialism would remove the charge as effective attack from the right.
I honestly think we're having two different conversations.
posted by OmieWise at 3:05 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
I honestly think we're having two different conversations.
posted by OmieWise at 3:05 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
There are 2 different conversations.
If it's 'pragmatic' to vote for Hillary Clinton because someone is afraid of future USSC nominations in light of Sanders' "unelectability", you're choosing the lesser of two evils.
Which is still evil.
I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils.
posted by mikelieman at 3:20 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
If it's 'pragmatic' to vote for Hillary Clinton because someone is afraid of future USSC nominations in light of Sanders' "unelectability", you're choosing the lesser of two evils.
Which is still evil.
I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils.
posted by mikelieman at 3:20 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
The real point being, there are two very different cognitive framings. Those people are tired of settling for 'good enough' can't reconcile the moderate incrementalism with the potential for radical change.
posted by mikelieman at 3:22 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 3:22 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, sure. I know exactly what the calculus is. Principles are important. If you can afford them.
posted by OmieWise at 3:23 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by OmieWise at 3:23 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Feminism’s Generation Gap: These unfortunate statements about young women and the backlashes they triggered reveal a common thread between ageism and sexism, which intersect in ways specific to progressive movements. Some older women are convinced that younger women take for granted the struggles that preceded them and aren’t yet wise enough to lead the movement; some younger women believe that their forebears are out of touch and old-fashioned, hampered by the racism, heterocentrism, and class divides of feminisms past. Both of these outlooks contain elements of truth. But the damaging stereotypes that plague women the world over—aging women are bitter, joyless nags who’ve worn out their welcome, while young women are capricious, boy-crazy navel gazers—can tint feminist politics, too.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:26 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:26 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
If I could vote in your election, I'd probably vote for Sanders. But I do recognize that there's a wee bit of a Southern Strategy echo happening here: Sanders is picking up white, working class male voters, the kind that we used to call Reagan Democrats, and it probably helps that his opponent is a woman who is identifying herself as strongly as possible with the record of a black president.
So... it's good that he's getting those voters back, and it's good that he's doing it primarily on his economic message, but there is something discomfiting about parts of the dynamic driving his rise. Hopefully Sanders at least feels uncomfortable about it, the way that McCain seemed to be made visibly uncomfortable by the people who voted for him just because he was white.
posted by clawsoon at 3:31 PM on February 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
So... it's good that he's getting those voters back, and it's good that he's doing it primarily on his economic message, but there is something discomfiting about parts of the dynamic driving his rise. Hopefully Sanders at least feels uncomfortable about it, the way that McCain seemed to be made visibly uncomfortable by the people who voted for him just because he was white.
posted by clawsoon at 3:31 PM on February 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Principles are also important if the status quo isn't working. I'm paying half the bills for my sibling on the other side of the country because she's disabled and trying to navigate the SSD maze; she has insurance, but it's what her fully employed husband (at Home Depot) can afford. She routinely has to reschedule doctor appointments, skip medications, and suffer due to spinal issues because they can't afford both insurance and medical care.
They probably would have been worse off before the ACA, as insurance companies were routinely raising premiums upwards of 30% per year, every year, but the toll *with* the ACA in place is taking years of life and functionality away from her. I deeply hope that she can see her teenage children graduate, and not be lying in bed in agony on their graduation days.
She and many people I know in similar situations *need* something better. Some say that politics is the art of the possible - what's possible is fundamental change for the better! It might not be *probable* (though I hope with all my heart that it is), but it damn well is *POSSIBLE*!
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 3:33 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
They probably would have been worse off before the ACA, as insurance companies were routinely raising premiums upwards of 30% per year, every year, but the toll *with* the ACA in place is taking years of life and functionality away from her. I deeply hope that she can see her teenage children graduate, and not be lying in bed in agony on their graduation days.
She and many people I know in similar situations *need* something better. Some say that politics is the art of the possible - what's possible is fundamental change for the better! It might not be *probable* (though I hope with all my heart that it is), but it damn well is *POSSIBLE*!
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 3:33 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
I still have no idea how Sanders gets us to radical change without something absolutely, shockingly transformative happening to congress; I get that there's a lot of optimism that a Sanders win will have big downticket benefits but there's a point at which it looks like people are putting a hell of a lot of eggs in one basket.
I like Sanders a lot, every time I hear him talk he impresses me. I think if he has the votes and momentum to win the primary he probably has the support and enthusiasm necessary to win the general (unless Something Happens and this election ends up being mostly about terror/foreign policy issues, in which case I think we're right fucked), and I will happily vote for him if that's where we end up. But I'm totally not convinced that he will win the primary and I'm very concerned that Sanders supporters are full-throatedly amplifying an anti-Hillary message that could damage her in the general with young people and other Democratic-leaning voters if she ends up as the nominee, and that scares the crap out of me because this is a fucking bad crop of GOP contenders this year.
The worst-case scenario where people elected the greater of two evils because of ambivalence about the Clinton-connected lesser evil already happened, we lived through it, it was fucking awful, and I never want to see that happen again.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:34 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
I like Sanders a lot, every time I hear him talk he impresses me. I think if he has the votes and momentum to win the primary he probably has the support and enthusiasm necessary to win the general (unless Something Happens and this election ends up being mostly about terror/foreign policy issues, in which case I think we're right fucked), and I will happily vote for him if that's where we end up. But I'm totally not convinced that he will win the primary and I'm very concerned that Sanders supporters are full-throatedly amplifying an anti-Hillary message that could damage her in the general with young people and other Democratic-leaning voters if she ends up as the nominee, and that scares the crap out of me because this is a fucking bad crop of GOP contenders this year.
The worst-case scenario where people elected the greater of two evils because of ambivalence about the Clinton-connected lesser evil already happened, we lived through it, it was fucking awful, and I never want to see that happen again.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:34 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm very concerned that Sanders supporters are full-throatedly amplifying an anti-Hillary message that could damage her in the general with young people and other Democratic-leaning voters if she ends up as the nominee, and that scares the crap out of me because this is a fucking bad crop of GOP contenders this year.
I'm scared of a GOP winner as well. But my questioning of Clinton comes from wanting her to do better. She has to actually earn my vote, not get it by default. To actually internalize and address the issues raised by young women, rather than laughing it off by saying "they don't need to be for me." To actually address the issue of ties to big business and how her administration will be different from Obama's revolving door administration. To address the fact that insurance coverage is not nearly enough for most people - even if insured, many can't afford deductibles and copays, and are struggling with a needlessly complex billing system. To address the student debt crisis with a plan that goes beyond issuing more debt. To address her long history of supporting the military industrial complex and prison industrial complex.
I'm not going to forego advocating for my interests so that Clinton can have the appearance of widespread support. If she wants my support, she should earn it by addressing the issues that matter to me.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:48 PM on February 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
I'm scared of a GOP winner as well. But my questioning of Clinton comes from wanting her to do better. She has to actually earn my vote, not get it by default. To actually internalize and address the issues raised by young women, rather than laughing it off by saying "they don't need to be for me." To actually address the issue of ties to big business and how her administration will be different from Obama's revolving door administration. To address the fact that insurance coverage is not nearly enough for most people - even if insured, many can't afford deductibles and copays, and are struggling with a needlessly complex billing system. To address the student debt crisis with a plan that goes beyond issuing more debt. To address her long history of supporting the military industrial complex and prison industrial complex.
I'm not going to forego advocating for my interests so that Clinton can have the appearance of widespread support. If she wants my support, she should earn it by addressing the issues that matter to me.
posted by melissasaurus at 3:48 PM on February 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Look, I get it, you don't like Clinton and you like Sanders.
That's not it at all. My issue is that I want a Democrat to win in November and I've seen very few arguments for her being vetted and electable that engage with her post-2008 record. If she has this fragile of a glass jaw going up against a virtually unknown 74-year-old socialist, I see plenty of reasons to question her electability. Especially if you actually engage with the claims (emails, Clinton Foundation, etc) that are being made against her and the visible effect they're having on her favorability.
posted by dialetheia at 3:50 PM on February 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
That's not it at all. My issue is that I want a Democrat to win in November and I've seen very few arguments for her being vetted and electable that engage with her post-2008 record. If she has this fragile of a glass jaw going up against a virtually unknown 74-year-old socialist, I see plenty of reasons to question her electability. Especially if you actually engage with the claims (emails, Clinton Foundation, etc) that are being made against her and the visible effect they're having on her favorability.
posted by dialetheia at 3:50 PM on February 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
She and many people I know in similar situations *need* something better. Some say that politics is the art of the possible - what's possible is fundamental change for the better! It might not be *probable* (though I hope with all my heart that it is), but it damn well is *POSSIBLE*!
I'm sorry you all are going through that.
i just fundamentally disagree that you have a handle on what is possible. This is currently a very very conservative country. I agree with prize bull, so what if Sanders gets elected? He ain't gonna be able to change what people want him to change.
My personal opinion is that the GOP has gotten it exactly right, and the Democrats have not. The GOP decided to control states, and they have been amazingly successful, not just in state legislatures, but in Congress. Dems need to focus on that to give a progressive a platform to stand on. I don't think Sanders will have a lick of difference in downticket races that Clinton wouldn't also have.
posted by OmieWise at 3:51 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I also think that art of the possible quote is an admonition, not an aspiration. I take it to basically argue against the idea that any ideas no matter how improbable, is one that should be pursued. It's basically saying: choose your battles and positions based on what you can actually get done.
posted by OmieWise at 4:04 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by OmieWise at 4:04 PM on February 8, 2016
That must be the vaunted negotiation strategy that led Democrats to enact a health care bill somewhere to the right of what Richard Nixon proposed, then.
posted by dialetheia at 4:06 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:06 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
The alternative was to enact nothing.
posted by Justinian at 4:07 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:07 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
And whose fault was that? Who bungled health care so badly in the 90s that nobody would touch it again for 10 years? Hmmmm....
posted by dialetheia at 4:09 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:09 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
On the one hand you're complaining because Democrats enacted what they saw as the most expansive health care reform they could get through Congress and on the other hand you're complaining because Clinton tried pushing for even more earlier in her career.
You're trying to have it both ways.
posted by Justinian at 4:12 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
You're trying to have it both ways.
posted by Justinian at 4:12 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
And, you continue to argue as if everyone here thinks Clinton and the ACA are the One True Gift.
posted by OmieWise at 4:16 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by OmieWise at 4:16 PM on February 8, 2016
so what if Sanders gets elected? He ain't gonna be able to change what people want him to change.
Off the top of my head, Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of the Treasury would put the banks in line whatever Congress' beliefs in the matter. They cannot interfere with her regulation.
posted by mikelieman at 4:19 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Off the top of my head, Elizabeth Warren as Secretary of the Treasury would put the banks in line whatever Congress' beliefs in the matter. They cannot interfere with her regulation.
posted by mikelieman at 4:19 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
> John McCormack at The Weekly Standard: “Jeb Bush: Overturn Citizens United”
Jeb Bush Unveils Sneaky New Plan To Make Citizens United Even Worse
posted by homunculus at 4:19 PM on February 8, 2016
Jeb Bush Unveils Sneaky New Plan To Make Citizens United Even Worse
posted by homunculus at 4:19 PM on February 8, 2016
Who as Secretary of Defense kills the F35?
posted by mikelieman at 4:19 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by mikelieman at 4:19 PM on February 8, 2016
That isn't quite the story told by documents released from the Clinton library, which indicate that the political will was there and that Republicans were willing to work toward reform but that intra-party dynamics were not handled well and that Clinton's focus on what was politically possible led her to go with an overly complicated bill instead of simple Medicare For All:
“The Republicans are finding themselves in a dilemma. Many do not particularly want to help the President, but many also believe they cannot be perceived to be standing in the way of health reform,” White House health care adviser Chris Jennings wrote in a May 1993 memo to Hillary Clinton. “In addition, there is a significant number of Republicans who sincerely want to participate in shaping the response to the health care crisis.” ...posted by dialetheia at 4:20 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
And the Republicans weren’t even the worst of the headaches the Clintons faced. It was the Democrats they had to get on board — and the ones who became increasingly convinced that the White House didn’t understand Congress.
John Dingell, for example, became convinced as early as April 1993 that the health care reform process was in “disarray.” In a memo to Hillary Clinton, Jennings reported that Dingell — then the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — was hearing complaints from Democrats that “they are pushing too many initiatives, making the analogy that it is like trying to push too much meat through a meat grinder.”
Clinton herself acknowledged in the briefing with Democratic leaders that “it is not the simplest plan,” but she insisted it was the only politically realistic one.
choose your battles and positions based on what you can actually get done.
Ok. As a country, we once went to the moon pretty regularly. We can actually get done anything we really try to get done. There are no limits except those we impose upon ourselves. And shit like gravity.
posted by mikelieman at 4:21 PM on February 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Ok. As a country, we once went to the moon pretty regularly. We can actually get done anything we really try to get done. There are no limits except those we impose upon ourselves. And shit like gravity.
posted by mikelieman at 4:21 PM on February 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Scott Carrier has posted his podcast on the Iowa caucus. (“A trip to Iowa to see if young people would turn out for the caucus.”)
posted by Going To Maine at 4:23 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 4:23 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
The other thing that killed health care in the 90s was the fact that Bill prioritized NAFTA over health care.
posted by dialetheia at 4:23 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:23 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
There are no limits except those we impose upon ourselves
except for those imposed by congress
That being said, I fail to see how the ACA would improve under Clinton, whereas I believe that Sanders would at least champion for it, be unwilling to accept anything worse for the American people, and could possibly broker changes to it for the better. I see more potential for good there from Sanders, even under the realistic constraints, than I do from Clinton.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:24 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
except for those imposed by congress
That being said, I fail to see how the ACA would improve under Clinton, whereas I believe that Sanders would at least champion for it, be unwilling to accept anything worse for the American people, and could possibly broker changes to it for the better. I see more potential for good there from Sanders, even under the realistic constraints, than I do from Clinton.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:24 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
I agree with prize bull, so what if Sanders gets elected? He ain't gonna be able to change what people want him to change.
Is Hillary going to have the votes to make her incremental changes? Obama can't seem to get them. Which Republicans will cross over and vote with her?
posted by Drinky Die at 4:28 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Is Hillary going to have the votes to make her incremental changes? Obama can't seem to get them. Which Republicans will cross over and vote with her?
posted by Drinky Die at 4:28 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
> Lawrence O'Donnell: Henry Kissinger just got applause @ HillaryClinton event when Bill Clinton quoted him complimenting Sec Clinton.
They're doubling down on the Kissinger thing now?
Hillary Clinton Has a Henry Kissinger Problem
FFS. This bullshit may finally just make it viscerally impossible for me to vote for her.
posted by homunculus at 4:38 PM on February 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
They're doubling down on the Kissinger thing now?
Hillary Clinton Has a Henry Kissinger Problem
FFS. This bullshit may finally just make it viscerally impossible for me to vote for her.
posted by homunculus at 4:38 PM on February 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
If you look at pretty much the entire platform for Sanders, there's much of it that he will not be able to enact directly. But if you look over Clintons platform -- surprise, same story! There's not much she can enact directly either. I'd much rather see someone at least leading the charge for bigger changes... it's not like he will ONLY accept a change that lines up perfectly with his platform and reject anything that isn't perfect. I see it being incredibly unlikely that he would turn down any opportunity to improve it, even if it isn't exactly what he has proclaimed as his platform. His record stands for that - He's constantly championed socialist values, and has been able to encourage incremental progress.
The realities of the Houses dictate a more incremental approach - There's no way around that at present. Some would argue that the entire structure of the government is set up to prevent exactly the sort of rapid change that many would like to see here, or at least make it difficult to do unless there is truly national agreement on it. The majority of any candidates platform is not actionable directly, no matter what side of the aisle you are looking at - but they can certainly fight for it, and certainly lead the discussion.
I do not see being realistic about the limitations of the office as being incompatible with championing his values the same way that Sanders always has. It's a false dilemma.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:41 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
The realities of the Houses dictate a more incremental approach - There's no way around that at present. Some would argue that the entire structure of the government is set up to prevent exactly the sort of rapid change that many would like to see here, or at least make it difficult to do unless there is truly national agreement on it. The majority of any candidates platform is not actionable directly, no matter what side of the aisle you are looking at - but they can certainly fight for it, and certainly lead the discussion.
I do not see being realistic about the limitations of the office as being incompatible with championing his values the same way that Sanders always has. It's a false dilemma.
posted by MysticMCJ at 4:41 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Putting everything else aside, I just can't believe I'm seeing so many knowing pronouncements about what is "politically possible" in a year where the press & political class have been telling us with complete certainty since July that Trump would start losing and drop out anyday now and Sanders would present no challenge to Clinton. Maybe a little bit of humility is in order for everyone on all sides trying to say what is and is not possible this year.
posted by dialetheia at 4:45 PM on February 8, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 4:45 PM on February 8, 2016 [23 favorites]
Look, I get it, you don't like Clinton and you like Sanders.
Hillary is a polarizing figure. I see no one in the GOP willing to work with her. Sanders doesn't have this built-in resistance. To my mind, Sanders will be able to get more done than Hillary. Clinton will insure 4 (or 8) more years of the GOP being an obstructionist party existing solely to keep her from getting anything done. There's also nothing that would mobilize the Republican vote like a Clinton candidacy.
To me, it has very little to do with Sanders. You are correct a lot of people don't like Clinton. That's the piece a lot of Democrats are missing. I bet most Clinton supports would break for Sanders if he gets the nomination, but I see fewer Sanders supporters breaking for Clinton if she does.
I also think this is why the "if you're for Bernie you're a misogynist" message isn't resonating. For many of his supporters Sanders is their secondary choice. They are voting the progressive vote. They would have much rather had Warren in there than the socialist democrat.
Some of us are also just as leery of Bill as "first lady" as we were Hillary. People resented her having power when they elected Bill. If you could tell me he's going to be baking cookies and picking flower arraignments then great, but Hillary won't say she'd discount him for an administration position. Some of us believe term limits exist for a reason and some of us don't want a third Billary term. To me a vote for Hillary is a vote to keep the seat warm for another Bush run, and I am seriously tired of trading the Oval office between to powerful families. I'm 45 and in pretty much every election in my life there has been a Clinton or a Bush on the ballot. I for one am sick of it.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:49 PM on February 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
Hillary is a polarizing figure. I see no one in the GOP willing to work with her. Sanders doesn't have this built-in resistance. To my mind, Sanders will be able to get more done than Hillary. Clinton will insure 4 (or 8) more years of the GOP being an obstructionist party existing solely to keep her from getting anything done. There's also nothing that would mobilize the Republican vote like a Clinton candidacy.
To me, it has very little to do with Sanders. You are correct a lot of people don't like Clinton. That's the piece a lot of Democrats are missing. I bet most Clinton supports would break for Sanders if he gets the nomination, but I see fewer Sanders supporters breaking for Clinton if she does.
I also think this is why the "if you're for Bernie you're a misogynist" message isn't resonating. For many of his supporters Sanders is their secondary choice. They are voting the progressive vote. They would have much rather had Warren in there than the socialist democrat.
Some of us are also just as leery of Bill as "first lady" as we were Hillary. People resented her having power when they elected Bill. If you could tell me he's going to be baking cookies and picking flower arraignments then great, but Hillary won't say she'd discount him for an administration position. Some of us believe term limits exist for a reason and some of us don't want a third Billary term. To me a vote for Hillary is a vote to keep the seat warm for another Bush run, and I am seriously tired of trading the Oval office between to powerful families. I'm 45 and in pretty much every election in my life there has been a Clinton or a Bush on the ballot. I for one am sick of it.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:49 PM on February 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
FFS. This bullshit may finally just make it viscerally impossible for me to vote for her.
Kissinger that scum. I mean she's regularly giving speeches to groups sociopathic bankers so why should this surprise us.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:59 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Kissinger that scum. I mean she's regularly giving speeches to groups sociopathic bankers so why should this surprise us.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 4:59 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders doesn't have this built-in resistance. To my mind, Sanders will be able to get more done than Hillary.
It's February, still quite early in the election year. Yes, anything can happen. But on the other hand, anything can happen.
posted by FJT at 5:03 PM on February 8, 2016
It's February, still quite early in the election year. Yes, anything can happen. But on the other hand, anything can happen.
posted by FJT at 5:03 PM on February 8, 2016
The FBI has just formally confirmed that it is investigating Clinton for her use of a private email server.
posted by dialetheia at 5:04 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 5:04 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
One thing to keep in mind while we are discussing that a lot of people don't like Clinton - The narrative is that she has survived over 20 years of attacks. The other way of looking at that is that there have been over 20 years of pre-emptive negative campaigning against her - all of which doesn't even factor into the budget of her opposition. They practically have all of their attack ads for free, and plenty of material to work with.
Which isn't to say that there wouldn't be attempted smears against Sanders, either - There's going to be really really shitty campaigning, it's going to be really really misleading in every way, and it's going to be incredibly tiresome. But when I look at the things that Sanders would be attacked for vs. Clinton, it seems like a much smaller subset. Clinton ultimately would be attacked for all of the same platform positions that Sanders would be, just without the socialist label attached to it - but the message wouldn't really change, it's the very typical talking points against anything that could possibly be labeled as progressive, or democratic, or socialist, or whatever.
