The last primary
June 13, 2016 1:18 PM Subscribe
Tomorrow's primary in Washington, D.C. will mark the final presidential primary of 2016. Then, Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders are set to meet Tuesday night.
Latest Election Polls
Senator Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he would “take our campaign for transforming the Democratic Party into the convention,” refusing to concede the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton though not explicitly saying he would challenge her for it.
3 days before D.C. primary, Sanders calls for statehood: "I think it is morally wrong for American citizens who pay federal taxes, fight in our wars and live in our country to be denied the basic right to full congressional representation," Sanders said in a statement Saturday.
Is The Washington D.C. Primary Open Or Closed? Some Voters Will Be Left Out Of The Final Primary Of The Season
Latest Election Polls
Senator Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he would “take our campaign for transforming the Democratic Party into the convention,” refusing to concede the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton though not explicitly saying he would challenge her for it.
3 days before D.C. primary, Sanders calls for statehood: "I think it is morally wrong for American citizens who pay federal taxes, fight in our wars and live in our country to be denied the basic right to full congressional representation," Sanders said in a statement Saturday.
Is The Washington D.C. Primary Open Or Closed? Some Voters Will Be Left Out Of The Final Primary Of The Season
Thank you, roomthreeseventeen!
So when Clinton says 9/12, this is the atmosphere I feel like she's invoking (SLYT).
posted by stolyarova at 1:21 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
So when Clinton says 9/12, this is the atmosphere I feel like she's invoking (SLYT).
posted by stolyarova at 1:21 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I completely get where she's coming from, but I'm equally sure that for people who were on the receiving end, when thinking of a "9/12 mentality" it's tough (at best) to separate the politicians calling for peace and tolerance from the vocally racist assholes who created a need for such calls.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Then, Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders are set to meet Tuesday night.
"This is your last chance to concede, Hillary. I'm willing to offer you a cabinet position- OK vice president, but that's my final offer."
posted by happyroach at 1:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [31 favorites]
"This is your last chance to concede, Hillary. I'm willing to offer you a cabinet position- OK vice president, but that's my final offer."
posted by happyroach at 1:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [31 favorites]
Thanks r317! I thought Clinton's statement hit just the right tone. 9/12 was very different from several weeks and indeed, a decade later.
posted by bardophile at 1:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bardophile at 1:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
3 days before D.C. primary, Sanders calls for statehood
"From one quixotic campaign to another: Help a brother out!"
#formerdcresident
posted by psoas at 1:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
"From one quixotic campaign to another: Help a brother out!"
#formerdcresident
posted by psoas at 1:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think it's not so much a failure of sentiment, but a failure of phrasing. For one thing, 9/11 sucked, so thinking "things should be like they were on 9/12" feels bad because everyone felt bad that day. Yes, there was a general sense of coming together, but there was also a general sense of fear and a lack of being able to predict in even the most basic way what life would be like going forward. Secondly, "post-nine-eleven" as a phrase has been a thing for the last 14 years, and it has a specific meaning that bears no relation to what Clinton means with the phrase. Thirdly, yeah, the immediate aftermath of 9/11 is a total rorschach test of where you were and what was going on around you at the time. I remember a spirit of coming together, but I also remember overhearing two women on a subway platform talking about how all Muslims should be exterminated. It's not exactly the best part of America's psyche to evoke.
On the other hand, I don't think this is a huge gaffe on Clinton's part, just a phrase that fell flat. I get what she means but I don't think she expressed it well.
posted by Sara C. at 1:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
On the other hand, I don't think this is a huge gaffe on Clinton's part, just a phrase that fell flat. I get what she means but I don't think she expressed it well.
posted by Sara C. at 1:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's naked electioneering at this point, but D.C. statehood isn't wrong.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 1:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [30 favorites]
I sort of forgot that Bernie was still hanging around. Does he really think that he'll do well in DC?
posted by octothorpe at 1:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 1:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Y'know, I get that people think putting Sanders on the ticket as VP would bring the factions together. Thing is, I kinda feel like we'd still hear the all same people screaming about how he's a sellout. A minority of his supporters, sure, but a vocal one.
And it's also unfair to ask Clinton to take on someone who has frankly been shitty to her lately as her VP. I keep wondering if anyone would ask the same if it was a man leading the race and not her. But then, as has been said, we probably wouldn't even be at this point in the race regardless.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [32 favorites]
And it's also unfair to ask Clinton to take on someone who has frankly been shitty to her lately as her VP. I keep wondering if anyone would ask the same if it was a man leading the race and not her. But then, as has been said, we probably wouldn't even be at this point in the race regardless.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [32 favorites]
Shorter Trump: Gay people are horrible monsters who should be denied marriage and I strongly support this guy over here who wants them executed! Vote for me gay people because I hate Muslims!
posted by sotonohito at 1:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 1:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Senator Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he would “take our campaign for transforming the Democratic Party into the convention,” refusing to concede the presidential nomination to Hillary Clinton though not explicitly saying he would challenge her for it.
Wait, hasn't he done so before? I thought he had spoken out in favor of it when Clinton called for DC statehood last month.
posted by zarq at 1:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Wait, hasn't he done so before? I thought he had spoken out in favor of it when Clinton called for DC statehood last month.
posted by zarq at 1:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
If we're going to be nominating people to the VP for the sake of symbolic value then I hope after the election is won the VP then steps down and accepts a more useful cabinet position. And then Biden becomes VP.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 1:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Part of me wants to get in line at the last possible second to see if I can be the last voter in this ridiculous primary season. The other part of me wants to make dinner at a reasonable time and that part will probably win.
Honestly, I'm turning out more for city council elections than anything else.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:33 PM on June 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
Honestly, I'm turning out more for city council elections than anything else.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:33 PM on June 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's interesting to me how differently MeFi took Clinton's "radical islam" statement than well... My entire social media feed. Like, 180 degrees opposite even. I'm not talking about bernie bros here either, just people i know in general going "this is why i don't trust her".
It's really hard sometimes to not see this as a place where just about everything she says or does is positive. Because i have... complicated mixed feelings about accepting this weekends fucked up attack as Islamic Radicalism.
Did she elaborate on her point? Yea, but that headline is all anyone is going to remember in a week.
posted by emptythought at 1:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
It's really hard sometimes to not see this as a place where just about everything she says or does is positive. Because i have... complicated mixed feelings about accepting this weekends fucked up attack as Islamic Radicalism.
Did she elaborate on her point? Yea, but that headline is all anyone is going to remember in a week.
posted by emptythought at 1:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
I feel sorry for DC because Sanders is going to lose by heavy double digits, and his late-game endorsement of DC statehood is going to make it look like the primary was a failed referendum on what is actually a very good proposal.
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:34 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by 0xFCAF at 1:34 PM on June 13, 2016
And then Biden becomes VP.
A++ would vote for again.
Seriously, though, Biden is great, and I hope he stays in public service, if he wants to.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
A++ would vote for again.
Seriously, though, Biden is great, and I hope he stays in public service, if he wants to.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
If Clinton ends up the Democratic candidate (which she probably will), I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren for VP.
posted by easily confused at 1:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by easily confused at 1:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a VP who's young enough to run for president in eight years? Sanders will be over eighty by then.
posted by octothorpe at 1:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 1:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
his late-game endorsement of DC statehood is going to make it look like the primary was a failed referendum
As zarq posted, Clinton also supports statehood.
I think most Democrats do. Its the Republicans who will block it forever because it would be a solidly blue state.
posted by thefoxgod at 1:37 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
As zarq posted, Clinton also supports statehood.
I think most Democrats do. Its the Republicans who will block it forever because it would be a solidly blue state.
posted by thefoxgod at 1:37 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
I get that people think putting Sanders on the ticket as VP would bring the factions together.
Perhaps it would. Still, I think that Sanders should go back to the Senate, where his heightened presence would do a lot more to promote his agenda*. Same reason why Warren should stay put, too, rather than get the V.P. nod. Both would be far more effective actually legislating.
*Promote, probably not implement, because... yeah.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Perhaps it would. Still, I think that Sanders should go back to the Senate, where his heightened presence would do a lot more to promote his agenda*. Same reason why Warren should stay put, too, rather than get the V.P. nod. Both would be far more effective actually legislating.
*Promote, probably not implement, because... yeah.
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Try not to just straight-up continue the fights from the last thread and while I know emotions are high today, don't skip right to calling people racist. Thanks.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 1:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 1:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
I was just listening to Hamilton again and suddenly got a whole new take on "Here comes the general ..."
posted by kristi at 1:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by kristi at 1:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yay new thread! Because I found it healing I am going to double myself and repeat here the email I got today (about an hour and a half ago) from the HRC campaign, signed by Hillary.
On Sunday, Americans woke up to a nightmare: Another act of terrorism in a place no one expected it, a man with a gun in his hands and hate in his heart, apparently consumed by rage against LGBT Americans -- and, by extension, against the openness and diversity that define our way of life.
No matter how many times we endure attacks like this, the horror never fades. The murder of innocent people always breaks our hearts, tears at our sense of security, and makes us furious.
So many of us are praying for everyone who was killed, for the wounded and those still missing, and for all the loved ones grieving today. As a mother, I can’t imagine what those families are going through.
But we owe their memories and their families more than prayer. We must also take decisive action to strengthen our international alliances and combat acts of terror, to keep weapons of war off our streets, and to affirm the rights of LGBT Americans -- and all Americans -- to feel welcome and safe in our country.
Here’s what we absolutely cannot do: We cannot demonize Muslim people.
Inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric hurts the vast majority of Muslims who love freedom and hate terror. It’s no coincidence that hate crimes against American Muslims and mosques tripled after Paris and San Bernardino. Islamophobia goes against everything we stand for as a nation founded on freedom of religion, and it plays right into the terrorists’ hands.
We’re a big-hearted, fair-minded country. We teach our children that this is one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all -- not just for people who look a certain way, or love a certain way, or worship a certain way.
I want to say this to all the LGBT people grieving today in Florida and across our country: You have millions of allies who will always have your back. I am one of them. From Stonewall to Laramie and now Orlando, we’ve seen too many examples of how the struggle to live freely, openly, and without fear has been marked by violence. We have to stand together. Be proud together. There is no better rebuke to the terrorists and all those who hate.
This fundamentally American idea -- that we’re stronger together -- is why I’m so confident that we can overcome the threats we face, solve our challenges at home, and build a future where no one’s left out or left behind. We can do it, if we do it together.
Thank you for standing together in love, kindness, and the best of what it means to be American.
posted by bearwife at 1:47 PM on June 13, 2016 [54 favorites]
On Sunday, Americans woke up to a nightmare: Another act of terrorism in a place no one expected it, a man with a gun in his hands and hate in his heart, apparently consumed by rage against LGBT Americans -- and, by extension, against the openness and diversity that define our way of life.
No matter how many times we endure attacks like this, the horror never fades. The murder of innocent people always breaks our hearts, tears at our sense of security, and makes us furious.
So many of us are praying for everyone who was killed, for the wounded and those still missing, and for all the loved ones grieving today. As a mother, I can’t imagine what those families are going through.
But we owe their memories and their families more than prayer. We must also take decisive action to strengthen our international alliances and combat acts of terror, to keep weapons of war off our streets, and to affirm the rights of LGBT Americans -- and all Americans -- to feel welcome and safe in our country.
Here’s what we absolutely cannot do: We cannot demonize Muslim people.
Inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric hurts the vast majority of Muslims who love freedom and hate terror. It’s no coincidence that hate crimes against American Muslims and mosques tripled after Paris and San Bernardino. Islamophobia goes against everything we stand for as a nation founded on freedom of religion, and it plays right into the terrorists’ hands.
We’re a big-hearted, fair-minded country. We teach our children that this is one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all -- not just for people who look a certain way, or love a certain way, or worship a certain way.
I want to say this to all the LGBT people grieving today in Florida and across our country: You have millions of allies who will always have your back. I am one of them. From Stonewall to Laramie and now Orlando, we’ve seen too many examples of how the struggle to live freely, openly, and without fear has been marked by violence. We have to stand together. Be proud together. There is no better rebuke to the terrorists and all those who hate.
This fundamentally American idea -- that we’re stronger together -- is why I’m so confident that we can overcome the threats we face, solve our challenges at home, and build a future where no one’s left out or left behind. We can do it, if we do it together.
Thank you for standing together in love, kindness, and the best of what it means to be American.
posted by bearwife at 1:47 PM on June 13, 2016 [54 favorites]
Looking online, it looks like Sanders was one of six Senators who cosigned a DC statehood bill last June. He's probably mentioned it between now and then, but searching is mostly turning up references to his current statement.
posted by zarq at 1:47 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by zarq at 1:47 PM on June 13, 2016
Bulgaroktonos: "Part of me wants to get in line at the last possible second to see if I can be the last voter in this ridiculous primary season. The other part of me wants to make dinner at a reasonable time and that part will probably win."
The anti-Dixville Notch!
posted by Chrysostom at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
The anti-Dixville Notch!
posted by Chrysostom at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I feel like a lot of the DC voters I know, including me, were initially planning to vote for Bernie and now are feeling really excited to vote for Hillary. I just feel so disappointed by him; I thought he was something different and special and it turns out he's just another white man who thinks he knows what's best for everyone. The fact that I had time to see him unravel is the only good thing about the travesty that is DC's say in federal politics. We are more directly affected by Congress than the rest of the country and have literally zero say. It's maddening. Like Bulgaroktonos*, I'm mostly going for the council races although there's an extent to which I am also using my vote to express my support for Clinton and distaste for the way Sanders has conducted himself as the campaign neared the end.
*Who is goddamn well going to have dinner on the table at a reasonable hour, the hell with your stunty political shenanigans, thank you my darling!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [51 favorites]
*Who is goddamn well going to have dinner on the table at a reasonable hour, the hell with your stunty political shenanigans, thank you my darling!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [51 favorites]
Did she elaborate on her point? Yea, but that headline is all anyone is going to remember in a week.
Is anyone even going to remember that headline in a week? People picking apart a Politico headline about Clinton's response to Trump's response to a mass shooting right now are issuing hot takes. That's a fun thing to do, but it bears no resemblance to what even those very people who are issuing those hot takes will think about anything even 24 hours from now.
I can see my Bernie supporter friends processing and making their peace and figuring things out almost in real time on Facebook. It's really hard to say what things will look like a week from now.
posted by Sara C. at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
Is anyone even going to remember that headline in a week? People picking apart a Politico headline about Clinton's response to Trump's response to a mass shooting right now are issuing hot takes. That's a fun thing to do, but it bears no resemblance to what even those very people who are issuing those hot takes will think about anything even 24 hours from now.
I can see my Bernie supporter friends processing and making their peace and figuring things out almost in real time on Facebook. It's really hard to say what things will look like a week from now.
posted by Sara C. at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
If Clinton ends up the Democratic candidate (which she probably will), I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren for VP.
I wouldn't. I don't see a lot of upside in being Hillary Clinton's VP. I'd much rather see Warren right where she is, doing what she does.
As for the VP slot, I don't know. Maybe it should become a consolation prize for people who come really close to being the next James Bond, but then aren't. Like Tom Hiddleston would make a pretty good Vice President. Did you see him in The Night Manager?
posted by Naberius at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
I wouldn't. I don't see a lot of upside in being Hillary Clinton's VP. I'd much rather see Warren right where she is, doing what she does.
As for the VP slot, I don't know. Maybe it should become a consolation prize for people who come really close to being the next James Bond, but then aren't. Like Tom Hiddleston would make a pretty good Vice President. Did you see him in The Night Manager?
posted by Naberius at 1:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [14 favorites]
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a VP who's young enough to run for president in eight years? Sanders will be over eighty by then.
Sanders For Futurama Nixon 20∞
posted by y2karl at 1:50 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders For Futurama Nixon 20∞
posted by y2karl at 1:50 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
(seems obvious to me that "9/12" is shorthand for "the immediate aftermath of 9/11" - the days of "we are all new yorkers" and silent vigils on the streets of tehran.)
posted by fingers_of_fire at 1:51 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by fingers_of_fire at 1:51 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, Trump just announced via Facebook that he's revoking the Washington Post's access to his campaign.
(Link goes to a Tweet about the announcement rather than the Facebook post itself, because I don't hate you)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:51 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
(Link goes to a Tweet about the announcement rather than the Facebook post itself, because I don't hate you)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:51 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
LOL.