Where things get interesting is when you look at the new forms of attack that Clinton ads to the mix. You could have a field day playing clips from her 2008 campaign and clips from her current campaign side by side that are if not in conflict with each other, at least show her dodging the question this time around. She is already painted as non-trustworthy, and I can guarantee you that message will be driven home in a way that will make those past 20 years of attacks seem like a teaser for an upcoming film. And she doesn't really have a ton of defense for that - She's doing a wonderful job of providing footage for it while she's on the campaign trail now, and there's probably a bunch that were made in advance in 2008 that are ready to roll.
The attacks on the platform aren't going to differ too greatly, but I have a hard time seeing where Sanders would have his integrity or credibility attacked. The "socialist" label seems like the worst you can do, and that label has been used so much with Obama that it's practically lost all meaning - Other than that, the attack seems like it would be to paint his ideas as impossible, impractical, and expensive because you'll be taxed 1000%. Ideas that will certainly resonate with a certain crowd, but I'm pretty sure you'll hear similar for anyone on the ticket.
I'm not sure what else is there to attack, off hand, but I'm positive it will be dug up. Looking at all of this, I'm going to give a bit of an edge to Sanders simply because people are already generally fed up with dishonesty in politics - and at the very least, nobody is going to see that as a net positive for a candidate. There's a lot there to work with, even sticking with history and records. And the Kissinger thing certainly doesn't help at this point.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:06 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Which isn't to say that there wouldn't be attempted smears against Sanders, either - There's going to be really really shitty campaigning, it's going to be really really misleading in every way, and it's going to be incredibly tiresome. But when I look at the things that Sanders would be attacked for vs. Clinton, it seems like a much smaller subset. Clinton ultimately would be attacked for all of the same platform positions that Sanders would be, just without the socialist label attached to it - but the message wouldn't really change, it's the very typical talking points against anything that could possibly be labeled as progressive, or democratic, or socialist, or whatever.
Where things get interesting is when you look at the new forms of attack that Clinton ads to the mix. You could have a field day playing clips from her 2008 campaign and clips from her current campaign side by side that are if not in conflict with each other, at least show her dodging the question this time around. She is already painted as non-trustworthy, and I can guarantee you that message will be driven home in a way that will make those past 20 years of attacks seem like a teaser for an upcoming film. And she doesn't really have a ton of defense for that - She's doing a wonderful job of providing footage for it while she's on the campaign trail now, and there's probably a bunch that were made in advance in 2008 that are ready to roll.
The attacks on the platform aren't going to differ too greatly, but I have a hard time seeing where Sanders would have his integrity or credibility attacked. The "socialist" label seems like the worst you can do, and that label has been used so much with Obama that it's practically lost all meaning - Other than that, the attack seems like it would be to paint his ideas as impossible, impractical, and expensive because you'll be taxed 1000%. Ideas that will certainly resonate with a certain crowd, but I'm pretty sure you'll hear similar for anyone on the ticket.
I'm not sure what else is there to attack, off hand, but I'm positive it will be dug up. Looking at all of this, I'm going to give a bit of an edge to Sanders simply because people are already generally fed up with dishonesty in politics - and at the very least, nobody is going to see that as a net positive for a candidate. There's a lot there to work with, even sticking with history and records. And the Kissinger thing certainly doesn't help at this point.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:06 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Man. That could be a game changer, right there. (Or, alternately, as a friend responded when I mentioned it, “Like Bernie said, ‘I’m tired of hearing about her damn emails.”)
posted by Going To Maine at 5:07 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 5:07 PM on February 8, 2016
If you're really interested in getting things done, why not vote Republican? A Republican president would get along get along with Congress pretty well, and we could make all kinds of progress like repealing Obamacare, banning abortion, doubling Guantanamo, etc. Really roll up their sleeves and work.
posted by indubitable at 5:10 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 5:10 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
re: email-- We'll just throw that on the pile of material I referenced above.
One thing I left out regarding the narrative of "surviving political attacks" - she has been in appointed positions as of late, and hasn't held an elected position in 7 years, so there wasn't really anything to survive since before her 2008 campaign.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:11 PM on February 8, 2016
One thing I left out regarding the narrative of "surviving political attacks" - she has been in appointed positions as of late, and hasn't held an elected position in 7 years, so there wasn't really anything to survive since before her 2008 campaign.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:11 PM on February 8, 2016
Some of us are also just as leery of Bill as "first lady"
Yeah, every time he opens his mouth I become less likely to vote for Clinton. He's rape culture personified. That he's commenting on sexism in the campaign makes me want to scream.
posted by melissasaurus at 5:12 PM on February 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
Yeah, every time he opens his mouth I become less likely to vote for Clinton. He's rape culture personified. That he's commenting on sexism in the campaign makes me want to scream.
posted by melissasaurus at 5:12 PM on February 8, 2016 [14 favorites]
I honestly believe that character and content and the actual platform can get over the whole "SOCIALIST! COMMUNIST! (jew!)" thing for enough moderates, and it's would only be an effective rallying cry for those who really would never cross party lines for whatever reason.
In other words, all Bernie Sanders needs to do is stay on message. Which he *is* remarkably able to do.
I expect most Trump supporters would swing Bernie's way once the actual policy message gets through. Hard part is getting that ( non-trivial ) message through....
posted by mikelieman at 5:14 PM on February 8, 2016
In other words, all Bernie Sanders needs to do is stay on message. Which he *is* remarkably able to do.
I expect most Trump supporters would swing Bernie's way once the actual policy message gets through. Hard part is getting that ( non-trivial ) message through....
posted by mikelieman at 5:14 PM on February 8, 2016
If you're really interested in getting things done, why not vote Republican? A Republican president would get along get along with Congress pretty well, and we could make all kinds of progress like repealing Obamacare, banning abortion, doubling Guantanamo, etc. Really roll up their sleeves and work.
This seems like another argument that the Republicans will raise in the general.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:24 PM on February 8, 2016
This seems like another argument that the Republicans will raise in the general.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:24 PM on February 8, 2016
I expect most Trump supporters would swing Bernie's way once the actual policy message gets through. Hard part is getting that ( non-trivial ) message through....
Yeah, the Southern strategy still looms large. It's encouraging that the majority of Americans actually support Sanders' policies when asked about them individually - America might be economically insecure enough to be open to redistributive policy at this point. If the left doesn't have anything to offer these folks, they will be much more open to Trump's fascist populism, though.
posted by dialetheia at 5:30 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the Southern strategy still looms large. It's encouraging that the majority of Americans actually support Sanders' policies when asked about them individually - America might be economically insecure enough to be open to redistributive policy at this point. If the left doesn't have anything to offer these folks, they will be much more open to Trump's fascist populism, though.
posted by dialetheia at 5:30 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
The "socialist" label seems like the worst you can do, and that label has been used so much with Obama that it's practically lost all meaning
I think the "socialist" label worked because it was bundled with a bunch of things (Kenyan, not born here, Arab, Muslim) that flipped all the positives of Obama's background into potential negatives. So, any time he spoke about his background of working as a community organizer or going to school in Indonesia or having a Kenyan father, there was a negative idea that attached itself to it. And all of these negatives worked in tandem to portray Obama as a foreigner, un-American, and ultimately untrustworthy.
posted by FJT at 5:32 PM on February 8, 2016
I think the "socialist" label worked because it was bundled with a bunch of things (Kenyan, not born here, Arab, Muslim) that flipped all the positives of Obama's background into potential negatives. So, any time he spoke about his background of working as a community organizer or going to school in Indonesia or having a Kenyan father, there was a negative idea that attached itself to it. And all of these negatives worked in tandem to portray Obama as a foreigner, un-American, and ultimately untrustworthy.
posted by FJT at 5:32 PM on February 8, 2016
I have a hard time imagining that a Republican congress would be any more willing to work with Sanders than Clinton. I think they'll dig in their heels and wait, just like they've done for the past six years. And in that situation, with Congress basically playing chicken against the Executive, I think there's a plausible argument to be made that Clinton is better equipped to confront such a situation. If I thought the Dems would have Congress I'd be much more gung-ho for Sanders, but as it is, I fear we'd be facing Carter 2.0 followed by, god forbid, Reagan 2.0.
I'm not convinced this is the case, but I fear it might be.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:33 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not convinced this is the case, but I fear it might be.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:33 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ok. As a country, we once went to the moon pretty regularly. We can actually get done anything we really try to get done. There are no limits except those we impose upon ourselves.
what
You do realize you're talking about a country whose House of Representatives ate John Boehner because he was not conservative enough? "We" is more than progressives.
Putting everything else aside, I just can't believe I'm seeing so many knowing pronouncements about what is "politically possible" in a year where the press & political class have been telling us with complete certainty since July that Trump would start losing and drop out anyday now and Sanders would present no challenge to Clinton. Maybe a little bit of humility is in order for everyone on all sides trying to say what is and is not possible this year.
Except, I guess, Sanders' supporters. If you can't see the difference between the Sanders and Trump situations, I'm not sure how to take your comments in this thread.
posted by OmieWise at 5:35 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
what
You do realize you're talking about a country whose House of Representatives ate John Boehner because he was not conservative enough? "We" is more than progressives.
Putting everything else aside, I just can't believe I'm seeing so many knowing pronouncements about what is "politically possible" in a year where the press & political class have been telling us with complete certainty since July that Trump would start losing and drop out anyday now and Sanders would present no challenge to Clinton. Maybe a little bit of humility is in order for everyone on all sides trying to say what is and is not possible this year.
Except, I guess, Sanders' supporters. If you can't see the difference between the Sanders and Trump situations, I'm not sure how to take your comments in this thread.
posted by OmieWise at 5:35 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think there's a plausible argument to be made that Clinton is better equipped to confront such a situation.
I'd love to hear this argument. How is Clinton vs. a deadlocked congress any better than Sanders vs. a deadlocked congress? It's a very sincere question - I certainly don't see any way she could be - If anything, she'd be more willing to flex on banking regulations and make more concessions in that realm.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:40 PM on February 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'd love to hear this argument. How is Clinton vs. a deadlocked congress any better than Sanders vs. a deadlocked congress? It's a very sincere question - I certainly don't see any way she could be - If anything, she'd be more willing to flex on banking regulations and make more concessions in that realm.
posted by MysticMCJ at 5:40 PM on February 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
You do realize you're talking about a country whose House of Representatives ate John Boehner because he was not conservative enough? "We" is more than progressives.
We is Us. All of us. As in "We, The People". We elect people to represent Us.
EVERYONE should feel free to vote for the candidate that best represents them, without fear or favour.
For me, Bernie Sanders represents my views better than any other candidate, and thus I will vote for him.
If someone thinks that Hillary Clinton best represents their views than any other candidate, they should certainly vote for her. But I don't believe they should vote for her for any other reason than she best represents them.
posted by mikelieman at 5:44 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
We is Us. All of us. As in "We, The People". We elect people to represent Us.
EVERYONE should feel free to vote for the candidate that best represents them, without fear or favour.
For me, Bernie Sanders represents my views better than any other candidate, and thus I will vote for him.
If someone thinks that Hillary Clinton best represents their views than any other candidate, they should certainly vote for her. But I don't believe they should vote for her for any other reason than she best represents them.
posted by mikelieman at 5:44 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Sanders vs. a deadlocked congress?
Sanders vs. a deadlocked congress does has people in the Cabinet who aren't selected by the industries they're supposed to regulate, which of course is a known risk of a Clinton presidency.
posted by mikelieman at 5:46 PM on February 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Sanders vs. a deadlocked congress does has people in the Cabinet who aren't selected by the industries they're supposed to regulate, which of course is a known risk of a Clinton presidency.
posted by mikelieman at 5:46 PM on February 8, 2016 [13 favorites]
Except, I guess, Sanders' supporters. If you can't see the difference between the Sanders and Trump situations, I'm not sure how to take your comments in this thread.
Huh? I said all sides. I'm not the one trying to make a bunch of guesses about what'll happen next year and triangulate accordingly. And I think the Trump and Sanders phenomena are very different but have both been invisible to the media and political classes because they are out of touch with what working-class people in this country are going through and how goddamned fed up they are with our corrupt political and economic systems.
Here's a quick story from my partner's office. We live in Montana. He was talking to one of his co-workers about health care. She's middle-aged, married, a few kids, grew up here in Montana, has barely left the state, voted Republican her whole life, accepted all the BS from the 90s about "socialized health care", etc.
She told him - totally unprompted - that she thought she might vote for Sanders because she's so goddamned tired of not being able to get decent affordable health insurance. She had the same list of baffling, awful ordeals that most working-class people have about health care, and she told him that if socialism is what it takes to get decent health care, well, then, she guesses she just might be a socialist! And she repeated a ton of the 90s socialized health care framing back to him, but in a way that justified her voting for Sanders. She hunts and added that he also didn't want to take her guns away, so it wasn't as bad as voting for a Democrat usually is.
I'm not going to over-extrapolate from that anecdote, but I think people are finally getting so fed up with the way things are that they are willing to accept other solutions at this point. They may regret tagging Medicare For All as socialist, because it has really softened the reaction to the socialist label among older folks I've talked to - even (and maybe especially) for those who swallowed the socialized health care framing hook, line and sinker.
posted by dialetheia at 5:49 PM on February 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
Huh? I said all sides. I'm not the one trying to make a bunch of guesses about what'll happen next year and triangulate accordingly. And I think the Trump and Sanders phenomena are very different but have both been invisible to the media and political classes because they are out of touch with what working-class people in this country are going through and how goddamned fed up they are with our corrupt political and economic systems.
Here's a quick story from my partner's office. We live in Montana. He was talking to one of his co-workers about health care. She's middle-aged, married, a few kids, grew up here in Montana, has barely left the state, voted Republican her whole life, accepted all the BS from the 90s about "socialized health care", etc.
She told him - totally unprompted - that she thought she might vote for Sanders because she's so goddamned tired of not being able to get decent affordable health insurance. She had the same list of baffling, awful ordeals that most working-class people have about health care, and she told him that if socialism is what it takes to get decent health care, well, then, she guesses she just might be a socialist! And she repeated a ton of the 90s socialized health care framing back to him, but in a way that justified her voting for Sanders. She hunts and added that he also didn't want to take her guns away, so it wasn't as bad as voting for a Democrat usually is.
I'm not going to over-extrapolate from that anecdote, but I think people are finally getting so fed up with the way things are that they are willing to accept other solutions at this point. They may regret tagging Medicare For All as socialist, because it has really softened the reaction to the socialist label among older folks I've talked to - even (and maybe especially) for those who swallowed the socialized health care framing hook, line and sinker.
posted by dialetheia at 5:49 PM on February 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
If someone thinks that Hillary Clinton best represents their views than any other candidate, they should certainly vote for her. But I don't believe they should vote for her for any other reason than she best represents them.
Whereas I think strategic voting is the best way to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
posted by Justinian at 5:50 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Whereas I think strategic voting is the best way to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
posted by Justinian at 5:50 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
The problem with strategic voting is knowing in advance if it's the right strategy.
posted by mikelieman at 5:52 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 5:52 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, the Southern strategy still looms large. It's encouraging that the majority of Americans actually support Sanders' policies when asked about them individually
But this is sort of the conventional wisdom, yes? On paper, Americans like the policies of the left. In practice, the Republicans remain key players and we are considered a right-leaning country.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:53 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
But this is sort of the conventional wisdom, yes? On paper, Americans like the policies of the left. In practice, the Republicans remain key players and we are considered a right-leaning country.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:53 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
The problem with strategic voting is knowing in advance if it's the right strategy.
That's really the problem with all voting. Obviously if we had perfect foreknowledge, choices would be trivial.
posted by Miko at 6:04 PM on February 8, 2016
That's really the problem with all voting. Obviously if we had perfect foreknowledge, choices would be trivial.
posted by Miko at 6:04 PM on February 8, 2016
If you're really interested in getting things done, why not vote Republican?
I know people who plan to do just this if Sanders doesn't get the nomination. Has nothing to do with spite, but to show that if the Democrats want the progressive vote they aren't going to get it by moving right. People keep saying it's a long game and we have to think of the justices. If your primary reason for voting Clinton is you are concerned who the GOP will nominate to the Suprme Court then you've set the bar so low for Clinton I don't know why you'd vote for her. So they play the longer game. Move the county right. Let the world see the horrors of no healthcare or access to abortion. Let the banks crush Main Street. Let the corporations grind the workers under their heels. Watch the world burn.
They will be fine in the short term. And maybe in the long term the Democrats will realize to win they can't run a pro-corporate, anti-technology, dishonest, anti-worker, establishment candidate beholden to the financial sector. Maybe.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:10 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know people who plan to do just this if Sanders doesn't get the nomination. Has nothing to do with spite, but to show that if the Democrats want the progressive vote they aren't going to get it by moving right. People keep saying it's a long game and we have to think of the justices. If your primary reason for voting Clinton is you are concerned who the GOP will nominate to the Suprme Court then you've set the bar so low for Clinton I don't know why you'd vote for her. So they play the longer game. Move the county right. Let the world see the horrors of no healthcare or access to abortion. Let the banks crush Main Street. Let the corporations grind the workers under their heels. Watch the world burn.
They will be fine in the short term. And maybe in the long term the Democrats will realize to win they can't run a pro-corporate, anti-technology, dishonest, anti-worker, establishment candidate beholden to the financial sector. Maybe.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:10 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's a bad worldview and people who have it should feel bad.
posted by Justinian at 6:12 PM on February 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:12 PM on February 8, 2016 [16 favorites]
That's really the problem with all voting. Obviously if we had perfect foreknowledge, choices would be trivial.
No, but it's particularly a problem for strategic voting, and I say that as a strong supporter of strategic voting. There are a lot of dimensions to the analysis that we're just not equipped to grapple with, but we try anyway, because the system is set up in such a way that we have a small number of choices in the beginning and then precisely two choices at the end.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:14 PM on February 8, 2016
No, but it's particularly a problem for strategic voting, and I say that as a strong supporter of strategic voting. There are a lot of dimensions to the analysis that we're just not equipped to grapple with, but we try anyway, because the system is set up in such a way that we have a small number of choices in the beginning and then precisely two choices at the end.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:14 PM on February 8, 2016
Yeah, that spite voting is terrible stuff. Problem is, votes don't come with a description field. When I lived in NH, people often tried to play this kind of 12th dimensional chess with their vote - Democrats registering in the GOP primary, voting for the guy they hated the most to undermine the likely winner, thinking that somehow in the long run they were having an important influence. No one understands why people vote as they do, but people who think they're sending any message other than "I want this one to win" are mistaken.
posted by Miko at 6:15 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Miko at 6:15 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
we are considered a right-leaning country.
I think a lot of people think we still live in a conservative country because gerrymandering and voting trends make Congress look more conservative than the country is as a whole. At a national scale, 44% of Americans aren't registered in either party, they are independents. When you break those down to include leaners, it's fairly even, about 44%-45% each - not conservative-leaning, but evenly split.
Generally, non-voters tend to be more Democratic-leaning, and young people, who also don't vote as much, tend to be much more liberal but also more independent (only 31% see a great deal of difference between the two major parties according to that survey, likely due to campaign finance issues like we're seeing play out now in the Democratic primary).
That's why voter turnout is the most important factor in Democratic victories - when turnout is way up, Democrats tend to win because the people who don't vote tend to prefer liberal policies. That's why some of us are particularly skeptical of more plans to fight for the mushy middle instead of plans to drive turnout by exciting young and poor people and bringing them into the political process.
posted by dialetheia at 6:16 PM on February 8, 2016 [19 favorites]
I think a lot of people think we still live in a conservative country because gerrymandering and voting trends make Congress look more conservative than the country is as a whole. At a national scale, 44% of Americans aren't registered in either party, they are independents. When you break those down to include leaners, it's fairly even, about 44%-45% each - not conservative-leaning, but evenly split.
Generally, non-voters tend to be more Democratic-leaning, and young people, who also don't vote as much, tend to be much more liberal but also more independent (only 31% see a great deal of difference between the two major parties according to that survey, likely due to campaign finance issues like we're seeing play out now in the Democratic primary).
That's why voter turnout is the most important factor in Democratic victories - when turnout is way up, Democrats tend to win because the people who don't vote tend to prefer liberal policies. That's why some of us are particularly skeptical of more plans to fight for the mushy middle instead of plans to drive turnout by exciting young and poor people and bringing them into the political process.
posted by dialetheia at 6:16 PM on February 8, 2016 [19 favorites]
"Maybe by supporting Pinochet's coup we can bring Allende back to life." - The Freakin Political Genius
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:22 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 6:22 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
If someone thinks that Hillary Clinton best represents their views than any other candidate, they should certainly vote for her. But I don't believe they should vote for her for any other reason than she best represents them.
I think you and I have two radically different understandings of the world.
I know people who plan to do just this if Sanders doesn't get the nomination.
Those people are shitheads. I feel like the stakes here are pretty high. I don't really think people who are serious about the world could possibly vote for these Republican jackasses out of spite.
posted by OmieWise at 6:23 PM on February 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think you and I have two radically different understandings of the world.
I know people who plan to do just this if Sanders doesn't get the nomination.
Those people are shitheads. I feel like the stakes here are pretty high. I don't really think people who are serious about the world could possibly vote for these Republican jackasses out of spite.
posted by OmieWise at 6:23 PM on February 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
I don't really think people who are serious about the world could possibly vote for these Republican jackasses out of spite.
They won't. Instead, they just won't vote.
posted by dialetheia at 6:25 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
They won't. Instead, they just won't vote.
posted by dialetheia at 6:25 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, same same, but read the comment I was replying to.
I don't think anyone who claims they want a better country could possibly really stay home rather than vote for Clinton.
posted by OmieWise at 6:26 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think anyone who claims they want a better country could possibly really stay home rather than vote for Clinton.
posted by OmieWise at 6:26 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
They won't. Instead, they just won't vote.
Yes, this represents a ton of people I know.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:28 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, this represents a ton of people I know.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:28 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think anyone who claims they want a better country could possibly really stay home rather than vote for Clinton.
How well has shaming nonvoters worked out as a turnout strategy so far? Not particularly well, judging by the midterms. People resent this sort of entitlement. It doesn't drive unmotivated voters to the polls. We need a strategy that does.
posted by dialetheia at 6:29 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
How well has shaming nonvoters worked out as a turnout strategy so far? Not particularly well, judging by the midterms. People resent this sort of entitlement. It doesn't drive unmotivated voters to the polls. We need a strategy that does.
posted by dialetheia at 6:29 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think you and I have two radically different understandings of the world.
Voting your conscience is my sincere belief. My experience leads to the expectation that the tabulating servers will be rigged and that Hillary Clinton will be our next president. With that in mind, does any of this matter?
I don't know, but I do know that even if the servers are rigged, the person who best represents ME will be the person I cast my ( likely uncounted ) ballot for... Maybe they aren't rigged, and the best person actually wins... Stranger things have happened.
posted by mikelieman at 6:31 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Voting your conscience is my sincere belief. My experience leads to the expectation that the tabulating servers will be rigged and that Hillary Clinton will be our next president. With that in mind, does any of this matter?
I don't know, but I do know that even if the servers are rigged, the person who best represents ME will be the person I cast my ( likely uncounted ) ballot for... Maybe they aren't rigged, and the best person actually wins... Stranger things have happened.
posted by mikelieman at 6:31 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I should clarify - I know that social pressure is an increasingly used tool in campaigns because it sometimes does work, but, as seen from the reaction to Cruz's mailers, people resent it and think it sucks.
posted by dialetheia at 6:32 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 6:32 PM on February 8, 2016
So if we vote for Hillary Clinton, it's going to be our fault that other people don't vote?
posted by FJT at 6:33 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by FJT at 6:33 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Let's not get personal in here; if you need to, maybe cool off for a little while?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:34 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:34 PM on February 8, 2016
That's a bad worldview and people who have it should feel bad.
There are plenty of people who should "feel bad." For example, folks who are privileged enough that they don't have to worry about healthcare coverage or where their next meal is coming from. The same people who will vote for moderates until some unspecified date in the future when their privilege will not be threatened and it will finally be possible to vote for the best candidate not the "tactically sound" one. The way I look at it is that America will get the leadership it deserves. I want to believe it deserves better, but maybe not.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:36 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
There are plenty of people who should "feel bad." For example, folks who are privileged enough that they don't have to worry about healthcare coverage or where their next meal is coming from. The same people who will vote for moderates until some unspecified date in the future when their privilege will not be threatened and it will finally be possible to vote for the best candidate not the "tactically sound" one. The way I look at it is that America will get the leadership it deserves. I want to believe it deserves better, but maybe not.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:36 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
So if we vote for Hillary Clinton, it's going to be our fault that other people don't vote?
Not at all! Just that electability in the general means more than being well-known or having a long history in politics. It also means things like getting millions in small donations, getting supporters out to rallies, having a strong volunteer base, and especially reaching independent and/or intermittent voters, as Sanders seems to be doing.
posted by dialetheia at 6:41 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not at all! Just that electability in the general means more than being well-known or having a long history in politics. It also means things like getting millions in small donations, getting supporters out to rallies, having a strong volunteer base, and especially reaching independent and/or intermittent voters, as Sanders seems to be doing.
posted by dialetheia at 6:41 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
The other problem I forsee with a Sanders nomination is that if he appears likely to win Bloomberg will jump in the race and guarantee a Republican victory. And then people will be like "who could have forseen such an eventuality?" and the answer should be "anybody paying attention."
posted by Justinian at 6:48 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 6:48 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I honestly believe that if Clinton gets the nomination, failing to elect her instead of the Republican will result in far more suffering and death, here and throughout the world, than if she were elected. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for the less evil thing. And in the general, that is the choice. We'll have two options for who'll be the next president, and that'll all we'll get.
The primary is a different story. But staying home for the general will result in conservative policies becoming even more entrenched in this country. THIS Congress, with a Republican president? We've never seen anything like that before, and it fucking terrifies me. As a woman, it terrifies me. I'll take "shifty corporate shill" over "guys who think Handmaid's Tale is a how-to guide" any day.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:49 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
The primary is a different story. But staying home for the general will result in conservative policies becoming even more entrenched in this country. THIS Congress, with a Republican president? We've never seen anything like that before, and it fucking terrifies me. As a woman, it terrifies me. I'll take "shifty corporate shill" over "guys who think Handmaid's Tale is a how-to guide" any day.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:49 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
So if we vote for Hillary Clinton, it's going to be our fault that other people don't vote?
Besides, isn't this just the electability argument? People are definitely telling Sanders voters that if they vote for him, we'll lose votes and lose the general, so I'm having a hard time seeing the difference.
posted by dialetheia at 6:49 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Besides, isn't this just the electability argument? People are definitely telling Sanders voters that if they vote for him, we'll lose votes and lose the general, so I'm having a hard time seeing the difference.
posted by dialetheia at 6:49 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Despite earlier rumors that he would only get in if Sanders or Trump were the nominees, I feel that today's articles about Bloomberg and the level of discourse hint that he will get in no matter what. There's a very real chance this race is going to look different three weeks from now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:50 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:50 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't really think people who are serious about the world could possibly vote for these Republican jackasses out of spite.
I specifically said it wasn't spite. They are taking a longer view. They are saying "Give me a candidate that earns my votes," not some barely left of the shitheels candidate. I've voted third party before to send a message, because I thought the person was the best candidate, or because I wanted the party to get official recognition because I am tired of a two party system. I've also spent a lot of my life voting against a candidate rather than for one. Obama was the first time I was ever really excited about a candidate. I've pretty much decided it feels good to vote for someone because you believe in him. I'm done voting against candidates, and I am done voting for lesser evils. So sometimes the message needs sent.
Now, I won't vote GOP if I can't vote Sanders, but I'll won't be voting Clinton. She hasn't earned my vote. So while I don't agree with them I sure as fuck understand it and it's not spite.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:53 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I specifically said it wasn't spite. They are taking a longer view. They are saying "Give me a candidate that earns my votes," not some barely left of the shitheels candidate. I've voted third party before to send a message, because I thought the person was the best candidate, or because I wanted the party to get official recognition because I am tired of a two party system. I've also spent a lot of my life voting against a candidate rather than for one. Obama was the first time I was ever really excited about a candidate. I've pretty much decided it feels good to vote for someone because you believe in him. I'm done voting against candidates, and I am done voting for lesser evils. So sometimes the message needs sent.
Now, I won't vote GOP if I can't vote Sanders, but I'll won't be voting Clinton. She hasn't earned my vote. So while I don't agree with them I sure as fuck understand it and it's not spite.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:53 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
So I just filed my taxes. One of the beautiful things about our current tax code is that your W2 tells you how much money your employer spent on your healthcare, if you are lucky enough to have employer provided health coverage. My employer (a non-profit) paid over $5000 last year for my health insurance. That was just the premiums. I have a pretty good health plan, with a low deductible and copays. Last year, I spent, our of pocket, about $2000 total for all the visits to the doctor and for medication (pre-existing condition, maintenance meds, etc). I also, personally, paid @$600 for MedicareMedicaid on my federal taxes.
Now, IF we were to go and manage to get Medicare-For-All style healthcare in the U.S., my employer would be paying $0 for my healthcare costs. That $5000 that they paid to the insurance company would mean that they could (possibly, though most likely not) pay me a little bit more, and still save several thousand dollars that they spend to employ me.
That money goes to a private health insurance company. One of hundreds. My doctors office only takes insurance from a few dozen that are available in my state. They still have to hire 3 full-time medical coders in order to process all the various kinds of insurance to get paid for treating their patients.
Now, just imagine this: That $5000 went to me, but I had to pay $1000 to Medicare/Medicaid when I pay taxes. That's a 60% increase in the taxes I pay. However, my yearly income is still over $4000 more than I make now. And my employer isn't having to deal with my health insurance, nor could or should they have any say in my health care decisions. This is just my own situation and dream scenario. I know the reality for most private companies is that they will simply pocket the savings they would be getting by not having to provide health care for their employees.
So when you talk about "possible" or "likely"? This is the calculus you should look at. Never underestimate the greed of a beancounter. Never think for a second that they wouldn't love to never have to pay more to employ the workers they have.
Now, of course, the flip side of that is "well what about all the medical coders and health insurance employees that just had their entire industry completely wiped out?" Good question, I say, but there is a great answer. Have you ever been to a Medicare office? What if that office had to handle not just the elderly or poor, but the entire population? What would need to happen? PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS. With pensions, and benefits, and an actual paygrade that increases with tenure and a whole host of other wonderful things (ok, maybe wonderful is a bit hyperbolic, but still) that can come from a career in the public sector. I mean, I am biased, as my parents were both public sector employees, and the silliness of that world can be a little daunting, but frankly, having seen both worlds, I really think people shouldn't knock the opportunity to actually have the American Middle Class Dream from that work. It is important work, and it is work that needs to be done, and the private sector is more worried about making money than providing services, which is why there is so much of our society that I think we should never privatize (education, healthcare, the military, police, fire, etc, etc, etc, the list just keeps going) and to think we should or can is not only foolish, but exactly how we got into the situation we are in right now.
RE: voting for Hillary.
I had a discussion with a friend recently about why he (retired, on-paper millionaire) was going to vote for Hillary. His response was exactly right. Stability. Hilary represents stability, the continuation of the status quo. His on-paper millionaire status will (hopefully) stay the same through her presidency. That's it. It's the bottom line. Money. He has his, and he wants to keep it until he dies and then he wants to make sure his wife will have it once he is gone.
If that is why so many older Democrats want Hillary, they should say so. They should not be embarrassed about wanting to protect their accumulated wealth. But they can't call themselves progressives. They can barely call themselves liberal (though, with how utterly mangled the definition of that words has become due to the insanities of our current culture, it is really hard to argue with someone working from the popular cultural reality, versus what the word has meant historically or in academic literature). I appreciate my friends honesty. He likes Bernie Sanders, and would have voted for him in a heartbeat 10, 15, 20 years ago. But not that he has something, he is worried about it being taken away.
RE: Lloyd Blankenpoophead.
Well, yes, having a zealot in office should scare the crap out of him, and he is absolutely right that a Sanders administration will be "dangerous". But that's what you get by listening to James Buchanan too much. It is also what you get from lying to the population for decades while fleecing them blind. There are too many people who, maybe don't have it awful, sure as hell are tired of not having what their parents had, or not having what they sacrificed and worked really really hard for and having it disappear before they can even get to the door, let alone have the door shut in their faces.
I do fear that if there is a "revolution" (i,e, Sanders wins, downticket votes give the Congress and Senate back to the Democrats, etc, etc, etc), that the younger people who did vote for the changes will not be satisfied with how long those changes will take to implement. That will turn a lot of people away from politics, again, just like it did in 2009 (i.e. the low voter turnout in 2010, and the aftermath of that). But, I guess we'll address that when we cross that bridge.
posted by daq at 6:59 PM on February 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
Now, IF we were to go and manage to get Medicare-For-All style healthcare in the U.S., my employer would be paying $0 for my healthcare costs. That $5000 that they paid to the insurance company would mean that they could (possibly, though most likely not) pay me a little bit more, and still save several thousand dollars that they spend to employ me.
That money goes to a private health insurance company. One of hundreds. My doctors office only takes insurance from a few dozen that are available in my state. They still have to hire 3 full-time medical coders in order to process all the various kinds of insurance to get paid for treating their patients.
Now, just imagine this: That $5000 went to me, but I had to pay $1000 to Medicare/Medicaid when I pay taxes. That's a 60% increase in the taxes I pay. However, my yearly income is still over $4000 more than I make now. And my employer isn't having to deal with my health insurance, nor could or should they have any say in my health care decisions. This is just my own situation and dream scenario. I know the reality for most private companies is that they will simply pocket the savings they would be getting by not having to provide health care for their employees.
So when you talk about "possible" or "likely"? This is the calculus you should look at. Never underestimate the greed of a beancounter. Never think for a second that they wouldn't love to never have to pay more to employ the workers they have.
Now, of course, the flip side of that is "well what about all the medical coders and health insurance employees that just had their entire industry completely wiped out?" Good question, I say, but there is a great answer. Have you ever been to a Medicare office? What if that office had to handle not just the elderly or poor, but the entire population? What would need to happen? PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS. With pensions, and benefits, and an actual paygrade that increases with tenure and a whole host of other wonderful things (ok, maybe wonderful is a bit hyperbolic, but still) that can come from a career in the public sector. I mean, I am biased, as my parents were both public sector employees, and the silliness of that world can be a little daunting, but frankly, having seen both worlds, I really think people shouldn't knock the opportunity to actually have the American Middle Class Dream from that work. It is important work, and it is work that needs to be done, and the private sector is more worried about making money than providing services, which is why there is so much of our society that I think we should never privatize (education, healthcare, the military, police, fire, etc, etc, etc, the list just keeps going) and to think we should or can is not only foolish, but exactly how we got into the situation we are in right now.
RE: voting for Hillary.
I had a discussion with a friend recently about why he (retired, on-paper millionaire) was going to vote for Hillary. His response was exactly right. Stability. Hilary represents stability, the continuation of the status quo. His on-paper millionaire status will (hopefully) stay the same through her presidency. That's it. It's the bottom line. Money. He has his, and he wants to keep it until he dies and then he wants to make sure his wife will have it once he is gone.
If that is why so many older Democrats want Hillary, they should say so. They should not be embarrassed about wanting to protect their accumulated wealth. But they can't call themselves progressives. They can barely call themselves liberal (though, with how utterly mangled the definition of that words has become due to the insanities of our current culture, it is really hard to argue with someone working from the popular cultural reality, versus what the word has meant historically or in academic literature). I appreciate my friends honesty. He likes Bernie Sanders, and would have voted for him in a heartbeat 10, 15, 20 years ago. But not that he has something, he is worried about it being taken away.
RE: Lloyd Blankenpoophead.
Well, yes, having a zealot in office should scare the crap out of him, and he is absolutely right that a Sanders administration will be "dangerous". But that's what you get by listening to James Buchanan too much. It is also what you get from lying to the population for decades while fleecing them blind. There are too many people who, maybe don't have it awful, sure as hell are tired of not having what their parents had, or not having what they sacrificed and worked really really hard for and having it disappear before they can even get to the door, let alone have the door shut in their faces.
I do fear that if there is a "revolution" (i,e, Sanders wins, downticket votes give the Congress and Senate back to the Democrats, etc, etc, etc), that the younger people who did vote for the changes will not be satisfied with how long those changes will take to implement. That will turn a lot of people away from politics, again, just like it did in 2009 (i.e. the low voter turnout in 2010, and the aftermath of that). But, I guess we'll address that when we cross that bridge.
posted by daq at 6:59 PM on February 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
So while I don't agree with them I sure as fuck understand it and it's not spite.
Sure it is. Dress it up how you want, but it sure is spite. Because as I said way upthread, someone is going to be President after the election. You and your friends know that. There are actual, real world, consequences here, and the worst of them is nowhere close to not getting to vote for a Left enough candidate.
posted by OmieWise at 7:02 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sure it is. Dress it up how you want, but it sure is spite. Because as I said way upthread, someone is going to be President after the election. You and your friends know that. There are actual, real world, consequences here, and the worst of them is nowhere close to not getting to vote for a Left enough candidate.
posted by OmieWise at 7:02 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Stability. Hilary represents stability, the continuation of the status quo.
A lot of us who are young, queer, women, minorities, etc., are willing to take a chance voting against the status quo at this point.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:02 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
A lot of us who are young, queer, women, minorities, etc., are willing to take a chance voting against the status quo at this point.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:02 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'll vote for the most-left candidate in the election. If it's Bernie Sanders, than it's Bernie Sanders. If it's Hillary Clinton, than it's Hillary Clinton. But I'll be holding my nose as I pull the lever for her...
posted by mikelieman at 7:04 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mikelieman at 7:04 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
daq of course you would get some of that $5,000. I accepted the pay I did because good medical was included. Without it I want more compensation.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:06 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 7:06 PM on February 8, 2016
But if our best and only argument is "we're less corrupt than the other guys," and our party is supposed to be the one against that sort of corruption, we look like huge lying hypocrites to people and they stay home. I don't know if regular Democratic voters see that, but that's the way it looks to so many nonvoters - "at least the Republicans are up front about what they want - Dems are just lying about it and enrich themselves the same exact way, they're just hypocrites about it." And I say that as someone who has voted in every election, no matter how small, since the day I turned 18.
posted by dialetheia at 7:11 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dialetheia at 7:11 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are actual, real world, consequences here, and the worst of them is nowhere close to not getting to vote for a Left enough candidate.
Absolutely, but it's thinking like this that keeps us locked in a two party system that is shifting right and increasing income inequality. As long as we don't vote for a candidate, but instead vote to keep the other guy from winning, we only perpetuate a broken system. People become more pragmatic when they are in the booth, but I think a lot of Clinton supporters believe they can count on Sanders' supporters, and I am suggesting that may not be so.
To most of America these candidates (on either side) do not live lives representative of their constituents. They can't relate. Same planet, different worlds. So either start fielding candidate people can believe it, trust, and relate to, or don't be shocked when they don't vote or make a protest vote.
Me? I'll either vote Green or write in Sanders.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:17 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Absolutely, but it's thinking like this that keeps us locked in a two party system that is shifting right and increasing income inequality. As long as we don't vote for a candidate, but instead vote to keep the other guy from winning, we only perpetuate a broken system. People become more pragmatic when they are in the booth, but I think a lot of Clinton supporters believe they can count on Sanders' supporters, and I am suggesting that may not be so.
To most of America these candidates (on either side) do not live lives representative of their constituents. They can't relate. Same planet, different worlds. So either start fielding candidate people can believe it, trust, and relate to, or don't be shocked when they don't vote or make a protest vote.
Me? I'll either vote Green or write in Sanders.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:17 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
. They are taking a longer view.... I've voted third party before to send a message
I'll say it again: there is no message. It's part of the noise. There is no way anyone - any analyst, any politician, and party - can know why you voted the way you did. All there is is the outcome.
posted by Miko at 7:18 PM on February 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'll say it again: there is no message. It's part of the noise. There is no way anyone - any analyst, any politician, and party - can know why you voted the way you did. All there is is the outcome.
posted by Miko at 7:18 PM on February 8, 2016 [9 favorites]
Absolutely, but it's thinking like this that keeps us locked in a two party system that is shifting right and increasing income inequality.
I think a lot of us are looking at the shifting electorate and the 2020 redistricting, not just committing to this status quo forever.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:19 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think a lot of us are looking at the shifting electorate and the 2020 redistricting, not just committing to this status quo forever.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:19 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
As far as third party or nonvoting goes, Clinton's people are already making public statements threatening to vote for Bloomberg if Sanders is nominated.
posted by dialetheia at 7:23 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 7:23 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
There is no way anyone - any analyst, any politician, and party - can know why you voted the way you did.
Not true. In Iowa you have to win a percentage of the vote to be a recognized party. Same thing to appear on the national ballots. They might not know why, but then can see what is appealing about those parties and try to court their vote. Also, exit polls tell what motivated voters.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:25 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not true. In Iowa you have to win a percentage of the vote to be a recognized party. Same thing to appear on the national ballots. They might not know why, but then can see what is appealing about those parties and try to court their vote. Also, exit polls tell what motivated voters.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:25 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
As long as we don't vote for a candidate, but instead vote to keep the other guy from winning, we only perpetuate a broken system. People become more pragmatic when they are in the booth, but I think a lot of Clinton supporters believe they can count on Sanders' supporters, and I am suggesting that may not be so.
This is what worries me, and what makes me wish Sanders had not run. The vision that has Clinton=Cruz is a broken vision, and one that is not actually serious about how the political system in the US works. I say this as someone who voted for Nader and does not particularly like Clinton.
As far as third party or nonvoting goes, Clinton's people are already making public statements threatening to vote for Bloomberg if Sanders is nominated.
Can you point to examples in this thread? Because all I see in this thread is Sanders supporters saying they will not vote for Clinton.
posted by OmieWise at 7:27 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is what worries me, and what makes me wish Sanders had not run. The vision that has Clinton=Cruz is a broken vision, and one that is not actually serious about how the political system in the US works. I say this as someone who voted for Nader and does not particularly like Clinton.
As far as third party or nonvoting goes, Clinton's people are already making public statements threatening to vote for Bloomberg if Sanders is nominated.
Can you point to examples in this thread? Because all I see in this thread is Sanders supporters saying they will not vote for Clinton.
posted by OmieWise at 7:27 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
As far as third party or nonvoting goes, Clinton's people are already making public statements threatening to vote for Bloomberg if Sanders is nominated.