Like he won't be begging them for attention 5 minutes later, it's the one thing he craves.
posted by Artw at 1:53 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Like he won't be begging them for attention 5 minutes later, it's the one thing he craves.
posted by Artw at 1:53 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Has the Trump campaign jumped on the Orlando bandwagon to the extent of making slogan-beating swag for hypothetical LGBT Trump supporters, taco-bowl fashion, yet? I can totally see them coming up with a "I'm Gay For Trump (but not in that way!)" T-shirt/bumper sticker.
posted by acb at 1:53 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by acb at 1:53 PM on June 13, 2016
If Clinton ends up the Democratic candidate (which she probably will), I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren for VP
But that means if they win, it gives the GOP at least a short period with a new GOP senator (as the governor of MA is a Republican, and can put in an interim senator of his choosing), without a true assurance that a Dem will eventually win the special election to fill Warren's seat.
What would be BETTER would be to keep Warren in the Senate, and push to try to win the Senate back, vaulting Warren into a leadership role and possibly a chairmanship of an important committee (chairmanship being an elected position, rather than strictly based on seniority).
Another option would be to make her an important Cabinet member too, but getting the senate back really should be paramount.
posted by tittergrrl at 1:55 PM on June 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
But that means if they win, it gives the GOP at least a short period with a new GOP senator (as the governor of MA is a Republican, and can put in an interim senator of his choosing), without a true assurance that a Dem will eventually win the special election to fill Warren's seat.
What would be BETTER would be to keep Warren in the Senate, and push to try to win the Senate back, vaulting Warren into a leadership role and possibly a chairmanship of an important committee (chairmanship being an elected position, rather than strictly based on seniority).
Another option would be to make her an important Cabinet member too, but getting the senate back really should be paramount.
posted by tittergrrl at 1:55 PM on June 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
My standards for the media are so rock bottom at this point that I don't even know what their response to that is going to be? I feel like they should enter full on attack mode, because surely this is the final and most obvious sign that Trump will curtail freedom of the press and totally fuck them over. On the other hand, those sweet sweet pageviews and ratings.
posted by yasaman at 1:55 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by yasaman at 1:55 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
taco-bowl fashion
I have no idea what this means but I am intrigued.
posted by murphy slaw at 1:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I have no idea what this means but I am intrigued.
posted by murphy slaw at 1:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile, Trump just announced via Facebook that he's revoking the Washington Post's access to his campaign.
How long before he announces TrumpNews™?
"It'll be all the best news about me, and everything else Trump. Fabulous, top-quality news, printed on luxuriously thick paper. Better than all those biased losers who think they're doing real journalism. TrumpNews™. You're gonna love it." *shudder*
posted by zarq at 1:57 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
How long before he announces TrumpNews™?
"It'll be all the best news about me, and everything else Trump. Fabulous, top-quality news, printed on luxuriously thick paper. Better than all those biased losers who think they're doing real journalism. TrumpNews™. You're gonna love it." *shudder*
posted by zarq at 1:57 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
WaPo has been in full-on attack mode for months already, so I'm waiting with bated breath for their response. Other papers....we'll see.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:57 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:57 PM on June 13, 2016
Trump has declared that the Washington Post will no longer be credentialed for his events.
I guess they've just given him one too many Pinocchios.
It takes chutzpah of an uncommon order to run for the honor of swearing to protect and defend the Constitution, while taking steps to violate the first amendment to the document.
posted by bearwife at 1:59 PM on June 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
I guess they've just given him one too many Pinocchios.
It takes chutzpah of an uncommon order to run for the honor of swearing to protect and defend the Constitution, while taking steps to violate the first amendment to the document.
posted by bearwife at 1:59 PM on June 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
Trump and the taco bowl, on Cinco de Mayo.
posted by current resident at 2:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by current resident at 2:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Meanwhile, Trump just announced via Facebook that he's revoking the Washington Post's access to his campaign.
(Link goes to a Tweet about the announcement rather than the Facebook post itself, because I don't hate you)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:51 PM on June 13 [3 favorites +] [!]
LOL.
Like he won't be begging them for attention 5 minutes later, it's the one thing he craves.
posted by Artw at 1:53 PM on June 13 [+] [!]
Wait, isn't this the same guy who's not going to fundraise because he gets so much free media you won't believe it, I guarantee you we're going to get so much free media and exposure that we won't need to buy ads?
If he kicks the free media out of his campaign, how is he going to crazyeddieheadexplodes.gif
posted by Existential Dread at 2:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
(Link goes to a Tweet about the announcement rather than the Facebook post itself, because I don't hate you)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:51 PM on June 13 [3 favorites +] [!]
LOL.
Like he won't be begging them for attention 5 minutes later, it's the one thing he craves.
posted by Artw at 1:53 PM on June 13 [+] [!]
Wait, isn't this the same guy who's not going to fundraise because he gets so much free media you won't believe it, I guarantee you we're going to get so much free media and exposure that we won't need to buy ads?
If he kicks the free media out of his campaign, how is he going to crazyeddieheadexplodes.gif
posted by Existential Dread at 2:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
You know what would be cool, is if we constitutionally amended it so that the VP has more senatorial roles beyond tie-breaking, so it becomes a hybrid-executive/legislative job that's more meaningful than "ceremonial stand-in/backup president."
posted by Apocryphon at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
acb: Has the Trump campaign jumped on the Orlando bandwagon to the extent of making slogan-beating swag for hypothetical LGBT Trump supporters, taco-bowl fashion, yet?
murphy slaw: I have no idea what this means but I am intrigued.
Trump Defends Hispanic-Pandering Taco Bowl Tweet: ‘People Loved It!’
His tweet:
murphy slaw: I have no idea what this means but I am intrigued.
Trump Defends Hispanic-Pandering Taco Bowl Tweet: ‘People Loved It!’
His tweet:
Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics! https://t.co/ufoTeQd8yA pic.twitter.com/k01Mc6CuDIposted by filthy light thief at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was all about Bernie, but with this thing having been pretty much decided, I'm sorta nervously hoping he throws in behind Clinton to start the push against Trump pretty soon. Even a small possibility that man could become President needs to be treated like an open container of Ebola.
posted by Mooski at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Mooski at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
IF YOU LIVE IN DC, THIS PRIMARY STILL MATTERS. PLEASE VOTE TOMORROW.
The presidential race has effectively been decided, but DC has a few council positions open, including one at-large seat. Given that Democratic nominees virtually always end up winning the general election in DC, the Democratic Primary is the election that really matters.
Unfortunately, this quirk ends up being exploited in extremely-low-turnout elections, and the Council ends up full of politicians who virtually nobody voted for, because it's really easy to win a low-turnout primary.
Worse still, DC's past few off-cycle elections have suffered from one of the most clear-cut cases of vote-splitting I've ever seen in in modern politics. For whatever reason, the primaries tend to boil down to two similar "Liberal" candidates, and one "Conservative" candidate. In these elections, the "Liberal" votes get split between the two candidates, and the "Conservative" candidate wins with ~30% of the overall vote.
Vincent Orange, in particular, has managed to squeeze out a rather prolific political career by "winning" one low-turnout election after another, without ever managing anything even close to a majority of votes. Tomorrow is DC's chance to finally fire him from the Council, and for the first time in ages, he only has one highly-credible opponent, Robert White.
[Yes. This is all kinds of fucked-up, and I'm not at all happy about it. The primary election should not be a proxy for the general election, and DC seriously needs to rectify this problem, given that the Other Major Party is going to be unfathomably toxic to DC's electorate for the foreseeable future. If you live in DC, you should register as a Democrat, simply because it's the only practical way to have a voice in local politics.]
posted by schmod at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [23 favorites]
The presidential race has effectively been decided, but DC has a few council positions open, including one at-large seat. Given that Democratic nominees virtually always end up winning the general election in DC, the Democratic Primary is the election that really matters.
Unfortunately, this quirk ends up being exploited in extremely-low-turnout elections, and the Council ends up full of politicians who virtually nobody voted for, because it's really easy to win a low-turnout primary.
Worse still, DC's past few off-cycle elections have suffered from one of the most clear-cut cases of vote-splitting I've ever seen in in modern politics. For whatever reason, the primaries tend to boil down to two similar "Liberal" candidates, and one "Conservative" candidate. In these elections, the "Liberal" votes get split between the two candidates, and the "Conservative" candidate wins with ~30% of the overall vote.
Vincent Orange, in particular, has managed to squeeze out a rather prolific political career by "winning" one low-turnout election after another, without ever managing anything even close to a majority of votes. Tomorrow is DC's chance to finally fire him from the Council, and for the first time in ages, he only has one highly-credible opponent, Robert White.
[Yes. This is all kinds of fucked-up, and I'm not at all happy about it. The primary election should not be a proxy for the general election, and DC seriously needs to rectify this problem, given that the Other Major Party is going to be unfathomably toxic to DC's electorate for the foreseeable future. If you live in DC, you should register as a Democrat, simply because it's the only practical way to have a voice in local politics.]
posted by schmod at 2:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [23 favorites]
The "Warren would be replaced by a Republican" thing is a bit of red herring. Democrats hold super-majorities in both houses of the MA legislature; they could easily pass a law stating that Gov. Baker has to nominate a Democrat (a la Wyoming's law), or that they need to approve nominees, or whatever. It's not a choice of Warren or some New England equivalent of Tom Coburn.
posted by Chrysostom at 2:03 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 2:03 PM on June 13, 2016
Time to update Donald Trump's Media Enemies List
posted by zarq at 2:03 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zarq at 2:03 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
LOL.
Like he won't be begging them for attention 5 minutes later, it's the one thing he craves.
Artw
I think this is one of the fundamental errors people make about Trump, and in part explains why people have been so wrong about him. The opposite in fact is true:
The media needs Trump. Trump doesn't need any particular element of the media.
Media entities in today's fractured media landscape are desperate for eyeballs and clicks. Trump is guaranteed attention generator. If he says or Tweets or does something outrageous, which he reliably will, a million places will carry it because it draws attention. If you don't, you lose, because no one place matters enough to hold out.
Trump will do just fine without WaPo because everyone else will slavishly follow him. Can WaPo do without Trump?
posted by Sangermaine at 2:04 PM on June 13, 2016 [20 favorites]
Like he won't be begging them for attention 5 minutes later, it's the one thing he craves.
Artw
I think this is one of the fundamental errors people make about Trump, and in part explains why people have been so wrong about him. The opposite in fact is true:
The media needs Trump. Trump doesn't need any particular element of the media.
Media entities in today's fractured media landscape are desperate for eyeballs and clicks. Trump is guaranteed attention generator. If he says or Tweets or does something outrageous, which he reliably will, a million places will carry it because it draws attention. If you don't, you lose, because no one place matters enough to hold out.
Trump will do just fine without WaPo because everyone else will slavishly follow him. Can WaPo do without Trump?
posted by Sangermaine at 2:04 PM on June 13, 2016 [20 favorites]
Trump has declared that the Washington Post will no longer be credentialed for his events.
I would point out that the dress rehearsal we had for Trump in Canada, Rob Ford, refused to speak to Toronto's largest (and least right wing) daily newspaper, the Toronto Star, for his entire time in office. Because hissy fits.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:05 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would point out that the dress rehearsal we had for Trump in Canada, Rob Ford, refused to speak to Toronto's largest (and least right wing) daily newspaper, the Toronto Star, for his entire time in office. Because hissy fits.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:05 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
they're not, like, forbidden to write about him now or anything
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [33 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [33 favorites]
Speaking of a campaign based on direct violation of citizens' first amendment rights, Trump has again called for surveillance of U.S. mosques.
Dear me, it is only Monday. Imagine how many more Trumpisms Rs will be racing to disavow by this weekend, while still telling us they have to support him because somehow HRC would be worse.
posted by bearwife at 2:07 PM on June 13, 2016
Dear me, it is only Monday. Imagine how many more Trumpisms Rs will be racing to disavow by this weekend, while still telling us they have to support him because somehow HRC would be worse.
posted by bearwife at 2:07 PM on June 13, 2016
I voted in the DC primary about a week ago. It was an entirely pleasant experience; just me and a dozen poll workers. What could be better than voting for a presidential pick that has already lost, voting against a corrupt council member (who I bet will keep his seat), and writing in Bill Nye and the long-dead Buckminster Fuller for the unopposed shadow-people races?
I did it for the sticker.
posted by cichlid ceilidh at 2:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I did it for the sticker.
posted by cichlid ceilidh at 2:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
What would be BETTER would be to keep Warren in the Senate...
On the other hand, the entire ticket could be Clinton and her Anger Translator, so there's that.
OMG that would be amazing.
posted by fatbird at 2:12 PM on June 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
On the other hand, the entire ticket could be Clinton and her Anger Translator, so there's that.
OMG that would be amazing.
posted by fatbird at 2:12 PM on June 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
I need a script or app that replaces anything after the phrase "Trump says" with pictures of hot dudes or puppies or hot dudes holding puppies. Can one of you app writing types get on that please.
posted by emjaybee at 2:12 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 2:12 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
The "Warren would be replaced by a Republican" thing is a bit of red herring.
Given the specific history of Warren's Senate seat, I wouldn't take that for granted.
Scott Brown famously usurped Ted Kennedy's seat in 2010, which was unfathomable at the time. He damn near kept it in 2012 when Warren ran against him.
Let's not replace one of the strongest voices in the Senate with another R. We need Senator Warren right where she is.
posted by schmod at 2:14 PM on June 13, 2016 [27 favorites]
Given the specific history of Warren's Senate seat, I wouldn't take that for granted.
Scott Brown famously usurped Ted Kennedy's seat in 2010, which was unfathomable at the time. He damn near kept it in 2012 when Warren ran against him.
Let's not replace one of the strongest voices in the Senate with another R. We need Senator Warren right where she is.
posted by schmod at 2:14 PM on June 13, 2016 [27 favorites]
Why do so many people fail to get that, except in very rare circumstances, VP is a no- to low-power job? Warren would be utterly wasted as VP unless you're counting on something happening to Clinton. She has done so much good, let's not promote her to a place of near-uselessness because we all have a crush on her. Let's not kill her with our love, people.
posted by emjaybee at 2:18 PM on June 13, 2016 [70 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 2:18 PM on June 13, 2016 [70 favorites]
Chrysostom:The "Warren would be replaced by a Republican" thing is a bit of red herring. Democrats hold super-majorities in both houses of the MA legislature; they could easily pass a law stating that Gov. Baker has to nominate a Democrat (a la Wyoming's law), or that they need to approve nominees, or whatever. It's not a choice of Warren or some New England equivalent of Tom Coburn.
No, that's true, but MA legislative leaders apparently are very hesitant to do that again, because it would be the third time in twelve years that would have done that exact same thing.
Regardless, Warren would probably have a lot more influence in the Senate or Cabinet than as a VP, IMO. Not that I would MIND her being VP either... it'd be awesome. I just think she'd work better as a Senator for the time being. The Dems have a really good shot at retaking the Senate, and they shouldn't jeopardize that.
posted by tittergrrl at 2:19 PM on June 13, 2016
No, that's true, but MA legislative leaders apparently are very hesitant to do that again, because it would be the third time in twelve years that would have done that exact same thing.
Regardless, Warren would probably have a lot more influence in the Senate or Cabinet than as a VP, IMO. Not that I would MIND her being VP either... it'd be awesome. I just think she'd work better as a Senator for the time being. The Dems have a really good shot at retaking the Senate, and they shouldn't jeopardize that.
posted by tittergrrl at 2:19 PM on June 13, 2016
Let's not replace one of the strongest voices in the Senate with another R. We need Elizabeth Warren right where she is.
I wouldn't want her on the ticket even if we could guarantee she were replaced by another strong progressive. She's more than just a reliable D vote -- she's specifically very good on the Wall Street regulatory issues that Hillary's questionable on. That's going to be important if Hillary does win.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
I wouldn't want her on the ticket even if we could guarantee she were replaced by another strong progressive. She's more than just a reliable D vote -- she's specifically very good on the Wall Street regulatory issues that Hillary's questionable on. That's going to be important if Hillary does win.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Mod note: People are finishing up the 9/12 conversation in the last election thread, that seems to be the consensus decision.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 2:21 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 2:21 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why do so many people fail to get that, except in very rare circumstances, VP is a no- to low-power job? Warren would be utterly wasted as VP unless you're counting on something happening to Clinton.
Maybe because a lot of people here seem to care more about delivering epic mic drops against Donald Trump than, say, financial reform.
posted by mcmile at 2:21 PM on June 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
Maybe because a lot of people here seem to care more about delivering epic mic drops against Donald Trump than, say, financial reform.
posted by mcmile at 2:21 PM on June 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
We are more directly affected by Congress than the rest of the country and have literally zero say. It's maddening.