I'm the opposite. Would vote Bloomberg (or write in Green) if Clinton is the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:27 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm the opposite. Would vote Bloomberg (or write in Green) if Clinton is the nominee.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:27 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can you point to examples in this thread? Because all I see in this thread is Sanders supporters saying they will not vote for Clinton.
First of all, I think her high-profile advisors with quotes threatening not to support the nominee published in the New York Times are orders of magnitude more important than comments at the bottom of a 2k+ comment thread on Metafilter.
Second, I thought that's what the whole electability argument rested on - that many Democrats who would have voted for her would be spooked and wouldn't come out and vote for him if he was the nominee. I mean, Hillary Clinton isn't going to get a lot of support from independents - she's at -31% favorability with them - so it can't be all those independent votes she's going to win that will make her more electable than he is. The electability argument really depends on Democrats not coming out to vote for Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 7:33 PM on February 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
First of all, I think her high-profile advisors with quotes threatening not to support the nominee published in the New York Times are orders of magnitude more important than comments at the bottom of a 2k+ comment thread on Metafilter.
Second, I thought that's what the whole electability argument rested on - that many Democrats who would have voted for her would be spooked and wouldn't come out and vote for him if he was the nominee. I mean, Hillary Clinton isn't going to get a lot of support from independents - she's at -31% favorability with them - so it can't be all those independent votes she's going to win that will make her more electable than he is. The electability argument really depends on Democrats not coming out to vote for Sanders.
posted by dialetheia at 7:33 PM on February 8, 2016 [12 favorites]
In Iowa you have to win a percentage of the vote to be a recognized party.
I understand this, but you are missing my point. No one knows why you voted for one guy or the other, why you stayed home, or why you turned out. You talk about "sending a message," but your message is gibberish. No one can look at the aggregated, shapeless, faceless votes and understand that you, cjorgensen, and anyone else who voted with the same motivation want their party or the other party or some third party to move left, right, up, down, or in a spiral. Your message is essentially meaningless.
posted by Miko at 7:34 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I understand this, but you are missing my point. No one knows why you voted for one guy or the other, why you stayed home, or why you turned out. You talk about "sending a message," but your message is gibberish. No one can look at the aggregated, shapeless, faceless votes and understand that you, cjorgensen, and anyone else who voted with the same motivation want their party or the other party or some third party to move left, right, up, down, or in a spiral. Your message is essentially meaningless.
posted by Miko at 7:34 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I don't get this line of thinking of either side:
"I support X, the people want X!"
"Actually, the people have chosen, they choose Y!"
"Well screw the people, I'm choosing X (or Z)!"
posted by FJT at 7:34 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I support X, the people want X!"
"Actually, the people have chosen, they choose Y!"
"Well screw the people, I'm choosing X (or Z)!"
posted by FJT at 7:34 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's this year's "I'm moving to Canada if X wins"
posted by sweetkid at 7:37 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sweetkid at 7:37 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, and exit polls are mainly meant to allow news media to predict results and draw viewers. Scientific ones rarely get into motivations. Because they can be spun, and because at least some voters lie in their self-report, they are kind of garbage data too.
posted by Miko at 7:38 PM on February 8, 2016
posted by Miko at 7:38 PM on February 8, 2016
I guess I am used to living in Iowa where when I want a candidate to known something I tell them. I've shaken the hands of every presidential candidate in the last 13 years and spoken to most. I've also written letters and donated to quite a few campaigns and backed causes. I guess I expect if a candidate wants votes they will figure out what the voters are wanting.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:40 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cjorgensen at 7:40 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, and exit polls are mainly meant to allow news media to predict results and draw viewers. Scientific ones rarely get into motivations. Because they can be spun, and because at least some voters lie in their self-report, they are kind of garbage data too.
To be fair, media interpretations of exit polls really do drive narratives that go on to affect future elections, spin and all. We still tell all sorts of just-so stories about the Obama coalition based on exit polls, for example.
posted by dialetheia at 7:40 PM on February 8, 2016
To be fair, media interpretations of exit polls really do drive narratives that go on to affect future elections, spin and all. We still tell all sorts of just-so stories about the Obama coalition based on exit polls, for example.
posted by dialetheia at 7:40 PM on February 8, 2016
cjorgensen, I have agreed with the majority of what you have said in this thread but I beg you to reconsider not voting for clinton if she is the nominee. I will do so reluctantly because we cannot let a republican choose any of the next Supreme Court nominees. I view voting for her like getting vaccinated. Herd immunity against the noxious ways that republicans treat women and the poor etc.
posted by futz at 7:42 PM on February 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by futz at 7:42 PM on February 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
They do drive narratives and all that, but it's really indirect, and voting can't send a message when it's impossible to tell authentic supporters of a candidates' view from spite voters or people trying to have an influence on an entirely different party.
I guess I am used to living in Iowa...
That's great, I lived in NH for a few years and also Maine, another caucus state, so awesome for us because we enjoyed that kind of access. And everyone certainly has the access of email, the phone, donations, snail mail, the occasional town hall, etc., and should use it. I definitely agree that it makes sense to tell politicians exactly what you want in clear terms. I am critiquing only this imagined power of the protest or message vote, which I think is a particularly naive strategy, especially if it is the only political action someone is undertaking.
I guess I expect if a candidate wants votes they will figure out what the voters are wanting.
With varying degrees of success. I tend to think we're all best off if we tell them in straightforward terms.
posted by Miko at 7:44 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I guess I am used to living in Iowa...
That's great, I lived in NH for a few years and also Maine, another caucus state, so awesome for us because we enjoyed that kind of access. And everyone certainly has the access of email, the phone, donations, snail mail, the occasional town hall, etc., and should use it. I definitely agree that it makes sense to tell politicians exactly what you want in clear terms. I am critiquing only this imagined power of the protest or message vote, which I think is a particularly naive strategy, especially if it is the only political action someone is undertaking.
I guess I expect if a candidate wants votes they will figure out what the voters are wanting.
With varying degrees of success. I tend to think we're all best off if we tell them in straightforward terms.
posted by Miko at 7:44 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
"We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood."
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:55 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:55 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder about the way living in an early state/swing state vs. living in a later primary state/non-swing state influences the voters' relationships with the candidates. In Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina they get swamped with candidates. Diners, rallys, meet & greets, state fairs, etc. We outsiders can only go off their public personas, political records, stated platforms and other distant ways to judge them as candidates. Everyone that doesn't live in those states is living a much different primary campaign than those inside. In early primary states a lot more of the public has interacted personally with the candidates in one form or another, so they're voting based on much different information.
Similarly, with the Ohio/Florida/Colorado/etc. general election swing states, those voters again get much more interaction with the candidates than those states that reliably vote D or R. Candidates may make big shows about visiting most/every state during the election but in reality only about five of them matter. So the general election candidates spend most of their time there.
Then there are states like the one I grew up in (Oklahoma - later primary/reliably for one party in the general) and the one I live in now (California - same late primary/reliable general situation as before with a bit more visits for fundraising). The average person in these places only knows the candidates through the news/TV/internet. And so their motivations for voting will be different.
(This is purely a thought experiment. Not advocating one candidate or another. I just have to imagine it makes a difference in the calculation.)
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:08 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Similarly, with the Ohio/Florida/Colorado/etc. general election swing states, those voters again get much more interaction with the candidates than those states that reliably vote D or R. Candidates may make big shows about visiting most/every state during the election but in reality only about five of them matter. So the general election candidates spend most of their time there.
Then there are states like the one I grew up in (Oklahoma - later primary/reliably for one party in the general) and the one I live in now (California - same late primary/reliable general situation as before with a bit more visits for fundraising). The average person in these places only knows the candidates through the news/TV/internet. And so their motivations for voting will be different.
(This is purely a thought experiment. Not advocating one candidate or another. I just have to imagine it makes a difference in the calculation.)
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:08 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wow - Millenials already had a higher opinion of socialism than capitalism as of June 2015, before Sanders even began to introduce democratic socialism into the mainstream. Democrats viewed socialism and capitalism equally favorably. I wonder how that's changed since his campaign has gained steam.
posted by dialetheia at 8:11 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:11 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
He might do well arguing "we need both socialism and capitalism" and styling himself as a New Deal Democrat, which is really what he is when it comes down to it.
posted by dialetheia at 8:15 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 8:15 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't even know what the fuck socialism means anymore, I guess IKEA and Lego are revolutionary cooperatives run by workers' councils these days?
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:17 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:17 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Imagine you are in a car hurtling towards a wall at 70 miles per hour and the only way to stop is for the driver to slam on the brakes as hard as they can. Instead, the driver gives you two choices only. They can floor the gas peddle and speed up or they can lightly tap the brakes. Sure, tapping the breaks may buy you some more time, but you are still going to hit the wall very soon.
At a certain point, your only option to live is to reject the false idea that there are only two choices.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:22 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
At a certain point, your only option to live is to reject the false idea that there are only two choices.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:22 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't even know what the fuck socialism means anymore
To Bernie Sanders, it apparently means the Tea Party definition of socialism: anything the government does. It does not mean for him (he said this explicitly in one debate) what it means for me, which is worker control of production.
On another note, ye shall reap what ye hath sown: 18-34 year old New Hampshire women who are likely Democratic voters favor Bernie by 87% to 9% for Clinton.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:25 PM on February 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
To Bernie Sanders, it apparently means the Tea Party definition of socialism: anything the government does. It does not mean for him (he said this explicitly in one debate) what it means for me, which is worker control of production.
On another note, ye shall reap what ye hath sown: 18-34 year old New Hampshire women who are likely Democratic voters favor Bernie by 87% to 9% for Clinton.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 8:25 PM on February 8, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well, he's properly a democratic socialist, but he would still need to get past being labeled as the other kind of socialist, so he kind of has to address both. And really, Republicans already convinced most of America that our most bedrock social service programs were full-on socialist, so they're the ones who muddied the waters in this context, I think.
Sanders gave a speech on on how he envisions democratic socialism applying to the United States. It's actually pretty interesting. He talks about Franklin Delano Roosevelt a lot.
posted by dialetheia at 8:26 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders gave a speech on on how he envisions democratic socialism applying to the United States. It's actually pretty interesting. He talks about Franklin Delano Roosevelt a lot.
posted by dialetheia at 8:26 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am terrified about what will happen in November and saddened* by this process.
One way Clinton and Sanders will both be able to effect change despite Congress is through bureaucracy and regulatory policy. Even setting aside the issue of appointments, the person sitting in the Oval Office can direct things like what investigations different governmental entities pursue, what matters the government chooses to litigate, etc.
Oh well, off to watch the video of Carson and Trump loitering in the debate wings for the 100th time and try not to think about Celebrity Apprentice: Federal Government, Season 1.
*That Gloria Steinem quote may have caused a couple tears of disappointment in my household. And I would be more than ok if I never again heard about women, any women, having a "special" place in hell.
posted by sallybrown at 8:46 PM on February 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
One way Clinton and Sanders will both be able to effect change despite Congress is through bureaucracy and regulatory policy. Even setting aside the issue of appointments, the person sitting in the Oval Office can direct things like what investigations different governmental entities pursue, what matters the government chooses to litigate, etc.
Oh well, off to watch the video of Carson and Trump loitering in the debate wings for the 100th time and try not to think about Celebrity Apprentice: Federal Government, Season 1.
*That Gloria Steinem quote may have caused a couple tears of disappointment in my household. And I would be more than ok if I never again heard about women, any women, having a "special" place in hell.
posted by sallybrown at 8:46 PM on February 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
At a certain point, your only option to live is to reject the false idea that there are only two choices.
There are precisely two choices that matter when your third choice is a once-every-four-years protest vote in a Presidential election. There are plenty of actions one can take to move things in that direction that don't have the massive downside risks of throwing your vote away when it could be needed, but somehow the only one people actually bother with is the one that has zero chance of doing anything positive but an appreciable chance of doing immense harm.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:58 PM on February 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
There are precisely two choices that matter when your third choice is a once-every-four-years protest vote in a Presidential election. There are plenty of actions one can take to move things in that direction that don't have the massive downside risks of throwing your vote away when it could be needed, but somehow the only one people actually bother with is the one that has zero chance of doing anything positive but an appreciable chance of doing immense harm.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:58 PM on February 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
The chance my vote will actually have any impact on the race is practically zero. That's why I feel fine voting for good candidates of my choice and hoping other people eventually start to agree with my judgements. We are hitting that wall eventually otherwise.
But if you are correct that my vote has an appreciable chance of doing immense harm, well you better start pandering to me and nominate someone I can vote for. Not my fault if Democrats decide not to when my vote is so important.
Oh, and like a lot of independent voters, my involvement goes way beyond just voting. I suggest it's more the centrist voting for Hillary crowd that does little but pay attention once every four years to vote for their team. Or vote Bush and give him Florida.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:13 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
But if you are correct that my vote has an appreciable chance of doing immense harm, well you better start pandering to me and nominate someone I can vote for. Not my fault if Democrats decide not to when my vote is so important.
Oh, and like a lot of independent voters, my involvement goes way beyond just voting. I suggest it's more the centrist voting for Hillary crowd that does little but pay attention once every four years to vote for their team. Or vote Bush and give him Florida.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:13 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Jacobin: Meet the New Harry and Louise
posted by tonycpsu at 9:18 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:18 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Dixville Notch results:
Sanders: 4
Clinton: 0
Kasich: 3
Trump: 2
posted by sallybrown at 9:19 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
Sanders: 4
Clinton: 0
Kasich: 3
Trump: 2
posted by sallybrown at 9:19 PM on February 8, 2016 [7 favorites]
The chance my vote will actually have any impact on the race is practically zero.
The chance of any one vote having any impact on the race is practically zero, so that's a meaningless response. Obviously, you would not be the only person voting for a third party candidate. The point is that, like in 2000, you get enough people neglecting the actual consequences of their vote and vote for the feel-good candidate so they don't sully themselves with a lesser-evils vote and suddenly you're not just one voter, you're a large enough minority to have a real chance of affecting the outcome, but of course nowhere near enough to win an election. All to "send a message", a strategy that didn't work then and certainly won't work now.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:31 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
The chance of any one vote having any impact on the race is practically zero, so that's a meaningless response. Obviously, you would not be the only person voting for a third party candidate. The point is that, like in 2000, you get enough people neglecting the actual consequences of their vote and vote for the feel-good candidate so they don't sully themselves with a lesser-evils vote and suddenly you're not just one voter, you're a large enough minority to have a real chance of affecting the outcome, but of course nowhere near enough to win an election. All to "send a message", a strategy that didn't work then and certainly won't work now.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:31 PM on February 8, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hart's Location results are in, too. (LOVE the name of that town, by the way.)
Bernie Sanders – 12
Hillary Clinton – 7
Mark Stewart Greenstein – 2
John Kasich – 5
Donald J. Trump – 4
Chris Christie – 2
Marco Rubio – 1
Jeb Bush – 1
Ben Carson – 1
posted by CommonSense at 9:53 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie Sanders – 12
Hillary Clinton – 7
Mark Stewart Greenstein – 2
John Kasich – 5
Donald J. Trump – 4
Chris Christie – 2
Marco Rubio – 1
Jeb Bush – 1
Ben Carson – 1
posted by CommonSense at 9:53 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
The chance of any one vote having any impact on the race is practically zero, so that's a meaningless response.
I only have one vote I can meaningfully speak for, bro.
The point is that, like in 2000
What happened in 2000 was more centrist Democratic voters picked George W. Bush than Nader voters existed. That is your dangerous demographic you should get upset and worried about. Once the Democrats get their own party in line, they can start on the far more difficult task of persuading skeptical independent voters.
All to "send a message", a strategy that didn't work then and certainly won't work now.
He said, as the car crashed into the wall despite the break tapping. I'd rather go down yelling for someone to slam the breaks, even if they don't listen.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:57 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I only have one vote I can meaningfully speak for, bro.
The point is that, like in 2000
What happened in 2000 was more centrist Democratic voters picked George W. Bush than Nader voters existed. That is your dangerous demographic you should get upset and worried about. Once the Democrats get their own party in line, they can start on the far more difficult task of persuading skeptical independent voters.
All to "send a message", a strategy that didn't work then and certainly won't work now.
He said, as the car crashed into the wall despite the break tapping. I'd rather go down yelling for someone to slam the breaks, even if they don't listen.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:57 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wonder what the percentage of voters who practice strategic voting is?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:59 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:59 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hearing Donald Trump Call Ted Cruz a Pussy Told Me Everything I Need to Know About His Campaign
posted by homunculus at 10:20 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 10:20 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
I only have one vote I can meaningfully speak for, bro.
Since you seem to love car metaphors, do you also drive without considering other cars on the road, or do you recognize that your path toward getting where you want to go depends on part on the actions of others?
What happened in 2000 was more centrist Democratic voters picked George W. Bush than Nader voters existed.
Cite. At this point, the poli sci debate has moved on from "was Nader statistically a spoiler" (he was) to "did he intentionally spoil, or was he making a good faith effort to get 5% of the vote and simply didn't give a shit about spoiling."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:21 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Since you seem to love car metaphors, do you also drive without considering other cars on the road, or do you recognize that your path toward getting where you want to go depends on part on the actions of others?
What happened in 2000 was more centrist Democratic voters picked George W. Bush than Nader voters existed.
Cite. At this point, the poli sci debate has moved on from "was Nader statistically a spoiler" (he was) to "did he intentionally spoil, or was he making a good faith effort to get 5% of the vote and simply didn't give a shit about spoiling."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:21 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
The really important thing here is that we must do absolutely nothing to change our political system in any way that would eliminate the spoiler effect so that every couple of decades when it arises as a possibility the two major parties don't miss the opportunity to whine about how their divine rights to everyones' votes is being interfered with.
posted by XMLicious at 10:26 PM on February 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 10:26 PM on February 8, 2016 [11 favorites]
So I realize this question was some time ago, but:
Is it just me, or is the Democratic side of things incredibly vicious this year in a way it hasn't been before? I don't mean specifically in attack ads, but I mean more "You are a bad person if you pick Clinton/Sanders"
I've been thinking about this, as I wanted to get out of this thread a bit before I answered. Speaking from personal experience - Yes, I think it absolutely is more vicious. There is a "if you are not with us then you are against" us mentality that is greater than what I have personally experienced. Many of the articles and much of the activity I've seen online are really reinforcing my beliefs on this. Certainly, some of the conversations here reflect it as well.
I saw two people in a shouting match over Sanders/Clinton outside of a coffee shop just today. Like a near trading blows sort of thing, with a few people on each side holding them back. That was different. I don't think I can judge the overall climate of political discourse based on that one outlier, but it was certainly new - It'd be one thing to see it outside a bar late at night, it's an entirely new thing for me to see that during the middle of the day over lattes. Then again, I'm relatively new to the area, maybe that's just how you guys do things in Seattle.
Anyways, I think the viciousness is rooted in several things: Part of it is the ability to avoid conflicting beliefs / reinforce your own in social media I mentioned upstream. Part of it is that there's a lot of general nervousness on the Democratic side due to how close some of the supreme court decisions were, and how the next president will likely appoint someone - and so many recent judicial decisions that can affect a lot of peoples lives hang in the balance. Part of it is that so much of the presidential campaign cycle has already been going on for what seems like forever, starting back when a seemingly endless stream of Republicans were announcing their candidacy, while the Democratic party was basically saying "You get Hillary, deal with it." Part of it is that unreasonably high expectations were set for Obama that literally nobody could live up to due to the limitations of the executive office, and many of the idealists who supported him became very cynical due to his perceived shortcomings, his stance shifting on a few things in ways that many felt betrayed democratic ideals, and possibly due to his personal authorization of drone strikes as well.
All of this has been on top of the fact that the general discourse is at what seems to be an all-time low, and it has been two presidential terms of endless partisan theater with non-stop media coverage, and with an absurdly low level of approval of congress - it's a ton of negativity that can seem very difficult to escape. I think that sort of non-stop negativity affects people... I'd imagine that if you were to perform an experiment where, say, one group of primates was exposed to non-stop imagery of our political theater, and another wasn't, you'd see the group that was exposed end up at least irritable, if not outright violent. The political actions we are exposed to on the national stage cannot be doing us any favors in that regard.
I don't think much of this is provable (although I really wish someone did the primate experiment) and I'm really basing this off of personal experience, and the overall feelings I've had of things being more and more politically divisive as time has passed and my life has changed. It's something I've been conscious of for many years now, and it's has greatly bothered me. I've certainly seen friendships and marriages destroyed due to this need for absolute political agreement.
Anyways, I feel like everything I mentioned is just scratching the surface of the root causes - but more than anything else, I have the feeling that this is going to be an incredibly nasty election. I can't see how there isn't going to be bad blood on all sides, no matter what the outcome is.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:27 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
Is it just me, or is the Democratic side of things incredibly vicious this year in a way it hasn't been before? I don't mean specifically in attack ads, but I mean more "You are a bad person if you pick Clinton/Sanders"
I've been thinking about this, as I wanted to get out of this thread a bit before I answered. Speaking from personal experience - Yes, I think it absolutely is more vicious. There is a "if you are not with us then you are against" us mentality that is greater than what I have personally experienced. Many of the articles and much of the activity I've seen online are really reinforcing my beliefs on this. Certainly, some of the conversations here reflect it as well.