I've raged about this in basically every politics thread and here I am, doing it again. To the people who live in actual states: please, please, please remember that there are nearly 700,000 Americans in the nation's capital who do not have voting senators and representatives* to elect in and out, to write to when we have problems, to lobby when we need action, to advocate for us when we need our voices heard. We have less than nothing: our rights are used as bargaining chips by the people you vote for. Remember that.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 2:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
I've raged about this in basically every politics thread and here I am, doing it again. To the people who live in actual states: please, please, please remember that there are nearly 700,000 Americans in the nation's capital who do not have voting senators and representatives* to elect in and out, to write to when we have problems, to lobby when we need action, to advocate for us when we need our voices heard. We have less than nothing: our rights are used as bargaining chips by the people you vote for. Remember that.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 2:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
The argument for Warren as VP would be if it helps Clinton get elected. As much as I want the Dems to take the Senate, its far far more important to deny Trump the Presidency. The calculus of who, if anyone, would help Clinton as a VP pick is complicated and full of things no one can really know at this point, but that would be the reason to choose her.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:23 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by thefoxgod at 2:23 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
this is 2016 it's not about meaningful reform it's about sick burns, faves and retweets brah
posted by entropicamericana at 2:23 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by entropicamericana at 2:23 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
USA Today: Trump was accused of destroying email evidence in lawsuit 10 years ago
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
AND DANK MEMES DON'T FORGET DANK MEMES
posted by dersins at 2:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by dersins at 2:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
@goldietaylor: Reminder: @washingtonpost pretty much forced him to mail that million dollar check to a vets charity.
posted by Artw at 2:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
She's more hawkish than I wish, but I wonder if she feels because of gender reasons and because Trump is powered by xenophobia like she needs to project how the U.S. was post 9/11 before everything went to shit: powerful and pissed off.
She absolutely feels like she needs to project a certain hawkishness, especially to win over right-center defectors fleeing Trump. She's also by pretty nearly every indication actually fairly hawkish.
posted by atoxyl at 2:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
She absolutely feels like she needs to project a certain hawkishness, especially to win over right-center defectors fleeing Trump. She's also by pretty nearly every indication actually fairly hawkish.
posted by atoxyl at 2:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
The argument for Warren as VP would be if it helps Clinton get elected.
Which argument seems to boil down to "It would be a nice sop to progressive voters." See also accusations about the Left's tendency to prefer symbolic acts to practical results.
posted by happyroach at 2:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
Which argument seems to boil down to "It would be a nice sop to progressive voters." See also accusations about the Left's tendency to prefer symbolic acts to practical results.
posted by happyroach at 2:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [18 favorites]
Trump said he raised $6 million for veterans. Now his campaign says it was less. (WaPo, May 21)
posted by filthy light thief at 2:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [23 favorites]
Lewandowski also said he did not know whether a $1 million pledge from Trump himself was counted as part of the $4.5 million total. He said Trump has given that amount, but he declined to identify any recipients.Good job, Washington Post. This isn't calling bullshit on his ramblings and rants, it's making him pay out like he said he would.
...
In recent weeks, Trump and his campaign repeatedly declined to give new details about how much they have given away.
“Why should I give you records?” Trump said in an interview with The Post this month. “I don’t have to give you records.”
Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said Trump’s refusal to divulge how much of the money he had distributed raised questions about whether the candidate intended the fundraiser primarily as a public-relations effort for himself.
“That’s just shady. Right? No matter how you cut it, that’s just shady,” Rieckhoff said. “If he was going to make it right, a couple of weeks before Memorial Day would be a good time to do it. It behooves him, not just politically but ethically, to come forward and account for this money.”
...
In the past few days, The Post has interviewed 22 veterans charities that received donations as a result of Trump’s fundraiser. None of them have reported receiving personal donations from Trump.
Did Trump make good on his promise to give from his personal funds?
“The money is fully spent. Mr. Trump’s money is fully spent,” Lewandowski said.
To whom did Trump give, and in what amounts?
“He’s not going to share that information,” Lewandowski said.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [23 favorites]
Don't forget the strategic importance of making sure the Democrats win Massachusetts.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 2:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bernie is also hawkish. He voted for the Libyan no fly zone, Afghanistan, NATO's attack on Yugoslavia, etc. He voted against war with Iraq, but for everything else.
posted by humanfont at 2:33 PM on June 13, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 2:33 PM on June 13, 2016 [20 favorites]
Trump has declared that the Washington Post will no longer be credentialed for his events.
In response, Bezos has cancelled Trump's Amazon Prime account.
This may also be what prompted his ire. How dare they report his crooked business practices that he's been keeping everyone quiet on for 40 years...
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
In response, Bezos has cancelled Trump's Amazon Prime account.
This may also be what prompted his ire. How dare they report his crooked business practices that he's been keeping everyone quiet on for 40 years...
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
But that wasn't the end -- Four months after fundraiser, Trump says he gave $1 million to veterans group (WaPo, May 24)
posted by filthy light thief at 2:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The candidate refused to provide details. On Monday, a Post reporter used Twitter — Trump’s preferred social-media platform — to search publicly for any veterans groups that had received Trump’s money.Recipient of Trump’s $1 million donation: ‘It’s arrived, and it’s in the bank’ (WaPo, May 25)
By Monday afternoon, The Post had found none. But it seems to have caught the candidate’s attention.
Later Monday evening, Trump called the home of James K. Kallstrom, a former FBI official who is chairman of the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. The charity aids families of fallen Marines and federal law enforcement officers.
Trump told Kallstrom that he would give the entire $1 million to the group, according to Kallstrom’s wife. Sue Kallstrom said she was not sure whether the money had been transferred yet.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:35 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
oneswellfoop: This may also be what prompted his ire. How dare they report his crooked business practices that he's been keeping everyone quiet on for 40 years...
I like to think that by barring WaPo from Trump's publicity tent, The Post can spend more time digging up dirt on him.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:37 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I like to think that by barring WaPo from Trump's publicity tent, The Post can spend more time digging up dirt on him.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:37 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Maybe he'll block them on Twitter.
posted by Artw at 2:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 2:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, I wasn't going to say THAT, but I was thinking it. I'm thinking a lot of things, like what I'd like to buy from Amazon (using MeFi's affiliate code) to show support.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:39 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:39 PM on June 13, 2016
Speaking of the Senate, Rubio may be preparing to use the Orlando attacks as an excuse to jump back in the Senate race he promised not to jump back into.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I still think he's hiding his biggest shame, that he's an over leveraged, broke-ass fool. That's what drives him and makes him make a presidential campaign secondary to fear of losing a lawsuit where he may have to pay back people he ripped off and another bottom feeding money grab (Trump University). I worked across the river from Chicago Trump Tower, a hotel and high end condo complex that was completed in 2008. I watched when the sun hit a certain way in the evenings in 2010-2012 that allowed you to see the light streaming thru empty floors. Was there a worse year to to market real estate? He must have lost a bundle, it cost $850 M.
Yeah, good going Washington Post, he would have held out on that money for a looonngg time. That's why he hates them. As they say, follow the money.
posted by readery at 2:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [24 favorites]
Yeah, good going Washington Post, he would have held out on that money for a looonngg time. That's why he hates them. As they say, follow the money.
posted by readery at 2:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [24 favorites]
Rubio can go fuck himself, the homophobic shitbag.
posted by Artw at 2:41 PM on June 13, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by Artw at 2:41 PM on June 13, 2016 [24 favorites]
In case anyone was wondering exactly how wrong Trump's statements today were.
My money's pretty much always on "utterly."
posted by dersins at 2:43 PM on June 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
My money's pretty much always on "utterly."
posted by dersins at 2:43 PM on June 13, 2016 [19 favorites]
From the Washington Post article:
posted by zachlipton at 2:45 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump also steered the company toward deals with the rest of the Trump-brand empire. Between 2006 and 2009, the company bought $1.7 million of Trump-brand merchandise, including $1.2 million of Trump Ice bottled water, the analysis shows.This explains a lot. The vanity projects weren't just ego boosts, but ways to siphon cash out of his companies and into his pockets. It's the classic real estate developer scam of charging ridiculously high management fees and ensuring your cronies control the condo board so they won't be challenged, except with water and steaks and magazines. It couldn't have made him that much money, but every dollar of other people's money that he could convert to his was a victory.
posted by zachlipton at 2:45 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
An inconsistent triad: Trump, Sanders, Clinton, and the radical mismatch in the theater of politics
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:51 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
When one looks at the three personages that have been dominating this election, one is struck by a strange disconnect not only in their views, but also in the way they understand the process they participate in. This disconnect is not an accidental feature of the situation. From a sufficient amount of distance, and with a heavy dose of hyperbole, we might say that Clinton, Sanders and Trump represent the whole menu of Europe's recent political history: liberal democracy, communism, and fascism; we have the full works. Of course, Sanders is no communist. And he is much closer in outlook to Clinton than to Trump. While Trump views the election simply as a popularity contest, and tries to get elected by force of personality and attitude, Sanders and Clinton both sees it in terms of ideas; and their ideas are not all that different either. But there are interesting contrasts elsewhere: Sanders is not an ordinary Democrat. The way he presents his program reflects not only a difference in personal style, but also a difference in his understanding of the political process.Am I back in an HoI playthrough?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:51 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is there really any doubt that Trump sees his Great Wall as nothing more than a way to put money in his pocket, and if he can't get Mexico to pay for it, well, American Government money is as good as any. That, and having a Personal Monument to feed hisravenous ego...
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:54 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:54 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
And then Biden becomes VP.
Well, it'll save having to send the sheriffs around to Observatory Circle to haul out his blacklight posters, waterbed, sensory deprivation tank, fiberglass big hand chair, and hi-fi system.
And tow his bitchin' Camaro out of the driveway.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
Well, it'll save having to send the sheriffs around to Observatory Circle to haul out his blacklight posters, waterbed, sensory deprivation tank, fiberglass big hand chair, and hi-fi system.
And tow his bitchin' Camaro out of the driveway.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 2:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [13 favorites]
Ever since I read this piece last week, I cannot stop hoping for Al Franken as VP.
posted by jabes at 2:57 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by jabes at 2:57 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
This is ALL a way to put money in his pocket. The R presumptive nominee is a flimflam man, plain and simple. This election campaign is his way to get other people to pay for the biggest name branding effort we've ever seen. Lying, making promises he has no intention of delivering on, and callously inciting hatred are all tried and true techniques of his. He is certain to have a lasting, lucrative name for years and years after 2016 is over. It is likely true that you can only fool some of the people all the time, but what a nice income that will guarantee.
I doubt very much that Trump thinks he'll win the presidency. It is the free ride he is enjoying.
posted by bearwife at 2:58 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I doubt very much that Trump thinks he'll win the presidency. It is the free ride he is enjoying.
posted by bearwife at 2:58 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Vincent Orange, in particular, has managed to squeeze out a rather prolific political career by "winning" one low-turnout election after another. . . and for the first time in ages, he only has one highly-credible opponent, Robert White.
Wait, so you're saying White may be the new Orange? Seriously, every headline writer in DC begs you to make this happen.
posted by The Bellman at 3:00 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
Wait, so you're saying White may be the new Orange? Seriously, every headline writer in DC begs you to make this happen.
posted by The Bellman at 3:00 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
Bernie is also hawkish. He voted for the Libyan no fly zone, Afghanistan, NATO's attack on Yugoslavia, etc. He voted against war with Iraq, but for everything else.
I'm not here to argue about Sanders versus Clinton - Bernie ain't the candidate anyway! I'm just saying at some point you are who you pretend to be.
posted by atoxyl at 3:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not here to argue about Sanders versus Clinton - Bernie ain't the candidate anyway! I'm just saying at some point you are who you pretend to be.
posted by atoxyl at 3:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The question on my mind is "When will Deez Nuts make another appearance during this campaign cycle?" Unsatisfied by the performance of the presumptive nominees of the major party, America wants to see Deez Nuts again! Deez Nuts won't flip-flop, or pander. Deez Nuts can be counted on!
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:01 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:01 PM on June 13, 2016
I keep wondering about Ivanka, who by all accounts acts as one of his closest advisors. Does she feel any shame at all when she listens to him speak? Does she nod her head in honest agreement, or is it one of those "yeah, that Dad, what a character, he's all talk," things? How much is family loyalty and how much is being a true believer?
Is there such a thing as being a Trump true believer at that level? I can't even imagine it. Everyone in his inner circle has to at least secretly acknowledge what a mess he is, right? They all have to know the real score, even if they'd never admit it out loud.
I find the possibly cynical angle more disappointing and disgusting, personally, because it fits what's happening with the majority of the Republican party. This racist, misogynistic, unprofessional loudmouth is our party standard bearer, but we'll line up like sheep behind him and shake our heads sadly and say that we'll vote for him without - God forbid - endorsing him, because that will clear our consciences while still allowing us to pocket donations and endorsements!
I never would have thought I'd admire Mitt Romney, of all people, but I have to give him some credit for standing his ground. The people out there who should fucking know better who are giving Trump a pass out of blind loyalty make me sick.
posted by Salieri at 3:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
Is there such a thing as being a Trump true believer at that level? I can't even imagine it. Everyone in his inner circle has to at least secretly acknowledge what a mess he is, right? They all have to know the real score, even if they'd never admit it out loud.
I find the possibly cynical angle more disappointing and disgusting, personally, because it fits what's happening with the majority of the Republican party. This racist, misogynistic, unprofessional loudmouth is our party standard bearer, but we'll line up like sheep behind him and shake our heads sadly and say that we'll vote for him without - God forbid - endorsing him, because that will clear our consciences while still allowing us to pocket donations and endorsements!
I never would have thought I'd admire Mitt Romney, of all people, but I have to give him some credit for standing his ground. The people out there who should fucking know better who are giving Trump a pass out of blind loyalty make me sick.
posted by Salieri at 3:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [16 favorites]
I doubt very much that Trump thinks he'll win the presidency. It is the free ride he is enjoying.
I doubt that he did, starting out. But then he starting winning and I'm certain he wants it now.
posted by atoxyl at 3:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I doubt that he did, starting out. But then he starting winning and I'm certain he wants it now.
posted by atoxyl at 3:02 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
jabes: Ever since I read this piece last week, I cannot stop hoping for Al Franken as VP.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:03 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Candidate Trump erases the old standards. Nothing that Franken said decades ago would be remotely as incendiary as the insults Trump spews as a matter of campaign strategy. And Trump’s presence demands new rhetorical weaponry. As Trump himself might say, Franken’s “classy” and “elegant” wit is just what the ticket needs to avoid the kind of brawl that drags everyone down to Trump’s level. Clinton will want to stay above the fray, and Franken can provide the buffer.Interesting piece, thanks!
posted by filthy light thief at 3:03 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I strongly suspect that if someone ever dumps Trump financial data into the public record which technically I guess is kinda doxxing so probably ethically bad we are going to find out that Trump is really not worth that much and most of what he does have is tied up in non-liquid assets.
Yes he might own some very fancy real estate but he's probably extremely leveraged on those positions and his cash assets are extremely limited.
This is not a great financier who is independent of the demands of millionaires and billionaires but a well-heeled grifter running an exceptionally long and bold con and the truth of the matter is that he's not even really that good at it.
The fact that he's scamming veterans and not paying contractors and under lots of civil law suits, and is on god know how many bankruptcies should be a warning that what this man is selling is not something that you should be buying.
But like so many dupes who give seed money to televangelist charlatans it seems like lots of Trump's supporters are true believers. They don't just expect him to be a successful businessman they need him to be a successful businessman because they are so desperate for a strong man to come in and tell them what to do that they will turn to the pettiest dictator they can find.
So much of his support is coming from desperate people, people that are desperate for answers, people who are desperate for "solutions", people who are desperate for a strong man to tell them it's not their fault, that they are being victimized by Mexicans and Muslims and Liberals. I feel so deeply sorry for these people that are so desperate for something that they are willing to turn to someone who is so blatantly dishonest but who is telling them lies that they want to hear.
I feel sorry and compassion for these people but I also know that these are the same sort of people that allowed dictators to rise to power throughout the 20th century and a desperately need for that to never happen here because so many people who I love and treasure could be irreversibly hurt by allowing this man to become President. Hell I'm terrified about what sort of collective ID that he's already unleashed by becoming a nominee.
posted by vuron at 3:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
Yes he might own some very fancy real estate but he's probably extremely leveraged on those positions and his cash assets are extremely limited.
This is not a great financier who is independent of the demands of millionaires and billionaires but a well-heeled grifter running an exceptionally long and bold con and the truth of the matter is that he's not even really that good at it.
The fact that he's scamming veterans and not paying contractors and under lots of civil law suits, and is on god know how many bankruptcies should be a warning that what this man is selling is not something that you should be buying.
But like so many dupes who give seed money to televangelist charlatans it seems like lots of Trump's supporters are true believers. They don't just expect him to be a successful businessman they need him to be a successful businessman because they are so desperate for a strong man to come in and tell them what to do that they will turn to the pettiest dictator they can find.
So much of his support is coming from desperate people, people that are desperate for answers, people who are desperate for "solutions", people who are desperate for a strong man to tell them it's not their fault, that they are being victimized by Mexicans and Muslims and Liberals. I feel so deeply sorry for these people that are so desperate for something that they are willing to turn to someone who is so blatantly dishonest but who is telling them lies that they want to hear.
I feel sorry and compassion for these people but I also know that these are the same sort of people that allowed dictators to rise to power throughout the 20th century and a desperately need for that to never happen here because so many people who I love and treasure could be irreversibly hurt by allowing this man to become President. Hell I'm terrified about what sort of collective ID that he's already unleashed by becoming a nominee.
posted by vuron at 3:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
I keep wondering about Ivanka, who by all accounts acts as one of his closest advisors. Does she feel any shame at all when she listens to him speak?
I'm sure she does at some times. Like when he's 'joking' about what he'd do with her if he wasn't 'happily married and, ya know, her father'....
posted by filthy light thief at 3:06 PM on June 13, 2016
I'm sure she does at some times. Like when he's 'joking' about what he'd do with her if he wasn't 'happily married and, ya know, her father'....
posted by filthy light thief at 3:06 PM on June 13, 2016
I keep wondering about Ivanka, who by all accounts acts as one of his closest advisors. Does she feel any shame at all when she listens to him speak? Does she nod her head in honest agreement, or is it one of those "yeah, that Dad, what a character, he's all talk," things? How much is family loyalty and how much is being a true believer?
Is there such a thing as being a Trump true believer at that level? I can't even imagine it. Everyone in his inner circle has to at least secretly acknowledge what a mess he is, right? They all have to know the real score, even if they'd never admit it out loud.
The thing about being in a relationship with a narcissist, family or otherwise, is that sooner or later you pretty much have to choose to be somebody who validates them and gives them what they want, or you have to choose to be an outcast who is a terrible human being that was so awful to the narcissist and victimized the narcissist so badly.
There's no third choice. You either buy in or you get out.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:08 PM on June 13, 2016 [41 favorites]
Is there such a thing as being a Trump true believer at that level? I can't even imagine it. Everyone in his inner circle has to at least secretly acknowledge what a mess he is, right? They all have to know the real score, even if they'd never admit it out loud.
The thing about being in a relationship with a narcissist, family or otherwise, is that sooner or later you pretty much have to choose to be somebody who validates them and gives them what they want, or you have to choose to be an outcast who is a terrible human being that was so awful to the narcissist and victimized the narcissist so badly.
There's no third choice. You either buy in or you get out.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:08 PM on June 13, 2016 [41 favorites]
"I'm not not saying Obama's a secret Muslim..."
posted by tonycpsu at 3:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 3:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I'd like to be racist, but also a bit cowardly at the same time."
posted by Artw at 3:13 PM on June 13, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by Artw at 3:13 PM on June 13, 2016 [32 favorites]
Ever since I read this piece last week, I cannot stop hoping for Al Franken as VP.
Stronger case than I expected. It's true that he probably has the right temperament for this cycle. Definitely worth considering him. Think he might be another one that found the right job in the Senate though.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:14 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Stronger case than I expected. It's true that he probably has the right temperament for this cycle. Definitely worth considering him. Think he might be another one that found the right job in the Senate though.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:14 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
At 65, Franken is too old to be a potential successor in eight years.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:18 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by kirkaracha at 3:18 PM on June 13, 2016
Trump's VP choice is the more interesting puzzle, since it appears that Chris Christie already has a job.
posted by AndrewInDC at 3:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by AndrewInDC at 3:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
At 65, Franken is too old to be a potential successor in eight years.
How about the senior senator then? Amy Klobuchar is only 56. That's right in the VP wheelhouse. Plus her Senate seat should be pretty safely Democratic.
posted by Justinian at 3:23 PM on June 13, 2016
How about the senior senator then? Amy Klobuchar is only 56. That's right in the VP wheelhouse. Plus her Senate seat should be pretty safely Democratic.
posted by Justinian at 3:23 PM on June 13, 2016
At 65, Franken is too old to be a potential successor in eight years.
And when was the last time a Democrat won a presidential election after serving eight years as VP? It's not exactly a reliable stepping stone to the big chair.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:28 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
And when was the last time a Democrat won a presidential election after serving eight years as VP? It's not exactly a reliable stepping stone to the big chair.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:28 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump's VP choice is the more interesting puzzle, since it appears that Chris Christie already has a job.
I know Trump's trying to run with a lean campaign staff, but I do believe that there are separate positions for Vice President and Senior Fluffer.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:28 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know Trump's trying to run with a lean campaign staff, but I do believe that there are separate positions for Vice President and Senior Fluffer.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:28 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
And when was the last time a Democrat won a presidential election after serving eight years as VP? It's not exactly a reliable stepping stone to the big chair.
2000.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [70 favorites]
2000.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [70 favorites]
BREAKING: PHOTO OF TRUMP VP FOUND
Man, Jack White looks old. I don't get the joke, though -- why would he be Trump's VP?
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Man, Jack White looks old. I don't get the joke, though -- why would he be Trump's VP?
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is not a column about Donald Trump.A Party Agrift
It’s not about the fraudulent scheme that was Trump University. It’s not about his history of failing to pay contractors, leading to hundreds of legal actions. It’s not about how he personally profited while running his casinos into the ground. It’s not even concerned with persistent questions about whether he is nearly as rich as he claims to be, and whether he’s ever done more than live off capital gains on his inheritance.
...So why didn’t any of Mr. Trump’s primary opponents manage to make an issue of his sleazy business career? Were they just incompetent, or is there something structural about the modern Republican Party that makes it unable to confront grifters?
The answer, I’d argue, is the latter
posted by y2karl at 3:33 PM on June 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
Have we completely discounted Julian Castro? Or Cory Booker? Honestly asking - I haven't heard anything about either one since earlier, like April.
posted by eclectist at 3:50 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by eclectist at 3:50 PM on June 13, 2016
I would very strongly prefer that no Democratic Senators be selected as VP. Vice Presidents just do not add that much value to the ticket. Nothing is stopping Franken, Warren, or other Democratic Senators from cutting Trump down to size right now and through the rest of the campaign.
Trump is so unpopular that even Utah (!) is in play this election cycle, which suggests that there is a very real chance that the Dems could re-take the Senate. Removing effective progressive Senators from meaningful work for a symbolic election token is not a good trade-off in my book.
posted by palindromic at 3:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
Trump is so unpopular that even Utah (!) is in play this election cycle, which suggests that there is a very real chance that the Dems could re-take the Senate. Removing effective progressive Senators from meaningful work for a symbolic election token is not a good trade-off in my book.
posted by palindromic at 3:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
So why didn’t any of Mr. Trump’s primary opponents manage to make an issue of his sleazy business career?
Because it's mutually assured destruction. Trump would immediately rattle off the crony capitalist dealings of any one of the field. Cruz? Caribbean Equity Partners. Rubio? Big sugar. Kasich's office was literally donate to his campaign for political appointments.
There's really so much sleaze that they'll let Donald get away with spin knowing they're outgunned and outmatched by a man who has no shame.
posted by Talez at 3:53 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because it's mutually assured destruction. Trump would immediately rattle off the crony capitalist dealings of any one of the field. Cruz? Caribbean Equity Partners. Rubio? Big sugar. Kasich's office was literally donate to his campaign for political appointments.
There's really so much sleaze that they'll let Donald get away with spin knowing they're outgunned and outmatched by a man who has no shame.
posted by Talez at 3:53 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
RE: Hillary's VP pick—
Is Tipper Gore available? I think Clinton/Gore has a nice ring to it, don'cha think?
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Is Tipper Gore available? I think Clinton/Gore has a nice ring to it, don'cha think?
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
At 65, Franken is too old to be a potential successor in eight years.
Then you should see Franken here channeling Mick Jagger. (youtube)
posted by JackFlash at 4:07 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Then you should see Franken here channeling Mick Jagger. (youtube)
posted by JackFlash at 4:07 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Clinton ends up the Democratic candidate (which she probably will), I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren for VP.
I would, too. It would mean taking the progressive ideals of 40% of the Democratic voters seriously. Warren would be an excellent VP.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:09 PM on June 13, 2016
I would, too. It would mean taking the progressive ideals of 40% of the Democratic voters seriously. Warren would be an excellent VP.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:09 PM on June 13, 2016
Karenna Gore would be preferable to Tipper.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:09 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 4:09 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump keeps calling for things that cannot possibly be legal in actual practice, and I genuinely wish newsies would start calling him on it to his face.
posted by Archelaus at 4:12 PM on June 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Archelaus at 4:12 PM on June 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
Why should they do that, when they can just get spokespeople from "both sides of the aisle" to weigh in on the issue, thereby legitimizing it as a topic for reasoned debate, while at the same time avoiding the wearisome, backbreaking work of having to do actual journalism.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:18 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:18 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think Tipper is about the worst possible idea:
1. Doesn't this just reduce Hillary to "politician's wife"?
2. Invites all sorts of digging up of dirt from the 90s.
3. Everybody has always hated Tipper Gore. (The only thing I remember about her is that she's one of the people behind the completely stupid "Explicit Lyrics" labeling of music back in the 90s.)
4. Does she have any political experience at all?
I mean if you're going for no political experience, pick someone with charisma. And while I don't think it's savvy for her to look like she has anything to hide by papering over Bill's administration, it would be equally stupid for her to basically create a flashback to those days. She needs to seem presidential, not answer for her reaction to Monica and her cookie recipe and headbands and Whitewater.
posted by Sara C. at 4:19 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
1. Doesn't this just reduce Hillary to "politician's wife"?
2. Invites all sorts of digging up of dirt from the 90s.
3. Everybody has always hated Tipper Gore. (The only thing I remember about her is that she's one of the people behind the completely stupid "Explicit Lyrics" labeling of music back in the 90s.)
4. Does she have any political experience at all?
I mean if you're going for no political experience, pick someone with charisma. And while I don't think it's savvy for her to look like she has anything to hide by papering over Bill's administration, it would be equally stupid for her to basically create a flashback to those days. She needs to seem presidential, not answer for her reaction to Monica and her cookie recipe and headbands and Whitewater.
posted by Sara C. at 4:19 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
Trump keeps calling for things that cannot possibly be legal in actual practice, and I genuinely wish newsies would start calling him on it to his face.
Honestly, I don't think that a great tack to take, because if fuels the "It's all an act, he'd never really put Muslims in concentration camps, of course" line of reasoning for why Clinton and Trump are basically the same.
posted by Sara C. at 4:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Honestly, I don't think that a great tack to take, because if fuels the "It's all an act, he'd never really put Muslims in concentration camps, of course" line of reasoning for why Clinton and Trump are basically the same.
posted by Sara C. at 4:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is Tipper Gore available?
As a Gen Xer I find Tipper Gore unpalatable.
posted by My Dad at 4:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [28 favorites]
As a Gen Xer I find Tipper Gore unpalatable.
posted by My Dad at 4:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [28 favorites]
Trump keeps calling for things that cannot possibly be legal in actual practice, and I genuinely wish newsies would start calling him on it to his face.
Nothing is technically illegal until five Supreme Court justices agree that it is. If you have the five justices you need in your pocket you can do things like imprison people on a foreign military base for over a decade without trial.
posted by Talez at 4:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Nothing is technically illegal until five Supreme Court justices agree that it is. If you have the five justices you need in your pocket you can do things like imprison people on a foreign military base for over a decade without trial.
posted by Talez at 4:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
1. Doesn't this just reduce Hillary to "politician's wife"?I thought that was kind of the point of that comment?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm reasonably certain that, in actual practice, it will not be possible to get five SC justices to agree to, just for example based on his last 24 hours of rhetoric: detaining American nationals who happen to be Muslim and deporting them to... wherever. (I'm not sure where he proposes we deport Muslims born here to, exactly, but it does seem to be on his agenda).
Just as the off the top example that made me think it in the first place.
posted by Archelaus at 4:23 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Just as the off the top example that made me think it in the first place.
posted by Archelaus at 4:23 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think "ha, Clinton/Gore would be funny!" was the point of that comment.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 4:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [21 favorites]
Have we completely discounted Julian Castro? Or Cory Booker? Honestly asking - I haven't heard anything about either one since earlier, like April.
Can we please stop talking about Cory Booker? He's terrible, he's far more bought and paid for than even Clinton, and his only "achievements" are union busting and stumping for Paul Ryan's Cat Food For All budget. He shouldn't be anywhere near the ticket and progressives should be doing everything possible to primary him out of the Senate.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
Can we please stop talking about Cory Booker? He's terrible, he's far more bought and paid for than even Clinton, and his only "achievements" are union busting and stumping for Paul Ryan's Cat Food For All budget. He shouldn't be anywhere near the ticket and progressives should be doing everything possible to primary him out of the Senate.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [15 favorites]
(I'm not sure where he proposes we deport Muslims born here to, exactly, but it does seem to be on his agenda).Forget deporting them: I don't think the Supreme Court would rule that it was even constitutional for the government to make a determination about who was and wasn't a Muslim. People's religious identity is the kind of thing that the government is not supposed to get involved in.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't see it, really. Roberts is always concerned with his reputation; he doesn't want to be tagged with a Korematsu.
posted by Chrysostom at 4:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 4:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
"As a Gen Xer I find Tipper Gore unpalatable."
Yeah. When Al Gore was campaigning before the primaries in early 1988, Tipper decided to visit a class I was taking, a poli-sci international politics class taught by a prof who knew a lot of the Dem establishment. I loved that class, actually, but I very deliberately skipped that session because I feared that I would lose my temper and start shouting at Tipper Gore. I mean, well, I was in my early twenties and so while I cared a lot about wonky policy stuff, I really cared about the PMRC freaking out about music. Miss you, Zappa.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
Yeah. When Al Gore was campaigning before the primaries in early 1988, Tipper decided to visit a class I was taking, a poli-sci international politics class taught by a prof who knew a lot of the Dem establishment. I loved that class, actually, but I very deliberately skipped that session because I feared that I would lose my temper and start shouting at Tipper Gore. I mean, well, I was in my early twenties and so while I cared a lot about wonky policy stuff, I really cared about the PMRC freaking out about music. Miss you, Zappa.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:32 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
Tipper Gore is why Hamilton's "My Shot" is labeled explicit for "A colony that runs independently / Meanwhile, Britain keeps shittin' on us endlessly."
posted by zachlipton at 4:36 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 4:36 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump keeps calling for things that cannot possibly be legal in actual practice, and I genuinely wish newsies would start calling him on it to his face.
We've already seen that re: torture and war crimes.
Media: But that's illegal. The military will refuse.
Trump: They're not gonna refuse me.
He'll say the same thing about whatever jackass thing he thinks he can make happen. Tell him it's illegal, he'll say he'll make Congress legalize it. Ask him how, he'll say "I'll make them." And his supporters, who clearly dig his chairbrone ranger strongman schtick, will eat it up.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
We've already seen that re: torture and war crimes.
Media: But that's illegal. The military will refuse.
Trump: They're not gonna refuse me.
He'll say the same thing about whatever jackass thing he thinks he can make happen. Tell him it's illegal, he'll say he'll make Congress legalize it. Ask him how, he'll say "I'll make them." And his supporters, who clearly dig his chairbrone ranger strongman schtick, will eat it up.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh heavens, think of a Clinton/Zappa ticket.
Of all the 60's rocknrollers to get into the pol game, why Sonny Bono and not Frank Zappa.
posted by eclectist at 4:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of all the 60's rocknrollers to get into the pol game, why Sonny Bono and not Frank Zappa.
posted by eclectist at 4:38 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fine. As a sop to the haters, what if the Hillary/Tipper ticket chose "The Stars and Stripes of Corruption" as their official campaign song?
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:39 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of all the 60's rocknrollers to get into the pol game, why Sonny Bono and not Frank Zappa.
Or hell, for that matter, why not Cher?
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Or hell, for that matter, why not Cher?
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why not Zoidberg?
I'm sorry. Someone had to do it. I'll see myself out.
posted by Archelaus at 4:43 PM on June 13, 2016 [49 favorites]
I'm sorry. Someone had to do it. I'll see myself out.
posted by Archelaus at 4:43 PM on June 13, 2016 [49 favorites]
"Fine. As a sop to the haters, what if the Hillary/Tipper ticket chose "The Stars and Stripes of Corruption" as their official campaign song?"