I saw two people in a shouting match over Sanders/Clinton outside of a coffee shop just today. Like a near trading blows sort of thing, with a few people on each side holding them back. That was different. I don't think I can judge the overall climate of political discourse based on that one outlier, but it was certainly new - It'd be one thing to see it outside a bar late at night, it's an entirely new thing for me to see that during the middle of the day over lattes. Then again, I'm relatively new to the area, maybe that's just how you guys do things in Seattle.
Anyways, I think the viciousness is rooted in several things: Part of it is the ability to avoid conflicting beliefs / reinforce your own in social media I mentioned upstream. Part of it is that there's a lot of general nervousness on the Democratic side due to how close some of the supreme court decisions were, and how the next president will likely appoint someone - and so many recent judicial decisions that can affect a lot of peoples lives hang in the balance. Part of it is that so much of the presidential campaign cycle has already been going on for what seems like forever, starting back when a seemingly endless stream of Republicans were announcing their candidacy, while the Democratic party was basically saying "You get Hillary, deal with it." Part of it is that unreasonably high expectations were set for Obama that literally nobody could live up to due to the limitations of the executive office, and many of the idealists who supported him became very cynical due to his perceived shortcomings, his stance shifting on a few things in ways that many felt betrayed democratic ideals, and possibly due to his personal authorization of drone strikes as well.
All of this has been on top of the fact that the general discourse is at what seems to be an all-time low, and it has been two presidential terms of endless partisan theater with non-stop media coverage, and with an absurdly low level of approval of congress - it's a ton of negativity that can seem very difficult to escape. I think that sort of non-stop negativity affects people... I'd imagine that if you were to perform an experiment where, say, one group of primates was exposed to non-stop imagery of our political theater, and another wasn't, you'd see the group that was exposed end up at least irritable, if not outright violent. The political actions we are exposed to on the national stage cannot be doing us any favors in that regard.
I don't think much of this is provable (although I really wish someone did the primate experiment) and I'm really basing this off of personal experience, and the overall feelings I've had of things being more and more politically divisive as time has passed and my life has changed. It's something I've been conscious of for many years now, and it's has greatly bothered me. I've certainly seen friendships and marriages destroyed due to this need for absolute political agreement.
Anyways, I feel like everything I mentioned is just scratching the surface of the root causes - but more than anything else, I have the feeling that this is going to be an incredibly nasty election. I can't see how there isn't going to be bad blood on all sides, no matter what the outcome is.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:27 PM on February 8, 2016 [5 favorites]
The really important thing here is that we must do absolutely nothing to change our political system in any way that would eliminate the spoiler effect so that every couple of decades when it arises as a possibility the two major parties don't miss the opportunity to whine about how their divine rights to everyones' votes is being interfered with.
Systemic political change and protest votes are entirely orthogonal. Defending lesser-evils voting is not defending the two-party first-past-the-post system, nor is a protest vote an action that in any way brings about any reform to that system.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:38 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
Systemic political change and protest votes are entirely orthogonal. Defending lesser-evils voting is not defending the two-party first-past-the-post system, nor is a protest vote an action that in any way brings about any reform to that system.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:38 PM on February 8, 2016 [2 favorites]
What happened in 2000 was more centrist Democratic voters picked George W. Bush than Nader voters existed.
Cite.
Come on, you don't actually need this cited. It's been pointed out a million times before. Don't make a tired derail more tired.
Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:46 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Cite.
Come on, you don't actually need this cited. It's been pointed out a million times before. Don't make a tired derail more tired.
Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:46 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oh, and like a lot of independent voters, my involvement goes way beyond just voting.
That's not true except in the limited sense that a small fraction of almost any group in the US is a large absolute number.
By taking the crazy step of asking people questions, we've learned that most independents are just partisans who refuse to admit it for whatever reason. They're at most only barely behaviorally or attitudinally distinguishable from weak partisans.
The independents who mean it are mostly just lunkheads. In just about any federal election, pure independents will be the least involved, the least interested, the least likely to vote, the least knowledgeable about politics. One shudders to think how much the few people who are actually interested and involved independents are dragging the average up for the larger group of pure independents.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:53 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's not true except in the limited sense that a small fraction of almost any group in the US is a large absolute number.
By taking the crazy step of asking people questions, we've learned that most independents are just partisans who refuse to admit it for whatever reason. They're at most only barely behaviorally or attitudinally distinguishable from weak partisans.
The independents who mean it are mostly just lunkheads. In just about any federal election, pure independents will be the least involved, the least interested, the least likely to vote, the least knowledgeable about politics. One shudders to think how much the few people who are actually interested and involved independents are dragging the average up for the larger group of pure independents.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:53 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
In just about any federal election, pure independents will be the least involved, the least interested, the least likely to vote, the least knowledgeable about politics.
Well, why WOULD you be heavily engaged in a corrupt system deliberately designed to keep all but the two parties out of power? Like, how are hardcore partisans shocked when independents recoil at playing a game with them when they are shouting to the rooftops that it's set up to predetermine that the independent will lose?
That said: In this study, I apply psychological theories of attitude importance to explain high variation in political-engagement levels among independents. Using two recent datasets, I find engagement levels are comparable across independents and partisans, yet predictors of their engagement differ substantially.
Though there is variation, independents are just as engaged as partisans as a group.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:03 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, why WOULD you be heavily engaged in a corrupt system deliberately designed to keep all but the two parties out of power? Like, how are hardcore partisans shocked when independents recoil at playing a game with them when they are shouting to the rooftops that it's set up to predetermine that the independent will lose?
That said: In this study, I apply psychological theories of attitude importance to explain high variation in political-engagement levels among independents. Using two recent datasets, I find engagement levels are comparable across independents and partisans, yet predictors of their engagement differ substantially.
Though there is variation, independents are just as engaged as partisans as a group.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:03 PM on February 8, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's been pointed out a million times before.
And it was bullshit every one of those million times, because Nader's very presence meant that Gore had to devote resources in swing states to fighting his left flank while simultaneously trying to appeal to those Bush-curious Democrats. This, combined with the statistical evidence that Nader's direct effect was more than the margin of victory, destroys the case made in that Salon piece. Nader's entry didn't just take votes away, it also forced Gore to fight on two fronts at once. Blaming Gore for not doing enough to hold onto Democrats is akin to setting your neighbor's house on fire and then complaining that they're not using enough water to put it out.
Throw the derail flag if you like, but that's some flimsy evidence, and if people are still talking about sending messages and nobody doing enough to earn their vote, we've clearly learned nothing.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:08 PM on February 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
And it was bullshit every one of those million times, because Nader's very presence meant that Gore had to devote resources in swing states to fighting his left flank while simultaneously trying to appeal to those Bush-curious Democrats. This, combined with the statistical evidence that Nader's direct effect was more than the margin of victory, destroys the case made in that Salon piece. Nader's entry didn't just take votes away, it also forced Gore to fight on two fronts at once. Blaming Gore for not doing enough to hold onto Democrats is akin to setting your neighbor's house on fire and then complaining that they're not using enough water to put it out.
Throw the derail flag if you like, but that's some flimsy evidence, and if people are still talking about sending messages and nobody doing enough to earn their vote, we've clearly learned nothing.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:08 PM on February 8, 2016 [10 favorites]
And it was bullshit every one of those million times
No, it's fact, every single time. Gore could have completely ignored the Nader voters and campaigned to keep just 1% of those Democrats in Florida in his camp and he would have won. He ran a shit campaign, Nader didn't force him to. 3rd parties didn't handicap the Gore campaign with tons of Clinton baggage either. Or a waste of space like Lieberman as VP who was ready to be a Republican VP a few short years later. More self inflicted wounds.
because Nader's very presence meant that Gore had to devote resources in swing states to fighting his left flank while simultaneously trying to appeal to those Bush-curious Democrats.
I have less than zero sympathy for, "In this corrupt, rigged system we have set up to entrench our own power people getting fed up with us can cost us elections. It's not fair! Make them stop! Nobody is allowed to run but us!" It's taking the country hostage, and it's not the fault of 3rd parties. Democrats did, and continue to do, that damage to themselves.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:22 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
No, it's fact, every single time. Gore could have completely ignored the Nader voters and campaigned to keep just 1% of those Democrats in Florida in his camp and he would have won. He ran a shit campaign, Nader didn't force him to. 3rd parties didn't handicap the Gore campaign with tons of Clinton baggage either. Or a waste of space like Lieberman as VP who was ready to be a Republican VP a few short years later. More self inflicted wounds.
because Nader's very presence meant that Gore had to devote resources in swing states to fighting his left flank while simultaneously trying to appeal to those Bush-curious Democrats.
I have less than zero sympathy for, "In this corrupt, rigged system we have set up to entrench our own power people getting fed up with us can cost us elections. It's not fair! Make them stop! Nobody is allowed to run but us!" It's taking the country hostage, and it's not the fault of 3rd parties. Democrats did, and continue to do, that damage to themselves.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:22 PM on February 8, 2016 [6 favorites]
Those Nader voters had every right to stick it to Gore, and every right to be happy with the result.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:41 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 11:41 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
In retrospect, I suppose, Gore should gave run more to the right.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:42 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 11:42 PM on February 8, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, why WOULD you be heavily engaged in a corrupt system deliberately designed to keep all but the two parties out of power?
That's a disingenuous way to phrase it. It's not like the founders sat around and schemed to come up with a system which would, two hundred and fifty years into the future, keep out of power all but two parties which did not even exist yet.
The fact that there are pretty much always two major parties in this system isn't a nefarious plot, it's an emergent property. But that's because the two major parties incorporate into themselves what would be small parties in a parliamentary system. In our system the party alliances occur before the election while in a parliamentary system they occur after it. In either case, though, you get smaller interest groups forming alliances to try to cobble together a large enough coalition to gain a majority, however small.
The Greens or Socialists or whoever aren't out of power because the system is designed to screw them, they are out of power because their platforms do not appeal to enough people.
Having a tantrum and refusing to participate in the system as it exists does nothing but marginalize your vote and work to make sure the candidate which is most diametrically opposed to your own preferred positions has the best chance of winning.
posted by Justinian at 12:01 AM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
That's a disingenuous way to phrase it. It's not like the founders sat around and schemed to come up with a system which would, two hundred and fifty years into the future, keep out of power all but two parties which did not even exist yet.
The fact that there are pretty much always two major parties in this system isn't a nefarious plot, it's an emergent property. But that's because the two major parties incorporate into themselves what would be small parties in a parliamentary system. In our system the party alliances occur before the election while in a parliamentary system they occur after it. In either case, though, you get smaller interest groups forming alliances to try to cobble together a large enough coalition to gain a majority, however small.
The Greens or Socialists or whoever aren't out of power because the system is designed to screw them, they are out of power because their platforms do not appeal to enough people.
Having a tantrum and refusing to participate in the system as it exists does nothing but marginalize your vote and work to make sure the candidate which is most diametrically opposed to your own preferred positions has the best chance of winning.
posted by Justinian at 12:01 AM on February 9, 2016 [8 favorites]
There is a "if you are not with us then you are against" us mentality that is greater than what I have personally experienced.
Don't flatter yourself thinking you are experiencing the worst ever. As you imply, you may simply be inexperienced.
In 1968, it was Eugene McCarthy challenging the establishment candidates Johnson and then Humphrey. That was the famous "Get clean for Gene" campaign when the youngsters cut their hair and beards to work for McCarthy. Things got so bad it led to the assassination of Robert Kennedy on the campaign trail.
Then there was 1972 when Ed Muskie was attacked by the forged "Canuck Letter" and his wife was attacked as a drunk. George McGovern was the youth candidate and was attacked as the candidate of "amnesty, abortion, and acid" by the Democratic establishment candidate Humphrey.
In 1980, Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign was knee-capped by Ted Kennedy and his supporters. The third party darling was John Anderson who ran as the alternative to Reagan and Carter.
In 1992 there was Ross Perot. If you think the Bernie Bros are bad, they are nothing compared to the fanatical young Perot-skis.
And of course there were the Naderites of 2000.
So if you have some mistaken idea that vicious intra-party disagreements due to insurgents is something new, you are either very young or have a very poor memory.
posted by JackFlash at 12:02 AM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Don't flatter yourself thinking you are experiencing the worst ever. As you imply, you may simply be inexperienced.
In 1968, it was Eugene McCarthy challenging the establishment candidates Johnson and then Humphrey. That was the famous "Get clean for Gene" campaign when the youngsters cut their hair and beards to work for McCarthy. Things got so bad it led to the assassination of Robert Kennedy on the campaign trail.
Then there was 1972 when Ed Muskie was attacked by the forged "Canuck Letter" and his wife was attacked as a drunk. George McGovern was the youth candidate and was attacked as the candidate of "amnesty, abortion, and acid" by the Democratic establishment candidate Humphrey.
In 1980, Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign was knee-capped by Ted Kennedy and his supporters. The third party darling was John Anderson who ran as the alternative to Reagan and Carter.
In 1992 there was Ross Perot. If you think the Bernie Bros are bad, they are nothing compared to the fanatical young Perot-skis.
And of course there were the Naderites of 2000.
So if you have some mistaken idea that vicious intra-party disagreements due to insurgents is something new, you are either very young or have a very poor memory.
posted by JackFlash at 12:02 AM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
That's a disingenuous way to phrase it. It's not like the founders sat around and schemed to come up with a system which would, two hundred and fifty years into the future, keep out of power all but two parties which did not even exist yet.
Who's talking about the founders? Many founders were quite skeptical of parties, Washington called party politics a "formal and permanent despotism" and he was exactly right.
The things I'm complaining about are things that are being done today with the approval of the establishment personified by a candidate like Hillary Clinton. Freezing out third party candidates from debate stages. Onerous ballot access and public funding requirements. Gerrymandering districts to entrench party power. Welcoming the corrupting influence of wealthy donors on elections.
"They don't have enough support," is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course they can't win the game, it's rigged against them and everybody already knows it. It's not a newsflash. But Al Gore? Well sure he didn't win enough support either, but somehow that's not his fault even though he had every possible resource to win totally at his disposal and the system was rigged to make it happen. Gimme a break. He still only lost because the other party rigged it better anyway!
The drawback of allying before the election is being played out right before our eyes. When you do your alliances in a private organization's system the entrenched power can put their finger on the scale (as the Democratic establishment is currently doing) and in fact can just overturn the results any time they feel like it. How many times have I heard that the superdelegates lock it up for Hillary no matter what happens? It's true, they do. This primary election was over before this thread was even created and the polls weren't open yet.
Totally appropriate for a private party to reserve that right. However, if you are going to tell me the only time I'm allowed to vote for the candidate I want is in that primary system then we have a problem. It's unreasonable to say it's my fault if I don't want to vote for the result of that system in the general. If you want it that way, make it a fair election where the people decide.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:29 AM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Who's talking about the founders? Many founders were quite skeptical of parties, Washington called party politics a "formal and permanent despotism" and he was exactly right.
The things I'm complaining about are things that are being done today with the approval of the establishment personified by a candidate like Hillary Clinton. Freezing out third party candidates from debate stages. Onerous ballot access and public funding requirements. Gerrymandering districts to entrench party power. Welcoming the corrupting influence of wealthy donors on elections.
"They don't have enough support," is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course they can't win the game, it's rigged against them and everybody already knows it. It's not a newsflash. But Al Gore? Well sure he didn't win enough support either, but somehow that's not his fault even though he had every possible resource to win totally at his disposal and the system was rigged to make it happen. Gimme a break. He still only lost because the other party rigged it better anyway!
The drawback of allying before the election is being played out right before our eyes. When you do your alliances in a private organization's system the entrenched power can put their finger on the scale (as the Democratic establishment is currently doing) and in fact can just overturn the results any time they feel like it. How many times have I heard that the superdelegates lock it up for Hillary no matter what happens? It's true, they do. This primary election was over before this thread was even created and the polls weren't open yet.
Totally appropriate for a private party to reserve that right. However, if you are going to tell me the only time I'm allowed to vote for the candidate I want is in that primary system then we have a problem. It's unreasonable to say it's my fault if I don't want to vote for the result of that system in the general. If you want it that way, make it a fair election where the people decide.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:29 AM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
Good lord, who is advising the Clinton campaign?! Tonight their traveling press secretary actually doctored tweets to pick a fight with Mark Ruffalo and Susan Sarandon for tweeting links to this story about the State Department's surprising increases in arms sales to countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation (which is supposedly part of the FBI investigation). I can't imagine that they honestly intended to Streisand-effect this story, but I assume plenty more people will see it now that they've decided to accuse random celebrities of being in on some ridiculous Bernie smear machine. The story has been going around for months and is honestly quite concerning for Clinton's candidacy, so I can't imagine they really wanted more people to see it.
Mark Ruffalo and Susan Sarandon both tweeted links to that arms deal story separately, at totally different times. Then tonight, Clinton traveling press secretary Nick Merrill photoshopped their tweets to remove the link and accused them of using the suspiciously similar phrasing (which was simply the title of the linked article, which would have been clear had the links not been removed) as some sort of coordinated smear:
Nick Merrill: 2 eerily similar tweets, same baseless smear. @SusanSarandon @MarkRuffalo Dems attacking philanthropy is a new low.
Sarandon responds: .@NickMerrill @MarkRuffalo "eerily similar" because that's the title of the article we both shared that you didn't include in the screenshot
Step 1: piss off beloved celebrity activists by altering the record to make them look shady while simultaneously drawing huge amounts of attention to a story that looks horrible for your candidate
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Clinton 2016!
posted by dialetheia at 12:56 AM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
Mark Ruffalo and Susan Sarandon both tweeted links to that arms deal story separately, at totally different times. Then tonight, Clinton traveling press secretary Nick Merrill photoshopped their tweets to remove the link and accused them of using the suspiciously similar phrasing (which was simply the title of the linked article, which would have been clear had the links not been removed) as some sort of coordinated smear:
Nick Merrill: 2 eerily similar tweets, same baseless smear. @SusanSarandon @MarkRuffalo Dems attacking philanthropy is a new low.
Sarandon responds: .@NickMerrill @MarkRuffalo "eerily similar" because that's the title of the article we both shared that you didn't include in the screenshot
Step 1: piss off beloved celebrity activists by altering the record to make them look shady while simultaneously drawing huge amounts of attention to a story that looks horrible for your candidate
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Clinton 2016!
posted by dialetheia at 12:56 AM on February 9, 2016 [27 favorites]
New Study Finds Sanders’ Legislation Would Extend Social Security Solvency By 40 Years
On Thursday, the Social Security’s Office of the Chief Actuary found that Sanders’ legislation would extend the solvency of the program from the current estimate of 2034 to 2074. The increase in Social Security benefits would provide an additional $1,300 a year to seniors with less than $16,000 in income. Sanders’ bill would also increase the annual cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security recipients while fighting to significantly reduce the senior poverty rate.Robert Reich: The Volcanic Core Fueling the 2016 Election
The other day Bill Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders’s proposal for a single-payer health plan as unfeasible and a “recipe for gridlock.” Yet these days, nothing of any significance is feasible and every bold idea is a recipe for gridlock. This election is about changing the parameters of what’s feasible and ending the choke hold of big money on our political system. I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have. But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) Endorses Bernie Sanders for Democratic Nomination
The National Board of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the nation’s most experienced liberal advocacy group, announces today that ADA has voted overwhelmingly to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.posted by Room 641-A at 1:33 AM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
Dixville Notch results:
Kasich: 3
Trump: 2
-
During every election year since 1968, the candidate with the plurality of Dixville Notch's voters has been the eventual Republican nominee for president.
Ironclad statistic there. Everybody should change their predictions in the contest to Kasich.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:02 AM on February 9, 2016
Kasich: 3
Trump: 2
-
During every election year since 1968, the candidate with the plurality of Dixville Notch's voters has been the eventual Republican nominee for president.
Ironclad statistic there. Everybody should change their predictions in the contest to Kasich.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:02 AM on February 9, 2016
I can see Kasich going to the general election. He's one of the "appears more sane than the others" candidates
posted by mikelieman at 3:25 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 3:25 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Reading up on his platform on wikipedia, and yeah, there's a lot of 'not terribly shitty' to his credit. But this leaped out:
posted by mikelieman at 3:29 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
"The Kasich plan would have covered all Americans by 2005, using a form of an individual mandate that would have required employees to purchase insurance through their employers.Now I REALLY want to see a Sanders v. Kasich debate.
posted by mikelieman at 3:29 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Business career
Kasich served on the board of directors for several corporations, including Invacare Corporation and the Chicago-based Norvax Inc. In 2001, Kasich joined Lehman Brothers' investment banking division as a managing director.[57] He remained at Lehman Brothers until it declared bankruptcy in 2008. Lehman Brothers paid him a $182,692 salary and $432,200 bonus in 2008. He stated that the bonus was for work performed in 2007.[58]
*squee*
posted by mikelieman at 3:30 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Kasich served on the board of directors for several corporations, including Invacare Corporation and the Chicago-based Norvax Inc. In 2001, Kasich joined Lehman Brothers' investment banking division as a managing director.[57] He remained at Lehman Brothers until it declared bankruptcy in 2008. Lehman Brothers paid him a $182,692 salary and $432,200 bonus in 2008. He stated that the bonus was for work performed in 2007.[58]
*squee*
posted by mikelieman at 3:30 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh wow. The Republican establishment is a mess. Trump will have zero hesitation to go there if Kasich becomes a threat.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:57 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 3:57 AM on February 9, 2016
Kasich might be slightly saner than the rest of the field but he's still a terrible person.
posted by octothorpe at 4:22 AM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 4:22 AM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
Rachel Maddow has been very high on Kasich's New Hampshire campaign, but yeah, he's got terrible politics. (I have no idea if he is a terrible person or not.)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:39 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:39 AM on February 9, 2016
Kasich is on Morning Joe right now looking pretty damn calm and happy as a clam. A Kasich candidacy would turn Bloomberg into a pure spoiler for the Democrats, I think. Oy.
posted by sallybrown at 4:49 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 4:49 AM on February 9, 2016
Those Nader voters had every right to stick it to Gore, and every right to be happy with the result.