I have the bluetooth speaker in my shower set to randomly play from my entire collection. A few days ago, Jello Biafra's "Love American Death Squad Style" came up and aside from occasionally yelling "fuck, yeah!" in response to a thirty-year-old political scandal like the old person I am, I also thought to myself, "wow, the more things change the more they stay the same", also like the old person that I am.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:48 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
I have the bluetooth speaker in my shower set to randomly play from my entire collection. A few days ago, Jello Biafra's "Love American Death Squad Style" came up and aside from occasionally yelling "fuck, yeah!" in response to a thirty-year-old political scandal like the old person I am, I also thought to myself, "wow, the more things change the more they stay the same", also like the old person that I am.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:48 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Or hell, for that matter, why not Cher?
It would be a big step up from her standard practice of calling into C-SPAN.
My favorite is this time where she discusses a charity that provides proper helmets for soldiers because the Army wasn't, without identifying herself, and the host eventually realizes who she is and asks "and is this Cher?"
posted by zachlipton at 4:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
It would be a big step up from her standard practice of calling into C-SPAN.
My favorite is this time where she discusses a charity that provides proper helmets for soldiers because the Army wasn't, without identifying herself, and the host eventually realizes who she is and asks "and is this Cher?"
posted by zachlipton at 4:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [22 favorites]
The "Warren would be replaced by a Republican" thing is a bit of red herring.
Not really. The election would be up to 160 days after the resignation, then require however many days to certify. That pretty much knocks out any chance of a Democratic Senate, if it comes to that, until after the summer recess. Now, the loophole states if Warren resigns with enough to time to schedule the election, then the Republican governor can't put a Republican in the seat.
Now, the Legislature could change the law. It would be not well seen, though, not in an election year.
posted by dw at 4:50 PM on June 13, 2016
Not really. The election would be up to 160 days after the resignation, then require however many days to certify. That pretty much knocks out any chance of a Democratic Senate, if it comes to that, until after the summer recess. Now, the loophole states if Warren resigns with enough to time to schedule the election, then the Republican governor can't put a Republican in the seat.
Now, the Legislature could change the law. It would be not well seen, though, not in an election year.
posted by dw at 4:50 PM on June 13, 2016
It's a slogan that's over 50 years old... Why Not?
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:50 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:50 PM on June 13, 2016
And when was the last time a Democrat won a presidential election after serving eight years as VP?
Well, 2000, sort of. The last time before that that a Democrat served eight years as VP was *looks* Thomas Marshall, under Wilson from 1913 to 1921. And the time before that seems to be never.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:50 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, 2000, sort of. The last time before that that a Democrat served eight years as VP was *looks* Thomas Marshall, under Wilson from 1913 to 1921. And the time before that seems to be never.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:50 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why not Zoidberg?
Sure, you can vote for Shkinadel -- if you want there should be a recession!
posted by zachlipton at 4:53 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sure, you can vote for Shkinadel -- if you want there should be a recession!
posted by zachlipton at 4:53 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Now, the Legislature could change the law. It would be not well seen, though, not in an election year.
Yes, the Legislature's (technically, the Massachusetts General Court) ability to change the law was what the balance of my comment was about. And as mentioned a little later, it's something they've done more than once in recent years.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:05 PM on June 13, 2016
Yes, the Legislature's (technically, the Massachusetts General Court) ability to change the law was what the balance of my comment was about. And as mentioned a little later, it's something they've done more than once in recent years.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:05 PM on June 13, 2016
The "Warren would be replaced by a Republican" thing is a bit of red herring.
After Al Franken 2008 there's no reason to risk it. The Senate is in play right now, no Democratic Senators should be taken off the board. VP isn't worth it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
After Al Franken 2008 there's no reason to risk it. The Senate is in play right now, no Democratic Senators should be taken off the board. VP isn't worth it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
How about Gavin Newsom?
is it just me or is putting up a candidate who was the mayor of a major american city just a reliable way to lose all of the votes from anyone who actually lived there during said candidate's term
posted by murphy slaw at 5:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
is it just me or is putting up a candidate who was the mayor of a major american city just a reliable way to lose all of the votes from anyone who actually lived there during said candidate's term
posted by murphy slaw at 5:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Gavin Newsom certainly has the ambition but he's gonna be Governator of California first.
posted by Justinian at 5:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, I don't think we have to worry about SF voting for Trump or anything. But yeah, Justinian is right. He'd be better off becoming Governor and running in the future than running as Clinton's VP now.
posted by thefoxgod at 5:12 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by thefoxgod at 5:12 PM on June 13, 2016
Newsom is already heavy into his 2018 campaign.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:13 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:13 PM on June 13, 2016
I would expect Newsom to run for President in 2024 or 2028.
posted by Justinian at 5:14 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:14 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Gavin Newsom certainly has the ambition but he's gonna be Governator of California first.
Newsom is already heavy into his 2018 campaign.
That's definitely the current plan, but methinks he could be persuaded.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:15 PM on June 13, 2016
Newsom is already heavy into his 2018 campaign.
That's definitely the current plan, but methinks he could be persuaded.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:15 PM on June 13, 2016
I would expect Newsom to run for President in 2024 or 2028.
Precisely.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:15 PM on June 13, 2016
Precisely.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:15 PM on June 13, 2016
Well he'd certainly deliver California for Clinton. I guess.
posted by Justinian at 5:15 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by Justinian at 5:15 PM on June 13, 2016
is rod blagojovich out yet
posted by murphy slaw at 5:16 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by murphy slaw at 5:16 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Louis C.K on Clinton vs. Trump:
It's like if you were on a plane and you wanted to choose a pilot. You have one person, Hillary, who says, 'Here's my license. Here's all the thousands of flights that I've flown. Here's planes I've flown in really difficult situations. I've had some good flights and some bad flights, but I've been flying for a very long time, and I know exactly how this plane works.'...posted by Salieri at 5:17 PM on June 13, 2016 [114 favorites]
And then Trump says, 'I'm going to fly so well. You're not going to believe how good I'm going to fly this plane, and by the way, Hillary never flew a plane in her life.' 'She did, and we have pictures.' 'No, she never did it.' It's insane.
is putting up a candidate who was the mayor of a major american city just a reliable way to lose all of the votes from anyone who actually lived thereI have two stadium-sized complaints about R.T. Rybak’s tenure as mayor of Minneapolis, but I think he’d probably make a fine VP. For what my opinion is worth.
Of course, if Clinton is in any danger of losing Minnesota, we’ve got bigger problems than a VP pick.
posted by nicepersonality at 5:18 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton is going to carry California, no matter what. I suppose, from that perspective, it only makes sense as a way to anoint a likely successor, rather than solidifying current swing-states. Maybe I'm feeling too confident. Trump really does seem impossible to me. Maybe I'm deluded.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:18 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:18 PM on June 13, 2016
I have friends who are sure he's going to win, but they're the same friends who think he's not really going to do any of the things he says he's going to do/only being a bigot to win over voters, and all of them were Bernie Or Busters a week ago, and now I'm really starting to think that everything they think about the election is pure misogyny and I feel really sad about what shitbags some of my friends are.
posted by Sara C. at 5:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [38 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 5:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [38 favorites]
They might just be deeply stupid, if that makes you feel any better.
posted by dersins at 5:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [34 favorites]
posted by dersins at 5:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [34 favorites]
but they're the same friends who think he's not really going to do any of the things he says he's going to do/only being a bigot to win over voters, and all of them were Bernie Or Busters a week ago
This position makes no sense! What kind of cognitive dissonance must you maintain to refuse to vote for Clinton (despite her positions being much closer to Sanders') because you think she is a corrupt liar but then justifying your vote for Trump by saying he's corruptly lying about what he'd do in office?
"I won't vote for Clinton because she lies! And I don't worry about the bad things Trump says because he is lying!"
WHAT. HOW. WHY.
posted by Justinian at 5:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [67 favorites]
This position makes no sense! What kind of cognitive dissonance must you maintain to refuse to vote for Clinton (despite her positions being much closer to Sanders') because you think she is a corrupt liar but then justifying your vote for Trump by saying he's corruptly lying about what he'd do in office?
"I won't vote for Clinton because she lies! And I don't worry about the bad things Trump says because he is lying!"
WHAT. HOW. WHY.
posted by Justinian at 5:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [67 favorites]
that's it, justinian - i'm starting a blue party to fight the green party - it'll be just like old times
posted by pyramid termite at 5:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 5:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's the way advertising works, political and non-political, but raised to the nth degree because Trump has no skills beyond self-promotion... it's like voting for a McDonalds Cheeseburger or a can of Budweiser.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
In Wake Of Orlando Shooting, Clinton Suggests Broader Terrorist Watch Lists
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:31 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:31 PM on June 13, 2016
I tried to get a Hippodrome built in L.A. but they are a bunch of short-sighted plebs here.
posted by Justinian at 5:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:31 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
any minute now, trump will come out for using hippodrones in afghanistan
posted by pyramid termite at 5:36 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by pyramid termite at 5:36 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Augh! Clinton! That is the EXACT OPPOSITE problem we need to be looking at here!
posted by Archelaus at 5:40 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Archelaus at 5:40 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah maybe before we expand the terror lists we should have a few examples of the terror lists working
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
> Meanwhile, Trump just announced via Facebook that he's revoking the Washington Post's access to his campaign.
Donald Trump Picked the Wrong News Editor to F*ck With: Trump is going to war with The Washington Post, but he doesn't stand a chance against Marty Baron.
posted by homunculus at 5:44 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Donald Trump Picked the Wrong News Editor to F*ck With: Trump is going to war with The Washington Post, but he doesn't stand a chance against Marty Baron.
posted by homunculus at 5:44 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
Donald Trump Is Infinitely More Dangerous Than He Was a Year Ago: Just look at today's speech in New Hampshire.
posted by homunculus at 5:46 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 5:46 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
i'm starting a blue party to fight the green party - it'll be just like old times
Old times if you're a BIZARRO DRAZI.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:46 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
Old times if you're a BIZARRO DRAZI.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:46 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
oh God it's like I have fifty episodes of B5 playing in my brain right now
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:47 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:47 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think Clinton is right that we need a more finely honed domestic counter-terrorism effort, because we keep having these terrorism-connected attacks by American-born "lone wolf" sympathizer types. Which means we need to be better at finding people like that before they attack. It would also probably help prevent shootings like Aurora or terrorist attacks more on the Oklahoma City model, as well. Whereas it seems like organized ISIS or Al Qaeda plots in the US are rare/nonexistent.
But ugggghhhhhhh why use the phrase "expand terrorist watch lists" to describe that effort?
posted by Sara C. at 6:00 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
But ugggghhhhhhh why use the phrase "expand terrorist watch lists" to describe that effort?
posted by Sara C. at 6:00 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
Pretty sure she just means a milder version of the trump BS.
posted by Artw at 6:07 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by Artw at 6:07 PM on June 13, 2016
I think Clinton is right that we need a more finely honed domestic counter-terrorism effort
I'm not sure that we "keep having" anything like that. There was the Ft. Hood attack, which might have been loosely connected to extremist leanings, the San Bernadino attack which definitely was, and then this in Orlando, which preliminarily looks to be a closeted self-hating homophobe who may have lashed out for a justification right before, but is too early to say for sure. It certainly doesn't look coordinated or maybe even predictable unless your search terms include "all angry dudes who say racist and homophobic shit to their coworkers". Is one plus two possible halves a trend? I'm not sure.
So how exactly would you "be better at finding people like that" without making some kind of list of extremist leanings? And stepping up pressure/enforcement against people identified on that list? Notwithstanding due process concerns for people added to a "watch list" and deprived rights, but not accused or charged in a court of law. Because that's not a relevant concern.
When she says "expand terrorist watch lists", she's really talking about expanding domestic surveillance powers for the FBI/NSA even further than under Obama (who never turned one centimeter from the Bush doctrine of maximal surveillance until forced to by Snowden, and even now we don't really know that much changed versus got shuffled off to another codenamed program yet to be reveal by the next Snowden).
There's two paths towards cutting down on "lone wolf" attacks, increasing surveillance, or decreasing access to the weapons used to commit them. The first is an easy sell, obviously, and is the only one Clinton could or would voice aloud, but the second is the only one likely to be at all effective.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:17 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
I'm not sure that we "keep having" anything like that. There was the Ft. Hood attack, which might have been loosely connected to extremist leanings, the San Bernadino attack which definitely was, and then this in Orlando, which preliminarily looks to be a closeted self-hating homophobe who may have lashed out for a justification right before, but is too early to say for sure. It certainly doesn't look coordinated or maybe even predictable unless your search terms include "all angry dudes who say racist and homophobic shit to their coworkers". Is one plus two possible halves a trend? I'm not sure.
So how exactly would you "be better at finding people like that" without making some kind of list of extremist leanings? And stepping up pressure/enforcement against people identified on that list? Notwithstanding due process concerns for people added to a "watch list" and deprived rights, but not accused or charged in a court of law. Because that's not a relevant concern.
When she says "expand terrorist watch lists", she's really talking about expanding domestic surveillance powers for the FBI/NSA even further than under Obama (who never turned one centimeter from the Bush doctrine of maximal surveillance until forced to by Snowden, and even now we don't really know that much changed versus got shuffled off to another codenamed program yet to be reveal by the next Snowden).
There's two paths towards cutting down on "lone wolf" attacks, increasing surveillance, or decreasing access to the weapons used to commit them. The first is an easy sell, obviously, and is the only one Clinton could or would voice aloud, but the second is the only one likely to be at all effective.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:17 PM on June 13, 2016 [11 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments deleted; please take discussion that's only about the attack over to the attack thread, and let's not be armchair diagnosing the attacker there in any case.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:25 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:25 PM on June 13, 2016
Justinian: "I tried to get a Hippodrome built in L.A. but they are a bunch of short-sighted plebs here."
Well, the Coliseum is pretty much a hippodrome already....
posted by Chrysostom at 6:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, the Coliseum is pretty much a hippodrome already....
posted by Chrysostom at 6:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
T.D. Strange, my point is that we've had at least two, maybe now three, (and maybe more if you classify some other mass shootings as terrorism; Dylan Root seems like an obvious choice) domestic terror attacks with similar M.O.s which have been successful, and which the feds don't seem to be able to do much about. Meanwhile there's this huge counter-terrorism apparatus related to a type of terrorism that has not happened in the US since 9/11, that of large coordinated plots tied to specific international groups.
I think it would be folly to pretend we don't need to do anything about the kind of terrorism that is actually happening in the US, or that mass shootings in general aren't worth the federal government stepping in. And it certainly seems nuts to put the full force of the military behind getting rid of ISIS while as long as it's just one dude and he does it with guns and not bombs*, that's A-OK. If a presidential candidate is going to speak to real solutions for mass shootings outside the box of gun control, what Clinton suggested seems fairly on point.
*Though I also think the Boston Bombing clearly falls under this terrorist M.O.
posted by Sara C. at 6:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it would be folly to pretend we don't need to do anything about the kind of terrorism that is actually happening in the US, or that mass shootings in general aren't worth the federal government stepping in. And it certainly seems nuts to put the full force of the military behind getting rid of ISIS while as long as it's just one dude and he does it with guns and not bombs*, that's A-OK. If a presidential candidate is going to speak to real solutions for mass shootings outside the box of gun control, what Clinton suggested seems fairly on point.
*Though I also think the Boston Bombing clearly falls under this terrorist M.O.
posted by Sara C. at 6:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
In CBS' Political Satire 'BrainDead', alien brain parasites infect politicians
All this fantasy plays out against the real current presidential campaign — with actual speeches by actual candidates playing in the background on the TV cable news shows everyone is watching.posted by joeyh at 6:38 PM on June 13, 2016
'Expanding the terror watch list' is so vague it could mean almost anything from building the Panopticon to restricting firearms sales. It's typical poli-speak. Trying to ascertain what, if anything, it Really Means without flat-out asking Clinton is a waste of time.
posted by um at 6:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by um at 6:49 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think Clinton should make Arnold Schwarzenegger her VP. Yes, she would win CA without him. Yes, he is kinda to her left politically. Yet, he'd make an amazing foil to Trump.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:54 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 6:54 PM on June 13, 2016
Am I missing a joke? He's not eligible to run for VP and he makes no sense as a choice for her anyway.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:58 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:58 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, it's a joke. There are many non-senators that Clinton could pick who'll serve far better for this campaign, while most Democratic senators do not provide much advantage against Trump.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 7:01 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
In CBS' Political Satire 'BrainDead', alien brain parasites infect politicians
I certainly do not take pleasure in telling my elder relatives and in-laws to turn that TV off, it'll rot your brain.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:06 PM on June 13, 2016
I certainly do not take pleasure in telling my elder relatives and in-laws to turn that TV off, it'll rot your brain.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:06 PM on June 13, 2016
I mean, the obvious running mate choice is THE HYPNOTOAD.
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:25 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:25 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders are set to meet Tuesday night.
Take the cannoli.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
Take the cannoli.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:29 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
The reality is that virtually every current democratic Senator is unlikely to really benefit the campaign much or has negative consequences (such as putting regaining the Senate at risk).
There are some solid Senators that will likely become leading candidates down the road but even then a lot of them already have baggage that might prove challenging in the future.
Currently there doesn't seem to be any perfect unicorn for Veep short of recruiting George Clooney to run as VP, there are plenty of solid strategic picks that cover one or more checkboxes (PoC, Charismatic, young, probably male because OMG too much estrogen of something) but there doesn't appear to be any perfect fit.
Fortunately with the walking dumpster fire on the other side completely refusing to even put up a pretense of shifting towards the center I think Clinton can afford to actually take some risks and select a running mate that isn't perfect but who can ostensibly become a democratic banner carrier down the road.
Or she could just go super safe and keep Biden in the job another 4 years.
posted by vuron at 7:43 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are some solid Senators that will likely become leading candidates down the road but even then a lot of them already have baggage that might prove challenging in the future.
Currently there doesn't seem to be any perfect unicorn for Veep short of recruiting George Clooney to run as VP, there are plenty of solid strategic picks that cover one or more checkboxes (PoC, Charismatic, young, probably male because OMG too much estrogen of something) but there doesn't appear to be any perfect fit.
Fortunately with the walking dumpster fire on the other side completely refusing to even put up a pretense of shifting towards the center I think Clinton can afford to actually take some risks and select a running mate that isn't perfect but who can ostensibly become a democratic banner carrier down the road.
Or she could just go super safe and keep Biden in the job another 4 years.
posted by vuron at 7:43 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Biden is the puppet master...WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!
posted by Windopaene at 8:15 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Windopaene at 8:15 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
I move that we amend the Constitution to declare Biden VP for life.
posted by nevercalm at 8:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by nevercalm at 8:22 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's true... Jim Henson faked his death, shaved his beard and swapped with Joe Biden ... he is THE MUPPET MASTER!!
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:24 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I gave my wife this Biden t-shirt. Best gift ever.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 8:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
I know a part of me never wants to find out if the real Biden is as cool as the meme Biden and then another part of me kinda wants to find out if he's even cooler than the meme Biden.
I'm not sure who could step into the role of meme Biden though because I don't know of any other politician that I could conceivable see actually waxing a trans am in the white house drive way.
No matter what I kinda feel like the loss of both Obamas and likely Biden is going to leave an enormous cool gap in the White House moving forward.
posted by vuron at 8:33 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure who could step into the role of meme Biden though because I don't know of any other politician that I could conceivable see actually waxing a trans am in the white house drive way.
No matter what I kinda feel like the loss of both Obamas and likely Biden is going to leave an enormous cool gap in the White House moving forward.
posted by vuron at 8:33 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I know a part of me never wants to find out if the real Biden is as cool as the meme Biden and then another part of me kinda wants to find out if he's even cooler than the meme Biden.
It's like Hamilton. The fiction is cooler than the fact of the life, but there's a good reason they chose to base the fiction on that life specifically.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's like Hamilton. The fiction is cooler than the fact of the life, but there's a good reason they chose to base the fiction on that life specifically.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:34 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Let it roll off your tongue : future vice president Harold Ford, Jr.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:35 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:35 PM on June 13, 2016
that's MeFi's Own clango selling those shirts, and I'm sure he'd love to never have to discontinue that design.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:36 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:36 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't know about how much Hamilton diverges from reality because tickets are impossible to get and that's even before sweeping the Tonys. But I'm not bitter at all, no not at all.
Hrmm I wonder if someone could do a Biden musical but who am I kidding the man deserves a rock opera.
posted by vuron at 8:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hrmm I wonder if someone could do a Biden musical but who am I kidding the man deserves a rock opera.
posted by vuron at 8:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
IRL Biden is a bigtime fuckin' narc, not cool at all.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:45 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 8:45 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Biden was not very cool about Anita Hill's testimony during the Clarence Thomas hearings, either.
posted by zutalors! at 8:50 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:50 PM on June 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
But he was pretty cool about forcing Obama's hand on the gay marriage issue. Joe Biden contains multitudes.
posted by biogeo at 8:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 8:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [7 favorites]
Could also do without this sort of activity from the next VP.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 8:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
well, as long as we have all these people who hate HRC but would totes vote Biden because that's different...
posted by zutalors! at 8:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
He's a pretty great VP but Clinton would clearly be a better president. Too bad he can't be her VP too.
posted by biogeo at 9:06 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by biogeo at 9:06 PM on June 13, 2016
Legal scholars find that the GOP blocking of a Supreme Court nomination unprecedented in the last 103 vacancies
posted by mostly vowels at 9:08 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by mostly vowels at 9:08 PM on June 13, 2016 [12 favorites]
He could be! No legal barrier to it.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:10 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 9:10 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Technically Obama could potentially be her VP as there is nothing explicitly that prevents him from taking the office because the 12th and 22nd amendments kinda leave a gray area in which former 2 term presidents could serve as VP.
I think this gets even more hairy if you get into issues of presidential succession as the 22nd amendment specifically refers to someone being elected to office more than 2 times but not assuming the office as a result of presidential succession.
Fortunately it seems unlikely that it would happen in any event and as much as I would love to see Barack as VP I think the Obama I would prefer as VP would be the other one.
posted by vuron at 9:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think this gets even more hairy if you get into issues of presidential succession as the 22nd amendment specifically refers to someone being elected to office more than 2 times but not assuming the office as a result of presidential succession.
Fortunately it seems unlikely that it would happen in any event and as much as I would love to see Barack as VP I think the Obama I would prefer as VP would be the other one.
posted by vuron at 9:27 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Technically Obama could potentially be her VP as there is nothing explicitly that prevents him from taking the office because the 12th and 22nd amendments kinda leave a gray area in which former 2 term presidents could serve as VP.
"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States."
How is that not explicit?
posted by Talez at 9:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States."
How is that not explicit?
posted by Talez at 9:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
The answer seems straightforward. But it is less straightforward than it appears.
The rough outline of his argument is this: The 22nd Amendment doesn't say you can't be president for more than two terms. It says you can't be elected president twice. If a Biden-Obama ticket won (which we'll get to), and tragedy were to befall Joe Biden, Barack Obama could become president, according to the letter of the law (which we'll also get to), since he wasn't elected to the position. As such, Obama is not constitutionally ineligible to serve as president.
posted by saul wright at 9:37 PM on June 13, 2016
The rough outline of his argument is this: The 22nd Amendment doesn't say you can't be president for more than two terms. It says you can't be elected president twice. If a Biden-Obama ticket won (which we'll get to), and tragedy were to befall Joe Biden, Barack Obama could become president, according to the letter of the law (which we'll also get to), since he wasn't elected to the position. As such, Obama is not constitutionally ineligible to serve as president.
posted by saul wright at 9:37 PM on June 13, 2016
As long as we're bringing up Michelle Obama in the context of fantasy dream tickets, I'd personally rather see her in the role of Dictator for Life.
posted by biogeo at 9:40 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 9:40 PM on June 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
There are a vast array of choices for a Progressive VP in Congress alone (and a ton of former Congresscritters if she doesn't want to risk losing a Congressional seat to the Republicans). If she wants a moderate Democrat there are even more choices. There is absolutely no reason why she would pick "guy who's VP now", "guy who is President now," "guy who is running against her in the primaries," or "that one rock-star Progressive Senator who we know from TV". There is literally no reason whatsoever for Clinton to pick Biden, Obama or Sanders, and very few to pick Warren.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:42 PM on June 13, 2016 [17 favorites]
The argument is that the 12th amendment deals with the qualifications to serve whereas the 22nd deals with qualifications for elections so a former 2 term president is eligible to serve.
The reality is that it's exceedingly unlikely that the courts will definitively decide on the question either way because it's unlikely to ever become an issue but I think there are some moderately compelling arguments for the possibility even though I tend to agree with the argument that it is unconstitutional.
posted by vuron at 9:42 PM on June 13, 2016
The reality is that it's exceedingly unlikely that the courts will definitively decide on the question either way because it's unlikely to ever become an issue but I think there are some moderately compelling arguments for the possibility even though I tend to agree with the argument that it is unconstitutional.
posted by vuron at 9:42 PM on June 13, 2016
I tend to agree with you in principle Adam and while it's fun to imagine scenarios where the cast of characters who we've kinda grown to love gets to stick around into the ninth season there are some compelling cases for going with some new blood.
I think currently if I was a betting sort I would be tempted to put some money on Xavier Becerra because he's basically satisfies just about every thing that a conventional wisdom pick would be.
Young but not too young
Latino
From a different geographic region than the Nominee
liable to provide additional votes from key demographics
compelling personal history (son of immigrants, first to attend college, etc)
Progressive but also tied to established democratic leadership
About the only thing he doesn't have is executive leadership but personally I think the trend towards going with governors has been a pretty mediocre one.
posted by vuron at 9:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think currently if I was a betting sort I would be tempted to put some money on Xavier Becerra because he's basically satisfies just about every thing that a conventional wisdom pick would be.
Young but not too young
Latino
From a different geographic region than the Nominee
liable to provide additional votes from key demographics
compelling personal history (son of immigrants, first to attend college, etc)
Progressive but also tied to established democratic leadership
About the only thing he doesn't have is executive leadership but personally I think the trend towards going with governors has been a pretty mediocre one.
posted by vuron at 9:52 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Al Gore is available and eligible.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:19 PM on June 13, 2016
posted by kirkaracha at 10:19 PM on June 13, 2016
He old.
posted by Justinian at 10:19 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 10:19 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
HuffPo interviews campaign managers for Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz.
Isn’t the issue that there was a broader collective action problem among the non-Trump campaigns? Everyone wanted to be the last guy standing against him.
Roe
I think so. Our strategy required us to be head-to-head against him. And when your strategy requires somebody else doing something, that’s a pretty weak strategy.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:25 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Isn’t the issue that there was a broader collective action problem among the non-Trump campaigns? Everyone wanted to be the last guy standing against him.
Roe
I think so. Our strategy required us to be head-to-head against him. And when your strategy requires somebody else doing something, that’s a pretty weak strategy.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:25 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Al Gore is available and eligible.
And he's a great kisser, so I hear.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:38 PM on June 13, 2016
And he's a great kisser, so I hear.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:38 PM on June 13, 2016
AND DANK MEMES DON'T FORGET DANK MEMES
Dank memes don’t forget dank memes because dank memes CARE about each other. I wish we could all be a little more like dank memes sometimes.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:47 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Dank memes don’t forget dank memes because dank memes CARE about each other. I wish we could all be a little more like dank memes sometimes.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:47 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
From the campaign manager interview:
posted by Drinky Die at 10:58 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
ConantNumber of lessons Republicans have learned: 0
Yeah, I would follow the money for both of them. I think the most success the media has had pursuing a story against Trump has been following the veterans' money.
Roe
And it didn’t start until everybody was out.
Diaz
Right. Once you hit that 1,237 delegate number, you know what’s going to happen. The assignment of stories and the stack of hits that come against you as a Republican nominee.
HuffPo
You thought the media was holding off on Trump during the primary?
Roe
I believe that there were financial decisions made in media suites on who they wanted to have as a nominee and what they would do to him after he became a nominee. I don’t think all of this is accidental. I really don’t.
Diaz
It’s too uniform.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:58 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
They sound like Sanders deadenders talking about the media rigging it for Hillary. I guess partisans gonna partisan.
posted by Justinian at 11:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:06 PM on June 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump's Tweets After Tragedy Often Strike Self-Congratulatory Notes:
Trump's real-time Twitter reaction to tragedy offers a rare and telling glimpse into the mind of the candidate. Tragedy after tragedy, Trump has quickly pivoted from the appearance of mourning to self-aggrandizement or petty attacks.posted by kirkaracha at 11:11 PM on June 13, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm totally looking forward to the VP picks this time around. The Trump pick especially. I can't see anyone with any political ambition wanting to sign on to spend the rest of the year answering for whatever spews out of Trump's word-hole. Anyone halfway decent is immediately tarnished by association. He's stuck picking either someone completely unknown who can't help him electorally, or stunt-picking another train wreck just for the media attention. (heretofore known as pulling a McCain). And like Palin, the chances of him picking someone unvetted is very high. There will be shenanigans.
Meanwhile on the Dem side it's basically a freebie. The idea that this race is in any way competitive is a media fabrication. She could pick herself in a pair of dark glasses and a fake moustache to be her VP and it wouldn't matter. I think it's a good opportunity to do away with a lot of the usual electoral considerations (help in a weak state/shoring up a perceived weakness) and elevate someone young/relatively unknown into the national spotlight. Also, my secret pet theory is that Clinton is personally much more progressive than her political choices let on, and we could see that play out in her VP pick, which would be great.
posted by billyfleetwood at 11:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Meanwhile on the Dem side it's basically a freebie. The idea that this race is in any way competitive is a media fabrication. She could pick herself in a pair of dark glasses and a fake moustache to be her VP and it wouldn't matter. I think it's a good opportunity to do away with a lot of the usual electoral considerations (help in a weak state/shoring up a perceived weakness) and elevate someone young/relatively unknown into the national spotlight. Also, my secret pet theory is that Clinton is personally much more progressive than her political choices let on, and we could see that play out in her VP pick, which would be great.
posted by billyfleetwood at 11:26 PM on June 13, 2016 [9 favorites]
Hilary Clinton/Zombi Fred Rogers. Sometimes you just need an undead guy in a cardigan to tell you eeeverything's gonna be ok.
posted by um at 11:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by um at 11:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Christie probably has the necessary combination of (relative) credibility, ambition, and lack of dignity.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 11:30 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
or stunt-picking another train wreck just for the media attention. (heretofore known as pulling a McCain). And like Palin, the chances of him picking someone unvetted is very high. There will be shenanigans.
oh god he's going to pick palin isn't he
posted by murphy slaw at 11:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
oh god he's going to pick palin isn't he
posted by murphy slaw at 11:56 PM on June 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The idea that this race is in any way competitive is a media fabrication.
Sam Wang has Hillary at a 65% chance of victory and the PredictWise average of prediction markets/bookies is at 72% chance of Hillary victory.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:57 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sam Wang has Hillary at a 65% chance of victory and the PredictWise average of prediction markets/bookies is at 72% chance of Hillary victory.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 11:57 PM on June 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
The idea that this race is in any way competitive is a media fabrication.
Trump has a serious chance. I think this race will be close and I think we need to fight to keep Trump from winning and I think the fight will be difficult. I'm going to keep saying this to the very end and if everyone ends up laughing about how wrong I was that's just fine.
posted by mmoncur at 12:10 AM on June 14, 2016 [54 favorites]
Trump has a serious chance. I think this race will be close and I think we need to fight to keep Trump from winning and I think the fight will be difficult. I'm going to keep saying this to the very end and if everyone ends up laughing about how wrong I was that's just fine.
posted by mmoncur at 12:10 AM on June 14, 2016 [54 favorites]
It's competitive because a large percentage of the electorate votes on party lines pretty much no matter what (even "independents" which have been pointed out multiple times generally also vote for one side or the other consistently). It's competitive because a large percentage of Americans either don't believe or don't care or actively are okay with all the bigoted and contradictory crap Trump says. It's competitive because the people who know better and are actually leaders (yes, I mean Republican leaders) couldn't get their acts together and present a unified voice in opposition to the crap he says, instead stumbling to say similarly bigoted crap.
So yeah, it's sadly competitive and Trump could very well become our next president. :(
posted by R343L at 12:17 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
So yeah, it's sadly competitive and Trump could very well become our next president. :(
posted by R343L at 12:17 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
The underlying conditions make this a seriously challenging race for even "generic republican". Electoral college math is awful for Republicans regardless of who they pick to run.
And this is a candidate who besides being a total abomination of a human being fundamentally doesn't seem to understand how political campaigns run. It's like he's just assuming that he can run a campaign just like one of his grifter business deals and he can't.