You could almost say they sent a message....
posted by cjorgensen at 4:58 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
You could almost say they sent a message....
posted by cjorgensen at 4:58 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Kasich is the moderate-track candidate. The establishment would prefer Rubio or Jeb, moldable men who fill out an expensive suit well, but the Bush name is marred by the failed presidency of his brother and his own milquetoast ineptitude. Rubio is an idiot, and has been exposed as such in the last debate. The businessmen would vastly prefer Christie, who's an old-model Rock-Ribbed Northeastern Republican, but more likable and engaging than R-Money. Neither are going to get what they want, as their men are awful campaigners. Kasich is the only moderate-track R with a decent ground game. Cruz is the Holly Roller of choice, and his campaign is brethtakiong in its organization and ruthlessness, so this leaves Kasich. He sounds reasonable and decent, knows how to use his budget, and can think strategically. He'll take NH, and this will change a lot of minds on the R side quavering between Christie and Rubio and Jeb.
It's going to be Trump, in the end, it always was, but Kasich will be the establishment's candidate of choice. He may come into the convention a spoiler and a lock for veep.
Hillary's campaign is imploding before our eyes. She's going scorched-earth again, and with many of the same tactics that failed against Obama. She's coming across as desperate and weasely - I think her campaign believes that if she can't keep it close in NH, she's in trouble deep. She's making things worse, not better, with the latest round of acrimony.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:03 AM on February 9, 2016
It's going to be Trump, in the end, it always was, but Kasich will be the establishment's candidate of choice. He may come into the convention a spoiler and a lock for veep.
Hillary's campaign is imploding before our eyes. She's going scorched-earth again, and with many of the same tactics that failed against Obama. She's coming across as desperate and weasely - I think her campaign believes that if she can't keep it close in NH, she's in trouble deep. She's making things worse, not better, with the latest round of acrimony.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:03 AM on February 9, 2016
I think her campaign believes that if she can't keep it close in NH, she's in trouble deep.
Do you mean Nevada? She was always expected to lose in NH. If she loses by less than 20 points that'll be considered a victory for her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:07 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Do you mean Nevada? She was always expected to lose in NH. If she loses by less than 20 points that'll be considered a victory for her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:07 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Does she have money for Nevada, after blowing all that cash in Iowa to squeak by with an effective tie? Can she raise money with a track record of "Not a blowout in Iowa and Lost in NH"?
Will the people of Nevada buy her spiel any more than people have so far?
posted by mikelieman at 5:11 AM on February 9, 2016
Will the people of Nevada buy her spiel any more than people have so far?
posted by mikelieman at 5:11 AM on February 9, 2016
I still can't for the life of me believe we're about to see Donald Trump win a primary. Surreal.
posted by sallybrown at 5:16 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 5:16 AM on February 9, 2016
I don't honestly believe the Clinton campaign is worried about the rest of February right now. What they should be worried about is March.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:16 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:16 AM on February 9, 2016
Systemic political change and protest votes are entirely orthogonal. Defending lesser-evils voting is not defending the two-party first-past-the-post system, nor is a protest vote an action that in any way brings about any reform to that system.
Defending the two-party system is exactly what you are doing by blaming the failures of that two-party system on people outside of it who "took votes away" that were supposedly owed to one of the two parties, rather than blaming the continuous ongoing inaction in reforming the system.
posted by XMLicious at 5:30 AM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Pointing out that the system has a limited number of possible outcomes is not 'defending the system.'
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:55 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:55 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
From the Politico link upthread:
posted by fifthrider at 5:58 AM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
- Clinton tried to turn the tables on Sanders in New Hampshire on Monday, saying he, too, has taken cash from Wall Street.
“Sen. Sanders took about $200,000 from Wall Street firms. Not directly, but through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee,” she said. “There was nothing wrong with that. It hasn't changed his view! Well, it didn't change my view or my vote either!”
posted by fifthrider at 5:58 AM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
In 1980, Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign was knee-capped by Ted Kennedy and his supporters. The third party darling was John Anderson who ran as the alternative to Reagan and Carter.
Two words: October Surprise
After twelve years of mixed media attention, both houses of the U.S. Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation.
Later, researchers found a document in the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library confirming that Casey had flown to Madrid for "unspecified reasons"--which both the Reagan and Bush administrations previously had vigorously denied. Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, who headed both the House of Representatives and governmental inquires into the "October Surprise allegations, said that the document withheld by the Bush administration "could have changed" the committees' conclusions.[2]
posted by Room 641-A at 6:09 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Two words: October Surprise
After twelve years of mixed media attention, both houses of the U.S. Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation.
Later, researchers found a document in the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library confirming that Casey had flown to Madrid for "unspecified reasons"--which both the Reagan and Bush administrations previously had vigorously denied. Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, who headed both the House of Representatives and governmental inquires into the "October Surprise allegations, said that the document withheld by the Bush administration "could have changed" the committees' conclusions.[2]
posted by Room 641-A at 6:09 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
She's making things worse, not better, with the latest round of acrimony.
I seriously thought she would implode in Iowa. Again.
She does incredibly dumb stuff. The whole "rope line" not only played poorly with reporters it didn't play well with Iowans in general. She is a polarizing figure. Even her supporters will say as much. And it seems like she's handled every single issue that's come up poorly.
Can she raise money with a track record of "Not a blowout in Iowa and Lost in NH"?
Clinton can keep going back to the well of big donors, but the problem there is Sanders has made it a poisoned well. Twice in Iowa she had to postpone New York fundraisers because the optics of her running off to gather up checks from out of state Wall Street banks looked bad.
Sanders has an army of supporters he can keep tapping.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:13 AM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
I seriously thought she would implode in Iowa. Again.
She does incredibly dumb stuff. The whole "rope line" not only played poorly with reporters it didn't play well with Iowans in general. She is a polarizing figure. Even her supporters will say as much. And it seems like she's handled every single issue that's come up poorly.
Can she raise money with a track record of "Not a blowout in Iowa and Lost in NH"?
Clinton can keep going back to the well of big donors, but the problem there is Sanders has made it a poisoned well. Twice in Iowa she had to postpone New York fundraisers because the optics of her running off to gather up checks from out of state Wall Street banks looked bad.
Sanders has an army of supporters he can keep tapping.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:13 AM on February 9, 2016 [5 favorites]
In retrospect, I suppose, Gore should gave run more to the right.
I don't think Gore was ever going to peel off rightward voters, no matter his efforts. I am biased in this, having been someone who was so disgusted by his rightward lean, selection of an anti-free-speech shitbag for veep, and distancing from Clinton (who I would have voted into a third term, for all my misgivings about him, if it had been possible) that I decided I wouldn't pick either and would just vote to try to get a third party sufficient numbers to get federal campaign funding.
Obviously in hindsight I wouldn't do that again, but like all voters I lack a time machine and can only go on what candidates say and do publically.
posted by phearlez at 6:31 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think Gore was ever going to peel off rightward voters, no matter his efforts. I am biased in this, having been someone who was so disgusted by his rightward lean, selection of an anti-free-speech shitbag for veep, and distancing from Clinton (who I would have voted into a third term, for all my misgivings about him, if it had been possible) that I decided I wouldn't pick either and would just vote to try to get a third party sufficient numbers to get federal campaign funding.
Obviously in hindsight I wouldn't do that again, but like all voters I lack a time machine and can only go on what candidates say and do publically.
posted by phearlez at 6:31 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton's campaign doubles down on attacking Sarandon and Ruffalo.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:33 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:33 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't see how Kasich can be considered moderate as he has signed legislation to drastically curtail abortion rights.
Or is pro-birth a hallmark of the center? If so, I'm glad I'm not a centrist.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:33 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or is pro-birth a hallmark of the center? If so, I'm glad I'm not a centrist.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 6:33 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton's Goldman Sachs speeches
There's the problem with not releasing the transcripts. You don't control the narrative. You can't refute anything anyone says. Some can literally say she advocated for the kicking of puppies and she can't say, "I did not," because people are just going to ask her to prove it, and she's refusing.
This is a story with legs. It's not going to go away. Rock/hard place and all that, but eventually she will have to release the transcripts. I can show my work if you disagree, but it comes down to death of a thousand cuts or just tearing the bandage off (are those metaphors mixed?). Eventually she'll release them, so why not get out in front of it? Put it behind her, move on. Only reason not to is if what she said is more damaging to her campaign than endless amounts of speculation.
Benghazi didn't work as an attack because the people upset by that weren't going to vote for her anyway. Sure, others are also upset, but those people don't blame Clinton. The email scandal can only hurt her in the event of an indictment, and again, the people it primarily resonates with weren't going to vote for her anyway. But the speeches, that plays right into the narrative of an establishment candidate unwilling to go against her financial institution masters. It resonates. Even if there is no there there it's still damaging because she's made it look like she has something to hide.
Calling for others to release theirs before she will isn't leadership. Also, unless I missed it she didn't ask for any specific candidate or speech. She asked for "Everyone that's ever given a paid speech" to go first. That's like some grade school level shit there. Just like her usual go to of "Others were doing this shitty thing too!" Even if she could make her lame accusation of Sanders raising money from Wall Street on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee stick, it doesn't exonerate her. I suppose if that's true people might want to see the contents of the Speeches Sanders gave to Goldman Sachs as well.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:35 AM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
There's the problem with not releasing the transcripts. You don't control the narrative. You can't refute anything anyone says. Some can literally say she advocated for the kicking of puppies and she can't say, "I did not," because people are just going to ask her to prove it, and she's refusing.
This is a story with legs. It's not going to go away. Rock/hard place and all that, but eventually she will have to release the transcripts. I can show my work if you disagree, but it comes down to death of a thousand cuts or just tearing the bandage off (are those metaphors mixed?). Eventually she'll release them, so why not get out in front of it? Put it behind her, move on. Only reason not to is if what she said is more damaging to her campaign than endless amounts of speculation.
Benghazi didn't work as an attack because the people upset by that weren't going to vote for her anyway. Sure, others are also upset, but those people don't blame Clinton. The email scandal can only hurt her in the event of an indictment, and again, the people it primarily resonates with weren't going to vote for her anyway. But the speeches, that plays right into the narrative of an establishment candidate unwilling to go against her financial institution masters. It resonates. Even if there is no there there it's still damaging because she's made it look like she has something to hide.
Calling for others to release theirs before she will isn't leadership. Also, unless I missed it she didn't ask for any specific candidate or speech. She asked for "Everyone that's ever given a paid speech" to go first. That's like some grade school level shit there. Just like her usual go to of "Others were doing this shitty thing too!" Even if she could make her lame accusation of Sanders raising money from Wall Street on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee stick, it doesn't exonerate her. I suppose if that's true people might want to see the contents of the Speeches Sanders gave to Goldman Sachs as well.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:35 AM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Clinton can keep going back to the well of big donors, but the problem there is Sanders has made it a poisoned well.
Hopefully this is a lasting outcome in open Democratic primary races, that candidates politically penalized for overreliance on big donors, even if Citizens United doesn't get rolled back.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:41 AM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Hopefully this is a lasting outcome in open Democratic primary races, that candidates politically penalized for overreliance on big donors, even if Citizens United doesn't get rolled back.
posted by tivalasvegas at 6:41 AM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
> 18-34 year old New Hampshire women who are likely Democratic voters favor Bernie by 87% to 9% for Clinton.
87%. 87%. That's astonishing. Question for Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem, etc: What do you think is driving this nearly collective decision by women under 35 to want to vote for Bernie? What? Sexism? Idiocy? Mass Hypnotism? Selfishness? Honestly, what on Earth are they saying when they blame the majority of women in them most important demographic of...what? As we say around here, just make the words come out of your face and tell these women what you really think of them.
She and her surrogates keep hammering this Berniebro narrative as the reason for all her campaign's troubles. Five days ago, after she squeaked by a loss to Bernie, she directly confronted Bernie about these asshole; he immediately turned around and unequivocally disavowed the campaign from these guys. He called them disgusting. Apparently these guys have been around since at least November of last year! Why didn't she confront him sooner? We know how he would have reacted, this could have been nipped in the bud. Oh, right, he wasn't a threat in November. All she and her surrogates have done now is give credibility to a tiny number of assholes, empowering them to harass more women.
I'll be curious to see if the harassment tapers off after Bernie's repudiation.
Clinton traveling press secretary Nick Merrill photoshopped their tweets to remove the link and accused them of using the suspiciously similar phrasing (which was simply the title of the linked article, which would have been clear had the links not been removed) as some sort of coordinated smear:
Surely you mean former Clinton traveling press secretary?
posted by Room 641-A at 6:46 AM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
87%. 87%. That's astonishing. Question for Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem, etc: What do you think is driving this nearly collective decision by women under 35 to want to vote for Bernie? What? Sexism? Idiocy? Mass Hypnotism? Selfishness? Honestly, what on Earth are they saying when they blame the majority of women in them most important demographic of...what? As we say around here, just make the words come out of your face and tell these women what you really think of them.
She and her surrogates keep hammering this Berniebro narrative as the reason for all her campaign's troubles. Five days ago, after she squeaked by a loss to Bernie, she directly confronted Bernie about these asshole; he immediately turned around and unequivocally disavowed the campaign from these guys. He called them disgusting. Apparently these guys have been around since at least November of last year! Why didn't she confront him sooner? We know how he would have reacted, this could have been nipped in the bud. Oh, right, he wasn't a threat in November. All she and her surrogates have done now is give credibility to a tiny number of assholes, empowering them to harass more women.
I'll be curious to see if the harassment tapers off after Bernie's repudiation.
Clinton traveling press secretary Nick Merrill photoshopped their tweets to remove the link and accused them of using the suspiciously similar phrasing (which was simply the title of the linked article, which would have been clear had the links not been removed) as some sort of coordinated smear:
Surely you mean former Clinton traveling press secretary?
posted by Room 641-A at 6:46 AM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't think Gore was ever going to peel off rightward voters, no matter his efforts. I am biased in this, having been someone who was so disgusted by his rightward lean, selection of an anti-free-speech shitbag for veep […]
Lest you forget Gore also has a history of being an anti-free-speech shitbag. He wasn't exactly out there repudiating the Washington Wives when they formed the Parents Music Resource Center. In fact, if I remember correctly someone quite close to him was leading the charge….
posted by cjorgensen at 6:54 AM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Lest you forget Gore also has a history of being an anti-free-speech shitbag. He wasn't exactly out there repudiating the Washington Wives when they formed the Parents Music Resource Center. In fact, if I remember correctly someone quite close to him was leading the charge….
posted by cjorgensen at 6:54 AM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Interesting. Chair of NH Democratic Party expecting an enormous turnout because of the later date. This is the first time since 04 that college kids will not be home on winter break.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:55 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 6:55 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, it's fact, every single time. Gore could have completely ignored the Nader voters and campaigned to keep just 1% of those Democrats in Florida in his camp and he would have won.
Let me try this a different way. Who were the Democrats who voted for Bush? Were they the kind of people who could have been appealed to by moving more in the direction you seemed to want Gore to move in? Especially in a race that has Ralph Nader in it? No, they were conservative Democrats, or simply registered Democrats who hadn't voted for a Democrat in decades. So when Gore tries to keep those voters, how does he keep the ones on the left, who now have a more purist candidate to defect to?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:10 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Let me try this a different way. Who were the Democrats who voted for Bush? Were they the kind of people who could have been appealed to by moving more in the direction you seemed to want Gore to move in? Especially in a race that has Ralph Nader in it? No, they were conservative Democrats, or simply registered Democrats who hadn't voted for a Democrat in decades. So when Gore tries to keep those voters, how does he keep the ones on the left, who now have a more purist candidate to defect to?
posted by tonycpsu at 7:10 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Whether the first Sanders-style nominee is Sanders himself or Elizabeth Warren or someone like a Tammy Baldwin or a Keith Ellison doesn't matter. What's clear is that there's robust demand among Democrats — especially the next generation of Democrats — to remake the party along more ideological, more social democratic lines, and party leaders are going to have to answer that demand or get steamrolled.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:11 AM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:11 AM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
It feels like Clinton didn't start destroying her own campaign nearly so early with Obama.
posted by Artw at 7:30 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:30 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
I wonder if the Dem establishment sees this growing trend of fired-up super-liberal voters not as a natural part of their constituency, but as an internal threat akin to the Tea Party - and look what the Tea Party did to the Republicans' credibility, so they feel like they better keep a firm hold on the narrative or else the Dems will lose all credibility too! It's a ridiculous and insulting comparison, but I kind of suspect that's what's going on.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:33 AM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:33 AM on February 9, 2016 [15 favorites]
It feels like Clinton didn't start destroying her own campaign nearly so early with Obama.
Wasn't it about now when she offered Obama the VP and he asked, "Why would the guy in first place take VP?"
posted by cjorgensen at 7:35 AM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Wasn't it about now when she offered Obama the VP and he asked, "Why would the guy in first place take VP?"
posted by cjorgensen at 7:35 AM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
if you have some mistaken idea that vicious intra-party disagreements due to insurgents is something new, you are either very young or have a very poor memory.
Heartily seconding this. If in doubt, just sit back and enjoy some MetaFilter election threads form 2008.
Of course they can't win the game, it's rigged against them and everybody already knows it. It's not a newsflash.
No, they can't win the game because their parties are thin and because, unlike the major parties, they devote too many resources to the Presidential race while developing no support in local and state-level races. What tonycpsu said about factionalism is exactly correct - if that's going to change, it will only do so when insurgent parties are actually vertically organized and leaders have some pull and some support at all levels of government. Hell, people don't get that's exactly how Bernie, who until last year was not even a Democrat, is contending for the Democratic nomination - spending decades in local and state politics, building coalitions. He gets it. That's why he has a chance.
posted by Miko at 7:39 AM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
Heartily seconding this. If in doubt, just sit back and enjoy some MetaFilter election threads form 2008.
Of course they can't win the game, it's rigged against them and everybody already knows it. It's not a newsflash.
No, they can't win the game because their parties are thin and because, unlike the major parties, they devote too many resources to the Presidential race while developing no support in local and state-level races. What tonycpsu said about factionalism is exactly correct - if that's going to change, it will only do so when insurgent parties are actually vertically organized and leaders have some pull and some support at all levels of government. Hell, people don't get that's exactly how Bernie, who until last year was not even a Democrat, is contending for the Democratic nomination - spending decades in local and state politics, building coalitions. He gets it. That's why he has a chance.
posted by Miko at 7:39 AM on February 9, 2016 [18 favorites]
It's a ridiculous and insulting comparison, but I kind of suspect that's what's going on.
Not that ridiculous. I liked the Tea party when it first came on scene. Less government control, less taxes, more accountability, etc. Their message originally had both liberals and conservatives holding coffee clubs and for a brief moment it looked like it was going to be a non-partisan movement, but that went away quickly when the rallies started looking like Klan rallies, there were more guns to be seen than black people, and the Koch brothers started pouring in cash.
The the Occupy movement came on scene and it looked like it was going to be the Tea Party for liberals, but then it imploded through lack of leadership (a feature!) and inconsistent messaging (and the out-of-work, druggie, park vandal image didn't help).
The Tea Party imploded. Occupy fizzled.
But those people didn't go away.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:42 AM on February 9, 2016
Not that ridiculous. I liked the Tea party when it first came on scene. Less government control, less taxes, more accountability, etc. Their message originally had both liberals and conservatives holding coffee clubs and for a brief moment it looked like it was going to be a non-partisan movement, but that went away quickly when the rallies started looking like Klan rallies, there were more guns to be seen than black people, and the Koch brothers started pouring in cash.
The the Occupy movement came on scene and it looked like it was going to be the Tea Party for liberals, but then it imploded through lack of leadership (a feature!) and inconsistent messaging (and the out-of-work, druggie, park vandal image didn't help).
The Tea Party imploded. Occupy fizzled.
But those people didn't go away.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:42 AM on February 9, 2016
I think Occupy was a success. It's part of what's happening now with Bernie. It's the first time I've seen the Overton window move left in thirty years.
posted by Trochanter at 7:47 AM on February 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 7:47 AM on February 9, 2016 [20 favorites]
Unlike Bernie, Hillary Went to Flint Instead of SNL (Because She Already Did SNL)
As she told The LA Times, “Occasionally you go off the campaign trail. I know Sen. Sanders went to New York to be on ‘SNL,’ and I’m going to Flint to see if we can help with the kids. That’s part of it. But my commitment to this primary and to this state is absolutely rock solid.”
posted by Room 641-A at 7:48 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
As she told The LA Times, “Occasionally you go off the campaign trail. I know Sen. Sanders went to New York to be on ‘SNL,’ and I’m going to Flint to see if we can help with the kids. That’s part of it. But my commitment to this primary and to this state is absolutely rock solid.”
posted by Room 641-A at 7:48 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's that kind of shit that makes people not like her.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:50 AM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:50 AM on February 9, 2016 [13 favorites]
Pull up! Pull up!
posted by Artw at 7:54 AM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:54 AM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
I think Occupy was a success. It's part of what's happening now with Bernie. It's the first time I've seen the Overton window move left in thirty years.