He's also surrounded by an apparently green crew of relative nobodies because nobody with any sort of credibility wants to take the hit to their rep when he crashes and burns. His campaign has basically no resources until the RNC can come to the rescue because Trump can't be assed to fundraise and as a result he has zero ground game and zero analytical support.
On the other side Hillary took the lessons of 08 to heart and has basically hired the best political operatives in the business. They seem to know old school campaigning as well as new social media strategies and most importantly analytics so she can microtarget likely voters. This conserves resources and allows for very tailored campaigns.
And it's apparent that as Sanders campaign sputters to a halt she's rushing forward to snatch up the best and brightest from his campaign.
Ultimately I expect the big money donors and the RNC to make a valiant showing of trying to prop up Trump or at least stop the bleeding but it's looking like it will probably be too little and too late.
While the reddit trolls will no doubt give their power to Trump's MAGA effort I remain unconvinced that the trolls doing it for the lulz will really bother to abandon their keyboard consoles and get up to vote when they can just post dank memes in relative anonymity.
At the end of the day he'll still probably get 40% or so because there are about that many people when you count up hardcore republicans and conservative independents and I seriously doubt the the libertarians and greens will get much of a vote at all. It of course won't matter that 40% of the US electorate is apparently made up of fearful and bigoted people because Clinton will no doubt win in a relative landslide.
posted by vuron at 12:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
And this is a candidate who besides being a total abomination of a human being fundamentally doesn't seem to understand how political campaigns run. It's like he's just assuming that he can run a campaign just like one of his grifter business deals and he can't.
He's also surrounded by an apparently green crew of relative nobodies because nobody with any sort of credibility wants to take the hit to their rep when he crashes and burns. His campaign has basically no resources until the RNC can come to the rescue because Trump can't be assed to fundraise and as a result he has zero ground game and zero analytical support.
On the other side Hillary took the lessons of 08 to heart and has basically hired the best political operatives in the business. They seem to know old school campaigning as well as new social media strategies and most importantly analytics so she can microtarget likely voters. This conserves resources and allows for very tailored campaigns.
And it's apparent that as Sanders campaign sputters to a halt she's rushing forward to snatch up the best and brightest from his campaign.
Ultimately I expect the big money donors and the RNC to make a valiant showing of trying to prop up Trump or at least stop the bleeding but it's looking like it will probably be too little and too late.
While the reddit trolls will no doubt give their power to Trump's MAGA effort I remain unconvinced that the trolls doing it for the lulz will really bother to abandon their keyboard consoles and get up to vote when they can just post dank memes in relative anonymity.
At the end of the day he'll still probably get 40% or so because there are about that many people when you count up hardcore republicans and conservative independents and I seriously doubt the the libertarians and greens will get much of a vote at all. It of course won't matter that 40% of the US electorate is apparently made up of fearful and bigoted people because Clinton will no doubt win in a relative landslide.
posted by vuron at 12:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Which argument seems to boil down to "It would be a nice sop to progressive voters." See also accusations about the Left's tendency to prefer symbolic acts to practical results.
Yes, I'll Vote for HRC - "Apparently that's not enough for many in the Clinton camp, however, who insist that I should be happy that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and that this is actually a good thing for progressives—defined loosely as people who want higher taxes on the rich, less inequality, stronger social insurance programs (including true universal health care), and better protections for workers. The argument is basically that Clinton is (a) more pragmatic, (b) more skilled at getting things done, and (c) more likely to be able to work with Republicans to achieve incremental good things, while Sanders would have simply flamed out in futility..."
also btw...
Yes, I'll Vote for HRC - "Apparently that's not enough for many in the Clinton camp, however, who insist that I should be happy that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, and that this is actually a good thing for progressives—defined loosely as people who want higher taxes on the rich, less inequality, stronger social insurance programs (including true universal health care), and better protections for workers. The argument is basically that Clinton is (a) more pragmatic, (b) more skilled at getting things done, and (c) more likely to be able to work with Republicans to achieve incremental good things, while Sanders would have simply flamed out in futility..."
The entire political system has been tilted more in the Republicans’ favor, to the point where the presidency is the only prize that Democrats can fight for on equal terms—because all we need is one charismatic (Obama) or well-connected (Hillary Clinton) candidate who can raise tons and tons of money.water under the bridge! :P
Think about the situation that puts us in. Republicans are apoplectic at the idea that Hillary Clinton could appoint the deciding justice to the Supreme Court, but the smart ones realize that she will be able to accomplish little else; even if by some miracle Democrats retake the House, Republican unity will suffice to block anything in the Senate. Democrats, by contrast, are terrified because a Republican president means that they will get virtually everything, unless the Senate Democratic caucus somehow develops a backbone (which it certainly didn’t have under George W. Bush): not just the Supreme Court, but a flat tax, new abortion restrictions, Medicaid block grants, repeal of Dodd-Frank, repeal of Obamacare, Medicare vouchers, and who knows what else.
What’s the lesson here? It isn’t that Bernie Sanders could accomplish more than Hillary Clinton in four years against dug-in Republican opposition. He couldn’t. It’s that having a president isn’t enough. We need a movement. That’s what the conservatives have had for decades: embryonic in the 1950s, quixotic in the 1960s, on the rise in the 1970s, ascendant in the 1980s, and increasingly institutionalized, entrenched, and ideologically extreme ever since. We need to stop thinking that winning the presidency more often than not is a long-term strategy. What we’re doing isn’t working. It needs to change.
also btw...
- Clinton could be a champion of caregiverism, but she needs to go further - "Hillary Clinton's generation aimed to free women from domestic prisons. But work is a prison, too."*
- Your must-read item of the day is the Roosevelt Institute's policy agenda: How to Check Corporate, Financial, and Monopoly Power (pdf)*
- Why hasn't the productivity crisis caused a bear market (yet)? "Maybe the productivity slowdown is being caused by increased monopoly power, which is also boosting profits?"*
- The $100 billion tax dodge - "We often hear about corporate America, but rarely about 'pass-through America'. Yet pass-through businesses—sole proprietorships, S corporations, and partnerships—account for 94 percent of US businesses, more than 60 percent of net business income, more than half the private-sector workforce, and 37 percent of the total private-sector payroll... [this] has allowed mostly very wealthy individuals to pocket about $100 billion that would have gone toward taxes under traditional corporate structures."*
Has Clinton brought up Trump's hilarious foray into the birther movement when he supposedly hired an investigator to go to Hawaii to search for Obama's birth certificate? If not I bet they're keeping that particular bullet in the magazine for the debates.
posted by PenDevil at 2:26 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by PenDevil at 2:26 AM on June 14, 2016
Maybe she can pick Chelsea as her running mate. Not that I think this is a good idea or she will, but what an interesting wrench to go into the gears.
posted by maxwelton at 2:27 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by maxwelton at 2:27 AM on June 14, 2016
The birther movement was spawned by her dead-enders in the death knell of her 2008 campaign so I suspect she does not want to bring it up.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Has Clinton brought up Trump's hilarious foray into the birther movement when he supposedly hired an investigator to go to Hawaii to search for Obama's birth certificate? If not I bet they're keeping that particular bullet in the magazine for the debates.
Possible answer: "Yes, you're absolutely right that I looked into. I was the first one who knew that there was something fishy about Obama. He is not one of us. I knew it right away. It was my gut instinct, and I was right. So it was the right thing to do. When Obama became president, he did nothing to prevent terrorist in the US. And he never mentioned radical Islam as the cause. Not once. I wonder why. Crooked Hillary is just four more of Obama. But we need a president who is actually on our side. Until we have that, we need to investigate. And be vigilant."
posted by sour cream at 2:53 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Possible answer: "Yes, you're absolutely right that I looked into. I was the first one who knew that there was something fishy about Obama. He is not one of us. I knew it right away. It was my gut instinct, and I was right. So it was the right thing to do. When Obama became president, he did nothing to prevent terrorist in the US. And he never mentioned radical Islam as the cause. Not once. I wonder why. Crooked Hillary is just four more of Obama. But we need a president who is actually on our side. Until we have that, we need to investigate. And be vigilant."
posted by sour cream at 2:53 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Maybe she can pick Chelsea as her running mate.
I was about to post that Chelsea wasn't old enough, and I thought maybe I'd better check that first, and it turns out she is — 36. When did that happen?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:11 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
I was about to post that Chelsea wasn't old enough, and I thought maybe I'd better check that first, and it turns out she is — 36. When did that happen?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:11 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
And, alas, Socks and Buddy are both long gone.
posted by AndrewInDC at 4:18 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by AndrewInDC at 4:18 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
The first image I ever downloaded from the internet and printed was a picture of Socks the cat.
posted by octothorpe at 4:44 AM on June 14, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 4:44 AM on June 14, 2016 [19 favorites]
Re: Warren as the VP: no. No, no nononono no no. No. No no no, no nononononono. Remember what happened the last time Massachusetts held a midterm election for a senator, after Ted Kennedy died in office? The state party is so deeply dysfunctional that it ran the political equivalent of a fart in church, and let Scott "My Pickup Truck is Registered in New Hampshire" Brown win the lowest-turnout senate race we've had in thirty years. That extremely-liberal D switching to an R right around the time the ACA came through was one of a series of increasingly absurd factors (along with Franken not being confirmed for a goddamn YEAR, and Joe Lieberman going full Quisling) that torpedoed the public option on health care. If Warren vacated office, her interim replacement would be appointed by the Massachusetts governor, a Republican. The Senate MATTERS. Warren is currently the loudest voice speaking out against income inequality and plutocracy. Moving her from a role where she's scaring the living shit out of the banking industry, and into a functionally powerless role as VP, based on the vain hope that it will somehow swing the election because it will bring in voters who want to vote for a woman but who won't vote for Clinton (of which there are approximately 6 extant voters hidden among three million closet libertarians screaming "Bern It Down!") is the single worst idea I have seen floated by any contingent of the Democratic party in the past ten years.
posted by Mayor West at 5:36 AM on June 14, 2016 [46 favorites]
posted by Mayor West at 5:36 AM on June 14, 2016 [46 favorites]
Thank you for voting today, D.C. people. Stay in line.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:40 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
UPDATE: We voted this morning before work so my dinner will definitely be at a timely hour tonight.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 5:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 5:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
oh god he's going to pick palin isn't he
Or Ben Carson. He understands the brain dead. That is, the base.
posted by y2karl at 5:58 AM on June 14, 2016
Or Ben Carson. He understands the brain dead. That is, the base.
posted by y2karl at 5:58 AM on June 14, 2016
Allegra Kirkland: Gingrich: Let's Create New Version Of House Un-American Activities Committee
posted by zombieflanders at 6:10 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 6:10 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, let's directly reference the last time fascists seized the wheels of power in the US!
posted by Artw at 6:15 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:15 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Clinton's Veep is going to be one of the Castro brothers - young, charming, progressive, Latino, and Texan. In the Year of Trump, it may swing Texas purple enough to make the GOP panic and pour resources into the state they need to be spending elsewhere.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:28 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:28 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
No line at my polling place this morning, woooo. In and out in mere minutes.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 6:30 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by everybody had matching towels at 6:30 AM on June 14, 2016
Clinton's Veep is going to be one of the Castro brothers - young, charming, progressive, Latino, and Texan.
Maybe she could run with both of them.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:32 AM on June 14, 2016
Maybe she could run with both of them.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:32 AM on June 14, 2016
Maybe she could run with both of them.
They are both accomplished politicians at the national level that tick some nice demographic and policy checkboxes. Either one would be a win for the Democratic ticket. Sec. Julian Castro would be my first choice, to invoke the successes of the Obama administration, but Rep. Joaquín Castro would be equally acceptable. It's an unusual situation, that the Dem bench has a pair of superstars that happen to be brothers, but the two are absolutely not interchangeable pieces. It's like deciding between the modern day John and Bobby Kennedy as your VP.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:46 AM on June 14, 2016
They are both accomplished politicians at the national level that tick some nice demographic and policy checkboxes. Either one would be a win for the Democratic ticket. Sec. Julian Castro would be my first choice, to invoke the successes of the Obama administration, but Rep. Joaquín Castro would be equally acceptable. It's an unusual situation, that the Dem bench has a pair of superstars that happen to be brothers, but the two are absolutely not interchangeable pieces. It's like deciding between the modern day John and Bobby Kennedy as your VP.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:46 AM on June 14, 2016
I would expect Newsom to run for President in 2024 or 2028.
I know you're talking about someone else, but I would totally support Joanna Newsom for president.
SPROUT/BEAN TWENTYSIXTEEN
posted by mrjohnmuller at 6:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
I know you're talking about someone else, but I would totally support Joanna Newsom for president.
SPROUT/BEAN TWENTYSIXTEEN
posted by mrjohnmuller at 6:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
She could pick herself in a pair of dark glasses and a fake moustache to be her VP and it wouldn't matter.
CLINTON / CLIFTON '16
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:21 AM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
CLINTON / CLIFTON '16
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:21 AM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
Allegra Kirkland: Gingrich: Let's Create New Version Of House Un-American Activities Committee
Is this 2016? Really? This is twenty fucking sixteen and we're literally going to try and bring back McCarthyism? Jesus Christ, America. We've really lost the fucking plot at this point.
posted by Talez at 7:40 AM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
Is this 2016? Really? This is twenty fucking sixteen and we're literally going to try and bring back McCarthyism? Jesus Christ, America. We've really lost the fucking plot at this point.
posted by Talez at 7:40 AM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
Voted! The gym was mostly empty at 8:30.
There were actually some choices to be made this cycle (Brandon Todd is pretty much Bowser Jr., but Andrews is actually fairly appealing AFAICT), but EHN was of course alone on the ballot, as was Garcia.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:45 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
There were actually some choices to be made this cycle (Brandon Todd is pretty much Bowser Jr., but Andrews is actually fairly appealing AFAICT), but EHN was of course alone on the ballot, as was Garcia.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:45 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
mmoncur: "Trump has a serious chance. I think this race will be close and I think we need to fight to keep Trump from winning and I think the fight will be difficult. I'm going to keep saying this to the very end and if everyone ends up laughing about how wrong I was that's just fine."
This is the Y2K strategy, which I support.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
This is the Y2K strategy, which I support.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
SPROUT/BEAN TWENTYSIXTEEN
“The love will hold and the love we spurn will never grow cold!”
posted by Going To Maine at 7:48 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
“The love will hold and the love we spurn will never grow cold!”
posted by Going To Maine at 7:48 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Slap*Happy: "It's an unusual situation, that the Dem bench has a pair of superstars that happen to be brothers, but the two are absolutely not interchangeable pieces."
I don't think it worked out that well for UK Labour having two up and coming brothers.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:52 AM on June 14, 2016
I don't think it worked out that well for UK Labour having two up and coming brothers.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:52 AM on June 14, 2016
What are the odds Sanders concedes tonight?
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:57 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:57 AM on June 14, 2016
What are the odds Sanders concedes tonight?
If he didn't concede after the absolute shellacking in California and NJ he's not going to concede after DC.
posted by Talez at 8:01 AM on June 14, 2016
If he didn't concede after the absolute shellacking in California and NJ he's not going to concede after DC.
posted by Talez at 8:01 AM on June 14, 2016
Brandon Todd is pretty much Bowser Jr., but Andrews is actually fairly appealing AFAICT
We met him when he was campaigning outside our Metro stop! I liked him and he seems qualified and forward thinking and he has three super, SUPER cute daughters on his campaign material and I recognize this shouldn't sway me so I probably voted for him since I think he'll go a great job (and he seems really invested in the community and the political process and I read a candidate interview with him and it made it seem like he's got priorities with which I agree -- I'm not a single issue "cute children" voter).
Also happy to vote against Vincent Orange who, as one of my friends pointed out, has crazy grandiose plans for RFK that don't make a damn bit of sense and, as schmod pointed out, keeps getting by in low-voter elections. Seriously, though, I see SO MANY signs for that guy! He may not have anything to contribute to the city but his sign game is On Point.
Overall pretty pleased to have voted and pleased with my choices considering how ridiculous it is that the DC Democratic Primaries for Council/Mayoral positions are the only time my vote even kind of matters, although I'm disappointed that the only two women on the ballot were for a literally uncontested race (Eleanor Holmes Norton) and a race that has already been decided (Hillary Clinton). It's great that I could vote for these two women but there were like twelve other people on the ballot for various positions and they were all men.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:01 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
We met him when he was campaigning outside our Metro stop! I liked him and he seems qualified and forward thinking and he has three super, SUPER cute daughters on his campaign material and I recognize this shouldn't sway me so I probably voted for him since I think he'll go a great job (and he seems really invested in the community and the political process and I read a candidate interview with him and it made it seem like he's got priorities with which I agree -- I'm not a single issue "cute children" voter).