Well, it's not like the Tea Party end of it went away either - the likes of Dave Brat still hold office and there's a bonafide fascist as front runner in the GOP primary.
posted by Artw at 7:57 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, it's not like the Tea Party end of it went away either - the likes of Dave Brat still hold office and there's a bonafide fascist as front runner in the GOP primary.
posted by Artw at 7:57 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
You nailed it, Miko.
The support for the third parties isn't something that can practically happen from the top down. Bernie realized that, and his move to the Democratic party has EVERYTHING to do with practicality - He knows that if he ran as a third party that he'd severely cripple his run, as well as the run of the major party that he has more in common with.
I cannot emphasize enough how this needs to come from smaller positions and move upwards- If anything, Bernie stands as a strong example of how to do this, but he's one of a very tiny amount of people who has held a high level position as anything other than a D or an R in recent times. The only other person I can think of off the top of my head who was anything close to a third party in recent times was Lieberman, and he was really more like a double agent.
Any sort of third party success will come from below, not from the top. And even then, the temptation to ally with one of the major parties is strong, as there is so much entrenched support for them, they have many resources to promote candidates, and they have set up many barriers to make it difficult for outsiders.
Unless we are in a world where we have a significant amount of third party mayors, governors, representatives and congressmen, it's going to be incredibly difficult for a third party to take the presidential office, and if they do, I think it's more likely that the parties would be unwilling to cooperate with them as opposed to suddenly more willing to work together. I will admit that having a third party as the figurehead and as the guiding voice would still look significantly different, but the challenges that they would face in office would be even greater than the challenges they would face on the way there, and I firmly believe that the existing parties would cooperate on one issue - making a third party look ineffective. The sort of entrenched power we see in the major parties is the sort of power that will fight for its own perseverance over all else.
posted by MysticMCJ at 7:59 AM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
The support for the third parties isn't something that can practically happen from the top down. Bernie realized that, and his move to the Democratic party has EVERYTHING to do with practicality - He knows that if he ran as a third party that he'd severely cripple his run, as well as the run of the major party that he has more in common with.
I cannot emphasize enough how this needs to come from smaller positions and move upwards- If anything, Bernie stands as a strong example of how to do this, but he's one of a very tiny amount of people who has held a high level position as anything other than a D or an R in recent times. The only other person I can think of off the top of my head who was anything close to a third party in recent times was Lieberman, and he was really more like a double agent.
Any sort of third party success will come from below, not from the top. And even then, the temptation to ally with one of the major parties is strong, as there is so much entrenched support for them, they have many resources to promote candidates, and they have set up many barriers to make it difficult for outsiders.
Unless we are in a world where we have a significant amount of third party mayors, governors, representatives and congressmen, it's going to be incredibly difficult for a third party to take the presidential office, and if they do, I think it's more likely that the parties would be unwilling to cooperate with them as opposed to suddenly more willing to work together. I will admit that having a third party as the figurehead and as the guiding voice would still look significantly different, but the challenges that they would face in office would be even greater than the challenges they would face on the way there, and I firmly believe that the existing parties would cooperate on one issue - making a third party look ineffective. The sort of entrenched power we see in the major parties is the sort of power that will fight for its own perseverance over all else.
posted by MysticMCJ at 7:59 AM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, the Tea Party hasn't gone away at all. While many of us are familiar with them through the antics of the national stage, it's the regional and local arenas that are where they are most firmly entrenched, and where they are more able to directly take action. Keep a close eye on KY over the next few years, as Bevin, their new governor, pretty much exemplifies the tea party - at least a version of it that projects a very firm image of small governance and states rights while he acts in more corrupt interests in the shadows. While KYs national politics have been bad for a long time, their state politics have been really interesting to follow for the last few years - They were an example of how to set up one of the state-level healthcare exchanges, for one, and they have operated with a budget surplus for some time while enacting mostly democratic policies within the state. That has all been flipped on its head now, and it just took one person. That happened just a few months ago, and it was a huge upset.
Remember that the Tea Party has backers with very deep pockets, so I don't expect that particular faction to be disappearing any time soon. It's easy to see them as a joke on the national level, but that's more of a symptom of the momentum they have built up in smaller levels. Just one reason of many that I push for more attention and action (or at least equal, if not more) to the local/regional level than to the presidential election. The later is important, but the former can change much more rapidly, and is more likely to be able to take rapid action that can have immediate effects on you.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:15 AM on February 9, 2016
Remember that the Tea Party has backers with very deep pockets, so I don't expect that particular faction to be disappearing any time soon. It's easy to see them as a joke on the national level, but that's more of a symptom of the momentum they have built up in smaller levels. Just one reason of many that I push for more attention and action (or at least equal, if not more) to the local/regional level than to the presidential election. The later is important, but the former can change much more rapidly, and is more likely to be able to take rapid action that can have immediate effects on you.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:15 AM on February 9, 2016
I cannot emphasize enough how this needs to come from smaller positions and move upwards- If anything, Bernie stands as a strong example of how to do this,
These young people are just learning how to use The Force. Today rocks, tomorrow Healthcare For All. Feel The Yoda!
posted by Room 641-A at 8:21 AM on February 9, 2016
These young people are just learning how to use The Force. Today rocks, tomorrow Healthcare For All. Feel The Yoda!
posted by Room 641-A at 8:21 AM on February 9, 2016
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Hillary is Try, Bernie is No try, do.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:24 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 8:24 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Astrologers predict New Hampshire results. A bit contradictory, extremely kooky, and absolutely nails Trump.
posted by sallybrown at 8:29 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by sallybrown at 8:29 AM on February 9, 2016
If you are going for a star wars analogy, I'd think some people would be more likely to see Hillary as Palpatine.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:31 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:31 AM on February 9, 2016
I know, but I purposely am not making that analogy. I think the differences in their mindset says enough.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:34 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by Room 641-A at 8:34 AM on February 9, 2016
Palpatine had ambitions
posted by phearlez at 8:36 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by phearlez at 8:36 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Will there be a new thread for the NH primaries?
posted by Trochanter at 8:51 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Trochanter at 8:51 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
Palpatine had ambitions
damn son
posted by entropicamericana at 8:52 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
damn son
posted by entropicamericana at 8:52 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie supporters: Your overconfidence is your weakness.
Hillary supporters: Your faith in your friends is yours!
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:54 AM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hillary supporters: Your faith in your friends is yours!
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:54 AM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
Note the fact that a majority of white women — and white women alone — have backed the Republican presidential candidate each election since 2000.
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:57 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by Radiophonic Oddity at 8:57 AM on February 9, 2016
In case anyone missed it: “MAKE THE GALAXY GREAT AGAIN!”
posted by XMLicious at 8:58 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by XMLicious at 8:58 AM on February 9, 2016
I am glad to see that Hillary is suspending her campaign to deal with the crisis in Flint.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:02 AM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by cjorgensen at 9:02 AM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Will there be a new thread for the NH primaries?
I hope so because this thread is eating my phone's browser alive
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:06 AM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
I hope so because this thread is eating my phone's browser alive
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:06 AM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
She was always expected to lose in NH. If she loses by less than 20 points that'll be considered a victory for her.
This isn't really true! Don't believe the spin! It is still a very serious and real victory for Bernie Sanders and as recently as August, everyone would have said it was impossible. There have been a number of stories this week about how the Clinton campaign is trying to spin it like Bernie's some "favorite son", but that New Hampshire is not really all that similar to Vermont, and Bernie doesn't really have a big home court advantage or anything.
posted by dialetheia at 9:11 AM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
This isn't really true! Don't believe the spin! It is still a very serious and real victory for Bernie Sanders and as recently as August, everyone would have said it was impossible. There have been a number of stories this week about how the Clinton campaign is trying to spin it like Bernie's some "favorite son", but that New Hampshire is not really all that similar to Vermont, and Bernie doesn't really have a big home court advantage or anything.
posted by dialetheia at 9:11 AM on February 9, 2016 [9 favorites]
Well, to be fair, Iowa and New Hampshire were two of the states where Bernie was expected to do well. Two down, 48 more to go.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:19 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by cjorgensen at 9:19 AM on February 9, 2016
Sure, but she won New Hampshire in 2008 too.
posted by dialetheia at 9:27 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 9:27 AM on February 9, 2016
This isn't really true! Don't believe the spin! It is still a very serious and real victory for Bernie Sanders and as recently as August, everyone would have said it was impossible.
That's just not true, sorry. NH polling in August had them tied, and Sanders pulled away in September. That Sanders would do well or maybe win in Iowa and probably but not certainly win New Hampshire has been the utterly boring conventional wisdom since around then.
The reason Sanders was expected to do well in New Hampshire is not that everyone loves him because he's from Vermont but that there are almost no Democrats in New Hampshire who aren't in his prime demographic of white liberals. Well, the reason among the polisci people anyway; I don't doubt that some journalists offered favorite-son-ness or some other nonsense as the reason.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:34 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's just not true, sorry. NH polling in August had them tied, and Sanders pulled away in September. That Sanders would do well or maybe win in Iowa and probably but not certainly win New Hampshire has been the utterly boring conventional wisdom since around then.
The reason Sanders was expected to do well in New Hampshire is not that everyone loves him because he's from Vermont but that there are almost no Democrats in New Hampshire who aren't in his prime demographic of white liberals. Well, the reason among the polisci people anyway; I don't doubt that some journalists offered favorite-son-ness or some other nonsense as the reason.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:34 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
She was up by 15 points at the beginning of August. He was always expected to do well there, but he was not always expected to win, much less by some 20-point margin.
posted by dialetheia at 9:37 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 9:37 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Don’t assume Clinton will start winning again after New Hampshire
posted by syzygy at 9:47 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by syzygy at 9:47 AM on February 9, 2016
I liked the Tea party when it first came on scene. Less government control, less taxes, more accountability, etc. Their message originally had both liberals and conservatives holding coffee clubs
Good god! Are you kidding? The Tea Party from its very inception was a rancid rally of resentment against the poor and middle class. It's catalyst was an angry rant by rich CNBC talking head Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Exchange! where he whipped up the trader bros into a "No! No! No!" frenzy complaining about an Obama proposal to provide some mortgage relief to middle and low income home owners.
"All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I'm going to start organizing. It's time for another Tea Party" he screamed. These were the same traders who owed their jobs to the trillion dollar bailout of the banks just two months before. The Tea Party was born of rascist resentment that somewhere, someplace, someone down on their luck through no fault of their own might get a break on unemployment insurance or a mortgage interest rate adjustment.
posted by JackFlash at 9:59 AM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
Good god! Are you kidding? The Tea Party from its very inception was a rancid rally of resentment against the poor and middle class. It's catalyst was an angry rant by rich CNBC talking head Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Exchange! where he whipped up the trader bros into a "No! No! No!" frenzy complaining about an Obama proposal to provide some mortgage relief to middle and low income home owners.
"All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I'm going to start organizing. It's time for another Tea Party" he screamed. These were the same traders who owed their jobs to the trillion dollar bailout of the banks just two months before. The Tea Party was born of rascist resentment that somewhere, someplace, someone down on their luck through no fault of their own might get a break on unemployment insurance or a mortgage interest rate adjustment.
posted by JackFlash at 9:59 AM on February 9, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm interested to see what will happen in Nevada. It's a state with high union membership (sidenote: South Carolina has the lowest union representation). SEIU nat'l endorsed Clinton, but UNITE HERE (hotel and restaurant workers) hasn't endorsed anyone yet, nor has their Las Vegas Culinary Workers local (which explicitly said it won't endorse either candidate until after the caucus).
posted by melissasaurus at 10:00 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by melissasaurus at 10:00 AM on February 9, 2016 [4 favorites]
This isn’t really true! Don’t believe the spin! It is still a very serious and real victory for Bernie Sanders and as recently as August, everyone would have said it was impossible.
That’s just not true, sorry. NH polling in August had them tied, and Sanders pulled away in September. That Sanders would do well or maybe win in Iowa and probably but not certainly win New Hampshire has been the utterly boring conventional wisdom since around then.
Related: 538’s model has pretty much always showed Sanders rising as Clinton fell (starting in December), but the lines only crossed around January 15.
Also, from Nate Silver: “Why Young Democrats Love Bernie Sanders Part I: They have a lot in common with Ron Paul supporters”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:06 AM on February 9, 2016
That’s just not true, sorry. NH polling in August had them tied, and Sanders pulled away in September. That Sanders would do well or maybe win in Iowa and probably but not certainly win New Hampshire has been the utterly boring conventional wisdom since around then.
Related: 538’s model has pretty much always showed Sanders rising as Clinton fell (starting in December), but the lines only crossed around January 15.
Also, from Nate Silver: “Why Young Democrats Love Bernie Sanders Part I: They have a lot in common with Ron Paul supporters”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:06 AM on February 9, 2016
Wow. This most recent CNN/WMUR poll [pdf] indicates that fully 24% of Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire "would not vote for Clinton under any circumstances" in the general election if she were the nominee. Only 5% said that about Sanders. New Hampshire is a swing state, right?
posted by dialetheia at 10:06 AM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:06 AM on February 9, 2016 [6 favorites]
And here's a slightly less insulting look at why Millenials love Bernie Sanders (because it damn sure isn't that they are all Ron Paul voters). I don't think women under 34 broke 87% for Ron Paul.
posted by dialetheia at 10:10 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:10 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whoops! Fox News Accidentally Declares Trump The Winner In NH
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:11 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:11 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
She was up by 15 points at the beginning of August.
And tied in the middle of August, which is also August, and behind at the end of August, which is also August.
He was always expected to do well there, but he was not always expected to win, much less by some 20-point margin.
Of course he wasn't always expected to win. He wasn't even particularly expected to run. Anyone with half a brain would have expected him to win by late August or early September, though.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:16 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
And tied in the middle of August, which is also August, and behind at the end of August, which is also August.
He was always expected to do well there, but he was not always expected to win, much less by some 20-point margin.
Of course he wasn't always expected to win. He wasn't even particularly expected to run. Anyone with half a brain would have expected him to win by late August or early September, though.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:16 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right. It's all about the scale of analysis - if you only look at the period when his campaign has taken off, sure, it looks inevitable. In the broader context of the race, where he's a virtually unknown 74-year-old socialist with no funding, no party support, and about 15 people at his announcement at the beginning of his campaign, I think it's ridiculous to act like this election was a gimme for him, is all. He is still a tremendous underdog even if his campaign has been doing much better recently.
posted by dialetheia at 10:19 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 10:19 AM on February 9, 2016
Good god! Are you kidding? The Tea Party from its very inception was a rancid rally of resentment against the poor and middle class.
You sent me down a rabbit hole of looking into this. Most put the origins before the Santelli speech but that's where it became formalized. We're kind of having a non-argument. I am not arguing that it wasn't quickly subsumed into a bigoted organization dedicated to making its members vote counter to their own interests, but it didn't start that way. I remember having discussions with coworkers that covered early rallies and it was a while before the nutters completely took over.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:22 AM on February 9, 2016
You sent me down a rabbit hole of looking into this. Most put the origins before the Santelli speech but that's where it became formalized. We're kind of having a non-argument. I am not arguing that it wasn't quickly subsumed into a bigoted organization dedicated to making its members vote counter to their own interests, but it didn't start that way. I remember having discussions with coworkers that covered early rallies and it was a while before the nutters completely took over.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:22 AM on February 9, 2016
Wasn't it about now when she offered Obama the VP and he asked, "Why would the guy in first place take VP?"
A little later, on March 10. Obama rejects being Clinton's No. 2.
posted by crazy with stars at 10:25 AM on February 9, 2016
A little later, on March 10. Obama rejects being Clinton's No. 2.
posted by crazy with stars at 10:25 AM on February 9, 2016
And here's a slightly less insulting look at why Millenials love Bernie Sanders (because it damn sure isn't that they are all Ron Paul voters). I don't think women under 34 broke 87% for Ron Paul.
This is the first article in a multi-part series proposing a number of different potential causes for Sanders’s success with the youth, since the size of his success relative to Clinton is unlikely to have any single cause. Picking up libertarians is one part of the picture.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:26 AM on February 9, 2016
This is the first article in a multi-part series proposing a number of different potential causes for Sanders’s success with the youth, since the size of his success relative to Clinton is unlikely to have any single cause. Picking up libertarians is one part of the picture.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:26 AM on February 9, 2016
Wow. This most recent CNN/WMUR poll [pdf] indicates that fully 24% of Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire "would not vote for Clinton under any circumstances" in the general election if she were the nominee. Only 5% said that about Sanders. New Hampshire is a swing state, right?
Primary voters who support Sanders have little incentive to say that they’ll support Clinton in the general. Why weaken your underdog?
posted by Going To Maine at 10:29 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Primary voters who support Sanders have little incentive to say that they’ll support Clinton in the general. Why weaken your underdog?
posted by Going To Maine at 10:29 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Early days for that, for sure.
posted by Trochanter at 10:31 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 10:31 AM on February 9, 2016
Are you actually suggesting that they're strategically lying to the pollster? That seems ... unlikely.
posted by dialetheia at 10:32 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 10:32 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
More that they just don't feel that way yet.
posted by Trochanter at 10:33 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by Trochanter at 10:33 AM on February 9, 2016
Wow. This most recent CNN/WMUR poll [pdf] indicates that fully 24% of Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire "would not vote for Clinton under any circumstances" in the general election if she were the nominee. Only 5% said that about Sanders. New Hampshire is a swing state, right?
Does this track with previous election cycles? Do we always have this undercurrent of "My candidate or fuck the party"?
Genuinely asking the question, if anyone knows.
posted by Etrigan at 10:35 AM on February 9, 2016
Does this track with previous election cycles? Do we always have this undercurrent of "My candidate or fuck the party"?
Genuinely asking the question, if anyone knows.
posted by Etrigan at 10:35 AM on February 9, 2016
Are you actually suggesting that they're strategically lying to the pollster? That seems ... unlikely.
I’m suggesting that they are fired up for Sanders and obsessed with the primary. They’re also very far from confronting the reality of, say, Clinton vs. Cruz. Nothing’s on the line for the country or their state.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:36 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
I’m suggesting that they are fired up for Sanders and obsessed with the primary. They’re also very far from confronting the reality of, say, Clinton vs. Cruz. Nothing’s on the line for the country or their state.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:36 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, but it's far better to assume they are telling the truth, and deal with that situation, than to think those people will just switch to Clinton. Because many won't.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:37 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:37 AM on February 9, 2016
I don't know. New Hampshire has a lot of independent voters and Clinton is doing very poorly with them. And wouldn't that go in the face of the electability argument that her favorables are settled, everyone already kows what they think of her, people aren't going to change their minds about her now?
posted by dialetheia at 10:40 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 10:40 AM on February 9, 2016
Do we always have this undercurrent of "My candidate or fuck the party"?
I think so, to some extent. It's maybe worse this cycle and in '08 because you had identity politics (first woman, first African-American) that get in and really give people the feeling that any criticism of their barrier-breaking candidate is rooted in pervasive *-ism.
I'm not trying to throw shade on supporters of Sec. Clinton here. I think it's a totally valid feeling and that there is truth in it -- I'm just saying that the candidate ends up being a stand-in or personified synecdoche for the whole Movement (= feminism, civil rights movement, etc.) and that really makes it easy to feel that the whole movement is being attacked.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:47 AM on February 9, 2016
I think so, to some extent. It's maybe worse this cycle and in '08 because you had identity politics (first woman, first African-American) that get in and really give people the feeling that any criticism of their barrier-breaking candidate is rooted in pervasive *-ism.
I'm not trying to throw shade on supporters of Sec. Clinton here. I think it's a totally valid feeling and that there is truth in it -- I'm just saying that the candidate ends up being a stand-in or personified synecdoche for the whole Movement (= feminism, civil rights movement, etc.) and that really makes it easy to feel that the whole movement is being attacked.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:47 AM on February 9, 2016
Presidential candidates ignore the costs of unpaid internships: But of the 16 candidates running for president, only one pays his interns: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), at $10.10 an hour.
We know this because we paid Fordham University student Michaela Finneran $15 an hour to call up the campaigns and inquire about the application process for interns, and the pay.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:49 AM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
We know this because we paid Fordham University student Michaela Finneran $15 an hour to call up the campaigns and inquire about the application process for interns, and the pay.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:49 AM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Trochanter: "Will there be a new thread for the NH primaries"
tivalasvegas: "I hope so because this thread is eating my phone's browser alive"
Be the change you want to see in the world!
(I've got to head out in a bit, so no N.H. thread from me. Polls close in six hours, folks!)
posted by Rhaomi at 10:52 AM on February 9, 2016
tivalasvegas: "I hope so because this thread is eating my phone's browser alive"
Be the change you want to see in the world!
(I've got to head out in a bit, so no N.H. thread from me. Polls close in six hours, folks!)
posted by Rhaomi at 10:52 AM on February 9, 2016
cjorgensen - you are correct about the initial ideas about the tea party, to a point. I remember many intellectuals who thought it was really interesting WAY at the beginning who quickly distanced themselves from it once they glimpsed the insanity. In the beginning, many associated with the group put an emphasis on civil liberties - so there was a lot of discussion over legalization of cannabis, for example. Many of those quickly distanced themselves from the tea party when the reality of what it was surfaced during rallies and similar, and are simply sticking with the label of "libertarian." I'd argue that what really happened is that they thought the tea party was something other than what it is, as opposed to the tea party ever actually being any different.
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:53 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by MysticMCJ at 10:53 AM on February 9, 2016
I’m suggesting that they are fired up for Sanders and obsessed with the primary. They’re also very far from confronting the reality of, say, Clinton vs. Cruz. Nothing’s on the line for the country or their state.
While I agree with this whole-heartily, and it certainly applies to me, I definitely see a trend in my own social group of disaffected liberals who just don't vote (some who are proud of not voting) who are registering and going to the polls to cast their ballot for Bernie. So if Hillary is elected, they probably just won't go vote, just like they didn't last election.
posted by mayonnaises at 10:53 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
While I agree with this whole-heartily, and it certainly applies to me, I definitely see a trend in my own social group of disaffected liberals who just don't vote (some who are proud of not voting) who are registering and going to the polls to cast their ballot for Bernie. So if Hillary is elected, they probably just won't go vote, just like they didn't last election.
posted by mayonnaises at 10:53 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
And to some extent there is always going to be tension on the Left between social movements for liberation (of women, ethnic minorities, regions, sexual minorities...) and the socialist/social-democratic/democratic socialist tendencies which are rooted in class-based, economic liberation ideology.
Sen. Sanders is firmly in the latter camp: although he certainly has been supportive of progressive social movements, and in many cases stood by them long before mainstream politicians got on board, his bread-and-butter is economic issues.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:54 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sen. Sanders is firmly in the latter camp: although he certainly has been supportive of progressive social movements, and in many cases stood by them long before mainstream politicians got on board, his bread-and-butter is economic issues.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:54 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
So if Hillary is elected, they probably just won't go vote, just like they didn't last election.
This kind of my-ideal-candidate-or-fuck-alla-y'all attitude is what dims my hopes that people who are currently #FeelingTheBern will have a lasting impact on house, senate, and local races.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:57 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
This kind of my-ideal-candidate-or-fuck-alla-y'all attitude is what dims my hopes that people who are currently #FeelingTheBern will have a lasting impact on house, senate, and local races.
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:57 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Isn't it proof that he's reaching votes that she can't? Wouldn't that be good for our electoral chances?
posted by dialetheia at 10:59 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by dialetheia at 10:59 AM on February 9, 2016
I also don't feel like making the NH thread, but if we want to crowdsource this thing....
New Hampshire is a Fraud
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:00 AM on February 9, 2016
New Hampshire is a Fraud
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:00 AM on February 9, 2016
ugh, okay. I'll do it.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:11 AM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:11 AM on February 9, 2016 [11 favorites]
"Now plenty of us get anxious. But there's probably nothing you want less in a President than a propensity to panic in moments of crisis. It's almost terrifying. Now I'm panicking."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:11 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:11 AM on February 9, 2016
I don't know. New Hampshire has a lot of independent voters and Clinton is doing very poorly with them. And wouldn't that go in the face of the electability argument that her favorables are settled, everyone already kows what they think of her, people aren't going to change their minds about her now?
Clare Malone at 538: “New Hampshire’s Independent Voter Myth”
posted by Going To Maine at 11:13 AM on February 9, 2016
Clare Malone at 538: “New Hampshire’s Independent Voter Myth”
posted by Going To Maine at 11:13 AM on February 9, 2016
If you take the view that Bernie will win the primary, his supporters and young people will show up in droves for the general, and he'll win it, and Bloomberg won't split the vote and fuck everything up, then yeah, the enthusiasm of his base will be a good thing, although I'd be surprised if it got us enough gains in congress to enact a super-progressive agenda.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:16 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:16 AM on February 9, 2016
Why Are Millennial Women Gravitating to Bernie Sanders?
posted by melissasaurus at 11:16 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by melissasaurus at 11:16 AM on February 9, 2016
"There some in the White House who are now talking about #Hillary2016's possible indictment." -@MarkHalperin
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:16 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:16 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clare Malone at 538: “New Hampshire’s Independent Voter Myth”
All that says is that he's also smoking her among Democrats, not that he isn't vastly outperforming her with independent/undeclared voters. They aren't making a big difference because he's also beating her with Dems. Back to the original point, I know independents aren't true independents, but they're still people who are unhappy with the major parties in some way, and Clinton has a -31% favorability rating with those voters. I would not find it surprising at all if many of them refused to vote for her in the general election (or, more accurately, would only be motivated to vote if a candidate like Sanders were in the race).
posted by dialetheia at 11:20 AM on February 9, 2016
All that says is that he's also smoking her among Democrats, not that he isn't vastly outperforming her with independent/undeclared voters. They aren't making a big difference because he's also beating her with Dems. Back to the original point, I know independents aren't true independents, but they're still people who are unhappy with the major parties in some way, and Clinton has a -31% favorability rating with those voters. I would not find it surprising at all if many of them refused to vote for her in the general election (or, more accurately, would only be motivated to vote if a candidate like Sanders were in the race).
posted by dialetheia at 11:20 AM on February 9, 2016
"There some in the White House who are now talking about [Hillary's possible indictment]" -Mark Halperin
(jinx roomthreeseventeen!)
posted by melissasaurus at 11:28 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
(jinx roomthreeseventeen!)
posted by melissasaurus at 11:28 AM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Intercept @the_intercept 4h4 hours ago
Bill and @HillaryClinton have made at least $139M from speeches, including $35M from the financial sector. http://interc.pt/1TOFHSz
posted by Trochanter at 11:30 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bill and @HillaryClinton have made at least $139M from speeches, including $35M from the financial sector. http://interc.pt/1TOFHSz
posted by Trochanter at 11:30 AM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
Another story from Iowa and the primary season in general: It's interesting how susceptible American media are to a bully. Trump pinned the "wimpy loser" label on Jeb Bush, and it seems he didn't get a single "bullying is bad" response. Instead, the media has gleefully jumped on the "Jeb Bush is a loser wimp!" bandwagon, giddy with the pleasure of mocking him.
posted by clawsoon at 11:40 AM on February 9, 2016
posted by clawsoon at 11:40 AM on February 9, 2016
"I have heard about it. It's disgusting. Look we don't want that crap. We can't you know, and we will do everything we can and I think we have tried. Look you know that-that anybody who is supporting me that is doing the sexist things is-we don't want them. I don't want that. That is not what this campaign is about."
THANK YOU, BERNIE. Seriously, folks, is this so hard to say? I'm an undecided-probable-Bernie-voter who's extremely alienated by the visible misogynistic behavior among some of his vocal supporters, and the thing that makes me feel better about casting a vote for him is stuff like this! Believing people who point it out, and acknowledging it as unwelcome. Not going "la-la-la-you're-making-it-up-most-young-women-support-Bernie-so-obviously-sexism-can't-exist-among-any-of-his-fans-now-be-quiet."
More people need to take a page from the guy they support and respond in this way. Good on him.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:44 AM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
THANK YOU, BERNIE. Seriously, folks, is this so hard to say? I'm an undecided-probable-Bernie-voter who's extremely alienated by the visible misogynistic behavior among some of his vocal supporters, and the thing that makes me feel better about casting a vote for him is stuff like this! Believing people who point it out, and acknowledging it as unwelcome. Not going "la-la-la-you're-making-it-up-most-young-women-support-Bernie-so-obviously-sexism-can't-exist-among-any-of-his-fans-now-be-quiet."
More people need to take a page from the guy they support and respond in this way. Good on him.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 11:44 AM on February 9, 2016 [12 favorites]
Anyone with half a brain would have expected him to win by late August or early September, though.
I don't think that's right at all. In the first place, the folks at 538 (who almost certainly have at least half a brain) have been backing their "polls-plus" projection, which was still predicting a Clinton win as late as mid-January. Moreover, 538's weighted polling average didn't have Sanders catching Clinton until early September, and it would have been quite reasonable at that point in the campaign to think that Clinton would take back the polling lead. In fact, she did close the polling gap by mid-November and was polling very close to Sanders in New Hampshire through November and December. It wasn't until mid-January that a lot of space started to open up between them. You can see at least some of the relevant history of the 538 analysis on their New Hampshire Democratic primary projection page.
In the second place, many, many people have said (correctly) that early polls are not very good predictors for primary elections. So, it would have been a very risky bet to say that in late September everyone should have expected Sanders -- who had only a slim polling lead and basically no institutional support -- to win a primary in February.
In short, it would be very revisionary to downplay a Sanders' victory in New Hampshire (if he wins) by saying that everyone expected him to win early on.
Personally, I think New Hampshire is a clear Clinton loss if she loses by more than 5-10 percentage points and a devastating blowout if she loses by something more like 15-20 points.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:56 AM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think that's right at all. In the first place, the folks at 538 (who almost certainly have at least half a brain) have been backing their "polls-plus" projection, which was still predicting a Clinton win as late as mid-January. Moreover, 538's weighted polling average didn't have Sanders catching Clinton until early September, and it would have been quite reasonable at that point in the campaign to think that Clinton would take back the polling lead. In fact, she did close the polling gap by mid-November and was polling very close to Sanders in New Hampshire through November and December. It wasn't until mid-January that a lot of space started to open up between them. You can see at least some of the relevant history of the 538 analysis on their New Hampshire Democratic primary projection page.
In the second place, many, many people have said (correctly) that early polls are not very good predictors for primary elections. So, it would have been a very risky bet to say that in late September everyone should have expected Sanders -- who had only a slim polling lead and basically no institutional support -- to win a primary in February.
In short, it would be very revisionary to downplay a Sanders' victory in New Hampshire (if he wins) by saying that everyone expected him to win early on.
Personally, I think New Hampshire is a clear Clinton loss if she loses by more than 5-10 percentage points and a devastating blowout if she loses by something more like 15-20 points.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:56 AM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
538 seems really seriously off this election cycle.
posted by Artw at 12:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:06 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
538 seems really seriously off this election cycle.
Yes. He has a brand-new multi-million dollar content factory that requires constant clicks, and he has discovered the public wants his opinion as much as his statistical expertise.
He's floundering out of his depth by attempting to join the punditocracy, in short. It's been ugly watching him take a hatchet to his golden goose - the Trump thing especially. It was very obvious, very early, he would be a major player, but Nate didn't want to believe it, and tried to explain away his own numbers.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
Yes. He has a brand-new multi-million dollar content factory that requires constant clicks, and he has discovered the public wants his opinion as much as his statistical expertise.
He's floundering out of his depth by attempting to join the punditocracy, in short. It's been ugly watching him take a hatchet to his golden goose - the Trump thing especially. It was very obvious, very early, he would be a major player, but Nate didn't want to believe it, and tried to explain away his own numbers.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:12 PM on February 9, 2016 [14 favorites]
He seems to be indulging in the same kind of nonsense narratives that pundits criticized him for not following the last couple of times, in fact. Which is kind of tragic considering how far ahead he came in those spats.
posted by Artw at 12:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
538 seems really seriously off this election cycle.
I feel the same way, but mostly about the Republican side. And even there, we won't really know if they've been off or basically right until probably mid-March.
My point in referring to 538's claims is mostly to provide evidence that it's wrong to say that it has been obvious or obvious for a long time that Sanders was going to win New Hampshire. And especially that he was going to win New Hampshire by some big margin.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel the same way, but mostly about the Republican side. And even there, we won't really know if they've been off or basically right until probably mid-March.
My point in referring to 538's claims is mostly to provide evidence that it's wrong to say that it has been obvious or obvious for a long time that Sanders was going to win New Hampshire. And especially that he was going to win New Hampshire by some big margin.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:19 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
538 seems really seriously off this election cycle.
I've been listening to their election podcast, and one of their major themes is that polling sucks for primaries/caucuses, especially in Iowa and New Hampshire where you have such saturation of candidates and ads and polls and pandering and wonkery and suchforth.
posted by Etrigan at 12:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've been listening to their election podcast, and one of their major themes is that polling sucks for primaries/caucuses, especially in Iowa and New Hampshire where you have such saturation of candidates and ads and polls and pandering and wonkery and suchforth.
posted by Etrigan at 12:24 PM on February 9, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's floundering out of his depth by attempting to join the punditocracy, in short. It's been ugly watching him take a hatchet to his golden goose - the Trump thing especially. It was very obvious, very early, he would be a major player, but Nate didn't want to believe it, and tried to explain away his own numbers.
I've been listening to their election podcast, and one of their major themes is that polling sucks for primaries/caucuses, especially in Iowa and New Hampshire where you have such saturation of candidates and ads and polls and pandering and wonkery and suchforth.
538’s basic premise has been that pundits are generally terrible and primary polling isn’t very good. I don’t think he’s ever tried to “explain away” his own numbers; their model has predicted Trump victories and he’s stood by the model. Rather, he’s explained why he thinks that numbers would or wouldn’t decay, and things have not gone his way.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:07 PM on February 9, 2016
I've been listening to their election podcast, and one of their major themes is that polling sucks for primaries/caucuses, especially in Iowa and New Hampshire where you have such saturation of candidates and ads and polls and pandering and wonkery and suchforth.
538’s basic premise has been that pundits are generally terrible and primary polling isn’t very good. I don’t think he’s ever tried to “explain away” his own numbers; their model has predicted Trump victories and he’s stood by the model. Rather, he’s explained why he thinks that numbers would or wouldn’t decay, and things have not gone his way.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:07 PM on February 9, 2016
This kind of my-ideal-candidate-or-fuck-alla-y'all attitude is what dims my hopes that people who are currently #FeelingTheBern will have a lasting impact on house, senate, and local races.
Why? I vote for pretty much anything I can. I sometimes will basically recuse myself if I honestly have no position on which candidate is better or if I don't have a dog in the fight (like I understand perhaps school boards are important, but without kids I don't feel I have a direct stake). I got a feeling that at Sanders rallies that most weren't in their first political taste, but even then, you have to start somewhere.
I also don't think many people are in the "fuck-allay'all." Just because people might not believe your primary candidate is worthy of support isn't a fuck you.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why? I vote for pretty much anything I can. I sometimes will basically recuse myself if I honestly have no position on which candidate is better or if I don't have a dog in the fight (like I understand perhaps school boards are important, but without kids I don't feel I have a direct stake). I got a feeling that at Sanders rallies that most weren't in their first political taste, but even then, you have to start somewhere.
I also don't think many people are in the "fuck-allay'all." Just because people might not believe your primary candidate is worthy of support isn't a fuck you.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:13 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
Are you actually suggesting that they're strategically lying to the pollster? That seems ... unlikely.
People get surprisingly pragmatic the closer it gets to election day. People also like to vote for winners. So if it looks like Hillary stands a chance and she's the nominee there's a good chance the Sanders supporters will show up.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
People get surprisingly pragmatic the closer it gets to election day. People also like to vote for winners. So if it looks like Hillary stands a chance and she's the nominee there's a good chance the Sanders supporters will show up.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:16 PM on February 9, 2016 [2 favorites]
> .... people might not believe your primary candidate is worthy of support ...
This makes a whole lot of sense if "None of the Above" is one of the choices.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:19 PM on February 9, 2016
This makes a whole lot of sense if "None of the Above" is one of the choices.
posted by benito.strauss at 1:19 PM on February 9, 2016
538 seems really seriously off this election cycle.
Wel, to be fair, he is trying to do what most people try to do with statistics, which is make predictions. This is, admittedly, the whole point of statistics, to build models and formula's based upon observed trends and try to predict what will happen next, or to use that information to decide how to deal with those trends.
The problem, as I see it, is that the data set is too narrow, and is missing key pieces of analysis to determine what formula will have a better predictive value.
I've also been seeing this trend with marketers and PR people as well. They think that their demographic data is solid (when it's really, really not) and they do not take into account that a demographic can (constantly) shift between each polling of the datasets. Basically, the datasets they are working from a flawed and they are not accounting for the variations, or rate of variation between sets. Example: you polled me back in November, when things were okay in my life and nothing major was affecting my local influence levels. Poll me again today and, due to a whole bunch of factors, my answer is now radically different, as is the answers of the people around me, due to factors that were not accounted for in the formulation of determining my demographic cohort. Result: massive swings in the datasets, due to a series of unaccounted for variables.
I mean, Nate is absolutely correct that the datasets suck and polling and even polling+ models are incomplete. It's just that now that he is venturing into using the already known flawed datasets, he's falling into the same trap as the other talking heads and pundits.
posted by daq at 3:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Wel, to be fair, he is trying to do what most people try to do with statistics, which is make predictions. This is, admittedly, the whole point of statistics, to build models and formula's based upon observed trends and try to predict what will happen next, or to use that information to decide how to deal with those trends.
The problem, as I see it, is that the data set is too narrow, and is missing key pieces of analysis to determine what formula will have a better predictive value.
I've also been seeing this trend with marketers and PR people as well. They think that their demographic data is solid (when it's really, really not) and they do not take into account that a demographic can (constantly) shift between each polling of the datasets. Basically, the datasets they are working from a flawed and they are not accounting for the variations, or rate of variation between sets. Example: you polled me back in November, when things were okay in my life and nothing major was affecting my local influence levels. Poll me again today and, due to a whole bunch of factors, my answer is now radically different, as is the answers of the people around me, due to factors that were not accounted for in the formulation of determining my demographic cohort. Result: massive swings in the datasets, due to a series of unaccounted for variables.
I mean, Nate is absolutely correct that the datasets suck and polling and even polling+ models are incomplete. It's just that now that he is venturing into using the already known flawed datasets, he's falling into the same trap as the other talking heads and pundits.
posted by daq at 3:25 PM on February 9, 2016 [3 favorites]
Artw: “538 seems really seriously off this election cycle.”
Hm. How good was 538 during the last few primaries? I seriously don't remember. Does anybody? It'd be interesting to compare.
posted by koeselitz at 9:23 PM on February 9, 2016
Hm. How good was 538 during the last few primaries? I seriously don't remember. Does anybody? It'd be interesting to compare.
posted by koeselitz at 9:23 PM on February 9, 2016
I think it's also partly that the 538 data-journalism model is showing its limitations a bit. When you're doing research in a data-bound setting, you have to be either particularly clever about coming up with questions nobody else is asking and matching them to new uses of existing data, or else your methods have to be consistently way better than everyone else's. It's not even clear that 538's poll aggregation methods have been particularly impressive from a statistical standpoint, as much as that he was doing something relatively sane when a lot of people were just blatantly making up self-serving bullshit (all the poll aggregators were getting broadly similar results).
posted by en forme de poire at 12:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 12:29 AM on February 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
THANK YOU, BERNIE. Seriously, folks, is this so hard to say? I'm an undecided-probable-Bernie-voter who's extremely alienated by the visible misogynistic behavior among some of his vocal supporters, and the thing that makes me feel better about casting a vote for him is stuff like this! Believing people who point it out, and acknowledging it as unwelcome. Not going "la-la-la-you're-making-it-up-most-young-women-support-Bernie-so-obviously-sexism-can't-exist-among-any-of-his-fans-now-be-quiet."
It's also notably the opposite of Trump's rhetorical tactic of letting the worst, most ill-mannered portion of his supporters speak for him, e.g. the "Ted Cruz is a pussy" moment from the other day.
Remember when John McCain had to shut down the "I think Obama is an Arab" lady back in '08? It probably cost McCain some support from conservative racists and religious bigots, but it was generally agreed by reasonable people that it was the right thing to do. Donald Trump doesn't have that little angel on his shoulder, but thank goodness Bernie does.
posted by Strange Interlude at 8:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's also notably the opposite of Trump's rhetorical tactic of letting the worst, most ill-mannered portion of his supporters speak for him, e.g. the "Ted Cruz is a pussy" moment from the other day.
Remember when John McCain had to shut down the "I think Obama is an Arab" lady back in '08? It probably cost McCain some support from conservative racists and religious bigots, but it was generally agreed by reasonable people that it was the right thing to do. Donald Trump doesn't have that little angel on his shoulder, but thank goodness Bernie does.
posted by Strange Interlude at 8:30 AM on February 10, 2016 [5 favorites]
In the GOP race, the cull continues. Carly and Chris are both out, which leaves six plus Jim Gilmore.
posted by Wordshore at 3:25 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by Wordshore at 3:25 PM on February 10, 2016
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE (establishment candidate)!
posted by Going To Maine at 5:46 PM on February 10, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 5:46 PM on February 10, 2016
It's also notably the opposite of Trump's rhetorical tactic of letting the worst, most ill-mannered portion of his supporters speak for him, e.g. the "Ted Cruz is a pussy" moment from the other day.
Yes, totally. Also, I don't buy the assertion that Trump (seventy years old, after all) can hear interjections from a noisy audience without some sort of assistance. I recall him (apparently) doing this before; I think the comments are planted, or he's being fed lines through a mike.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:50 PM on February 10, 2016
Yes, totally. Also, I don't buy the assertion that Trump (seventy years old, after all) can hear interjections from a noisy audience without some sort of assistance. I recall him (apparently) doing this before; I think the comments are planted, or he's being fed lines through a mike.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:50 PM on February 10, 2016
« Older This is the worst party I've ever been to. | Too poor to retire, too young to die Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Justinian at 2:33 PM on February 1, 2016 [2 favorites]