Also happy to vote against Vincent Orange who, as one of my friends pointed out, has crazy grandiose plans for RFK that don't make a damn bit of sense and, as schmod pointed out, keeps getting by in low-voter elections. Seriously, though, I see SO MANY signs for that guy! He may not have anything to contribute to the city but his sign game is On Point.
Overall pretty pleased to have voted and pleased with my choices considering how ridiculous it is that the DC Democratic Primaries for Council/Mayoral positions are the only time my vote even kind of matters, although I'm disappointed that the only two women on the ballot were for a literally uncontested race (Eleanor Holmes Norton) and a race that has already been decided (Hillary Clinton). It's great that I could vote for these two women but there were like twelve other people on the ballot for various positions and they were all men.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:01 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton/Chelsea vs. Trump/Ivanka!
I've always thought there was a chance he would tap Palin as a poke in the eye to those labeling him a misogynist but a.) he doesn't like "losers" and b.) she doesn't like to work.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:02 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've always thought there was a chance he would tap Palin as a poke in the eye to those labeling him a misogynist but a.) he doesn't like "losers" and b.) she doesn't like to work.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:02 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The idea that this race is in any way competitive is a media fabrication.
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing? Go outside, turn around three times, and spit! What the hell's the matter with you?
posted by lazaruslong at 8:03 AM on June 14, 2016 [31 favorites]
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing? Go outside, turn around three times, and spit! What the hell's the matter with you?
posted by lazaruslong at 8:03 AM on June 14, 2016 [31 favorites]
Clinton should go for the real blindside and tap Omarosa.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:04 AM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:04 AM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sanders would be foolish to (formally, publicly) concede tonight. Waiting until the convention to concede and endorse Clinton will give him a much bigger platform and audience for the kind of fire-breathing inspirational speech at which he excels, and it'll make a good visual for Clinton's campaign.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:06 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:06 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
What are the odds Sanders concedes tonight?
He's scheduled to speak to supporters via video live stream on Thursday to address "how the revolution continues". I'd bet on some form of partial suspension/endorsement at that point.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:08 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
He's scheduled to speak to supporters via video live stream on Thursday to address "how the revolution continues". I'd bet on some form of partial suspension/endorsement at that point.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:08 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
I've always thought there was a chance he would tap Palin as a poke in the eye to those labeling him a misogynist but a.) he doesn't like "losers" and b.) she doesn't like to work.
My office has a gambling pool for vice presidential picks and because Trump's so unpredictable you get three choices for him; one has to have been elected/appointed at some point, one can't ever have held office, and the third can be whomever. For my "never elected" I went with Ann Coulter for basically this reason, in case he decided to try to prove he wasn't a misogynist by teaming up with a single terrible woman. Like, what woman hates women almost as much as Donald Trump does? Oh right! They were made for each other!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:09 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
My office has a gambling pool for vice presidential picks and because Trump's so unpredictable you get three choices for him; one has to have been elected/appointed at some point, one can't ever have held office, and the third can be whomever. For my "never elected" I went with Ann Coulter for basically this reason, in case he decided to try to prove he wasn't a misogynist by teaming up with a single terrible woman. Like, what woman hates women almost as much as Donald Trump does? Oh right! They were made for each other!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:09 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s advantage over Donald Trump grew over the course of the last week, according to the results of the latest NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll released Tuesday.posted by Elementary Penguin at 8:14 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
In the same week that Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination and Trump continued his criticism of federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the former secretary of state leads 49 percent to 42 percent.
So in my nightmares Trump/Palin get elected. Trump is impeached. Palin quits. We are left with whomever Palin chooses to fill her shoes.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:28 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:28 AM on June 14, 2016
Like, what woman hates women almost as much as Donald Trump does?
Anita Bryant?
(Fun fact: I momentarily blanked on Bryant's name, so I Googled "horrible orange juice woman." Bryant's Wikipedia entry was the second result.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [27 favorites]
Anita Bryant?
(Fun fact: I momentarily blanked on Bryant's name, so I Googled "horrible orange juice woman." Bryant's Wikipedia entry was the second result.)
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [27 favorites]
We are left with whomever Palin chooses to fill her shoes.
Why would Palin get to choose her replacement?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why would Palin get to choose her replacement?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
she doesn't like to work
doesn't that just make vice president the best job in america for her
she does like to give long, rambling incoherent speeches to carefully selected audiences, and hates talking to the press, so i think the trump campaign is a perfect home for her
posted by murphy slaw at 8:30 AM on June 14, 2016
doesn't that just make vice president the best job in america for her
she does like to give long, rambling incoherent speeches to carefully selected audiences, and hates talking to the press, so i think the trump campaign is a perfect home for her
posted by murphy slaw at 8:30 AM on June 14, 2016
Huffington's polling aggregation currently has the general election as Clinton: 44.5% and Trump: 39.1%.
It still pains me that more than 0% of Americans say that they'll vote for a vugar talking yam but I'll take a five point split right now.
posted by octothorpe at 8:31 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
It still pains me that more than 0% of Americans say that they'll vote for a vugar talking yam but I'll take a five point split right now.
posted by octothorpe at 8:31 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
I would vote for a vulgar talking yam (helooooooo sock puppet!) if it kept Trump out of the White house.
posted by The Bellman at 8:34 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by The Bellman at 8:34 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Faint of Butt, who was first???
posted by AJaffe at 8:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by AJaffe at 8:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
"happy to vote against Vincent Orange"
Amen. Glad there was a palatable alternative this time around. Ditto for Todd, although I have less beef with him than Orange.
"he was campaigning outside our Metro stop"
We must be neighbors!
posted by aspersioncast at 8:36 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Amen. Glad there was a palatable alternative this time around. Ditto for Todd, although I have less beef with him than Orange.
"he was campaigning outside our Metro stop"
We must be neighbors!
posted by aspersioncast at 8:36 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
If we get Trump/Rove, we could have
YAM/HAM 2016
posted by Existential Dread at 8:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
YAM/HAM 2016
posted by Existential Dread at 8:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
We are left with whomever Palin chooses to fill her shoes.
no, we're left with the speaker of the house, i believe
posted by pyramid termite at 8:38 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
no, we're left with the speaker of the house, i believe
posted by pyramid termite at 8:38 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why would Palin get to choose her replacement?
Because of the 25th amendment. In the scenario described, Palin, upon being elevated to President, would appoint the new VP. Her pick would need to be confirmed by both the House and Senate though.
posted by ryanrs at 8:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Because of the 25th amendment. In the scenario described, Palin, upon being elevated to President, would appoint the new VP. Her pick would need to be confirmed by both the House and Senate though.
posted by ryanrs at 8:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
We are left with whomever Palin chooses to fill her shoes.
Why would Palin get to choose her replacement?
Indeed! It would go to Paul Ryan. Then he and Justin Trudeau could have a pants-off dance-off for the entirety of North America & it would be hotttt.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:39 AM on June 14, 2016
Why would Palin get to choose her replacement?
Indeed! It would go to Paul Ryan. Then he and Justin Trudeau could have a pants-off dance-off for the entirety of North America & it would be hotttt.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:39 AM on June 14, 2016
(Assuming Palin gets lazy about her appointments.)
posted by Going To Maine at 8:39 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 8:39 AM on June 14, 2016
"Waiting until the convention to concede and endorse Clinton will give him a much bigger platform and audience for the kind of fire-breathing inspirational speech at which he excels"
I think if he waits until the convention to concede and endorse, he doesn't get a speaking slot. The nominees don't get to stump directly to the delegates, but wait until after the voting for one of them to be nominated; then the nominee speaks to accept the nomination. Before the voting, the speeches are given by surrogates and party members (and are typically selected and scheduled by the presumptive nominee's campaign organization). Which is why most people who want to see Bernie's message spread to the widest possible audience expect/hope he concedes in advance of the convention.
I'm a little vague on the specific ins and outs and rules, but I'm fairly certain that's the practical outcome.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:41 AM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think if he waits until the convention to concede and endorse, he doesn't get a speaking slot. The nominees don't get to stump directly to the delegates, but wait until after the voting for one of them to be nominated; then the nominee speaks to accept the nomination. Before the voting, the speeches are given by surrogates and party members (and are typically selected and scheduled by the presumptive nominee's campaign organization). Which is why most people who want to see Bernie's message spread to the widest possible audience expect/hope he concedes in advance of the convention.
I'm a little vague on the specific ins and outs and rules, but I'm fairly certain that's the practical outcome.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:41 AM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
Washington Post: Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Then he and Justin Trudeau could have a pants-off dance-off for the entirety of North America & it would be hotttt.
Oddly this... would not be the weirdest thing to happen in politics this year?
also where is aaron schock in this plan
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oddly this... would not be the weirdest thing to happen in politics this year?
also where is aaron schock in this plan
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yinz know that "Vulgar Talking Yam" is from Charlie Pierce, right? Because you all should be reading his column. It's one of the few things keeping me sane this year.
posted by octothorpe at 8:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:42 AM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Why would Palin get to choose her replacement?
Because it's a nightmare?
posted by sour cream at 8:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Because it's a nightmare?
posted by sour cream at 8:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also I will not be comfortable until Trump's share of voters hits the basement at the 27% baseline crazification factor of the American electorate. When he's polling at 27%, I can deal with that. That is the level of crazy I expect from my fellow Americans.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:44 AM on June 14, 2016 [43 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:44 AM on June 14, 2016 [43 favorites]
"also where is aaron schock in this plan"
He actually just gave a huge local interview (it was smarmy and made me cringe) and he is currently working on business development and technology penetration in India and doing some (non-official, non-registered) lobbying for Indian causes among his former colleagues. When asked who he was voting for he laughed and said he wished he could vote for Narenda Modi, whom, I was given the impression by this interview, is a unicorn made of rainbows who shits gold.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
He actually just gave a huge local interview (it was smarmy and made me cringe) and he is currently working on business development and technology penetration in India and doing some (non-official, non-registered) lobbying for Indian causes among his former colleagues. When asked who he was voting for he laughed and said he wished he could vote for Narenda Modi, whom, I was given the impression by this interview, is a unicorn made of rainbows who shits gold.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yinz know that "Vulgar Talking Yam" is from Charlie Pierce
Love him so much. And as much as I enjoy his writing on politics for Esquire, his non-political writing is one of the top two or three things I miss most about Grantland (RIP).
posted by dersins at 8:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Love him so much. And as much as I enjoy his writing on politics for Esquire, his non-political writing is one of the top two or three things I miss most about Grantland (RIP).
posted by dersins at 8:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Washington Post: Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump
Given Putin's interest in seeing Trump elected, what are the odds all that stolen data ends up in his campaign's tiny, delicate hands?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:50 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Given Putin's interest in seeing Trump elected, what are the odds all that stolen data ends up in his campaign's tiny, delicate hands?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:50 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think if he waits until the convention to concede and endorse, he doesn't get a speaking slot.
I expect that Bernie would be allowed to speak since his nomination would have to be entered. Thing is, given the rules as they are, there's a zero chance he'll win the nomination, no matter what speech he gives.
posted by dw at 8:50 AM on June 14, 2016
I expect that Bernie would be allowed to speak since his nomination would have to be entered. Thing is, given the rules as they are, there's a zero chance he'll win the nomination, no matter what speech he gives.
posted by dw at 8:50 AM on June 14, 2016
When asked who he was voting for he laughed and said he wished he could vote for Narendra Modi
Nobody likes a suck-up
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:56 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nobody likes a suck-up
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:56 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Washington Post: Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump
This is the weirdest timeline and I don’t like anything about it.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:57 AM on June 14, 2016 [19 favorites]
This is the weirdest timeline and I don’t like anything about it.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:57 AM on June 14, 2016 [19 favorites]
ryanrs: "Because of the 25th amendment. In the scenario described, Palin, upon being elevated to President, would appoint the new VP. Her pick would need to be confirmed by both the House and Senate though."
Yeah, you guys remember Gerald Ford, right?
posted by Chrysostom at 8:59 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, you guys remember Gerald Ford, right?
posted by Chrysostom at 8:59 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Adding to that weirdness is the final line of the article: “Tom Hamburger contributed to this report.”
posted by Going To Maine at 9:01 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 9:01 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
That WaPo story is another reason Onion editors drink.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:06 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:06 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Donald Trump's new bright idea could mean everyone in Britain is banned from America (Independent, June 14, 2016)
posted by filthy light thief at 9:08 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump: "When I’m elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."But it makes everyone at his rallies all excited, so he keeps saying this and other stupid things.
Immigration from Britain to America would stop under Mr Trump's definition.
Three out of the four men convicted of the 7/7 bombings, an attack on one of America's allies, were born in Leeds and the fourth had moved to Britain at the age of five.
The Brighton Bombing in 1984 in which members of the IRA attempted to assassinate Margaret Thatcher and in the process killed five senior members of the Conservative Party and injured 31 others, is another example. The man convicted of this was Patrick Magee, a British Citizen from Belfast.
The Gunpowder Plot is probably the most insurmountable barrier to Brits entering America. Terrorism doesn't get much more historical, and Guy Fawkes was a lad from Yorkshire. As is well known Guy was of course "radicalized" and took on the holy warrior name "Guido" (Which in Catholic means...Guy) when he went to Spain
Dan Kaszeta, a veteran of the US Army's Chemical Corps and a security specialist provided this succinct analysis:@JonathanWoodrow @jgulhane Basically, there's very few countries without some history of terrorism. Trump is smoking dope.
— Dan Kaszeta (@DanKaszeta) June 14, 2016.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:08 AM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Looking at that NBC/SurveyMonkey poll:
They are still asking "Here are the candidates running in the Democratic presidential primary this year. Which candidate do you now support for the Democratic nomination for president? [AMONG DEM & DEM LEANERS]"
And this is immediately before the direct question of whom would you vote for between Clinton and Trump.
Among the 9% in that question who did not support Clinton or Trump, she has the edge 44-40 with 16% still being unwilling to lean.
So, presumably/hopefully, the question re: the Democratic primary is priming a few current Sanders supporters who will actually vote for Clinton in November to not answer, which would then tack on a few percentage points for her.
The strongly + somewhat unfavorables for Trump are 49(!)+12=61. (Oddly they do not have favorables listed for Clinton.)
Barack Obama's strongly + somewhat approve numbers are steady at 29+22=51.
Given those figures (Trump unfavorable @ 61%, Obama approval @51%, Democratic primary is still winding down), I am cautiously optimistic about that topline 49-42 number. I think Clinton has some room before she hits a ceiling, and I think Trump is pretty close to his.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:10 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
They are still asking "Here are the candidates running in the Democratic presidential primary this year. Which candidate do you now support for the Democratic nomination for president? [AMONG DEM & DEM LEANERS]"
And this is immediately before the direct question of whom would you vote for between Clinton and Trump.
Among the 9% in that question who did not support Clinton or Trump, she has the edge 44-40 with 16% still being unwilling to lean.
So, presumably/hopefully, the question re: the Democratic primary is priming a few current Sanders supporters who will actually vote for Clinton in November to not answer, which would then tack on a few percentage points for her.
The strongly + somewhat unfavorables for Trump are 49(!)+12=61. (Oddly they do not have favorables listed for Clinton.)
Barack Obama's strongly + somewhat approve numbers are steady at 29+22=51.
Given those figures (Trump unfavorable @ 61%, Obama approval @51%, Democratic primary is still winding down), I am cautiously optimistic about that topline 49-42 number. I think Clinton has some room before she hits a ceiling, and I think Trump is pretty close to his.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:10 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Donald Trump Turns 70 Today. Hillary Clinton is 68. This Is America’s Senior Moment.: Trump and Clinton’s combined score make them by far the oldest duo ever to compete for the Presidency—a fact that has received almost zero attention.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:19 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:19 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump: "When I’m elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."
Immigration from Britain to America would stop under Mr Trump's definition.
Sure. Also, there happens to be thousands of miles of undefended border between the US and a nation that continues to operate an independent immigration policy as if they're, I dunno, a sovereign state or something.
Is he going to close off the 49th parallel?
Will he mine the Great Lakes?
It's fucking inconceivable that this person has even the slightest chance of sitting in the Oval Office.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:20 AM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
Immigration from Britain to America would stop under Mr Trump's definition.
Sure. Also, there happens to be thousands of miles of undefended border between the US and a nation that continues to operate an independent immigration policy as if they're, I dunno, a sovereign state or something.
Is he going to close off the 49th parallel?
Will he mine the Great Lakes?
It's fucking inconceivable that this person has even the slightest chance of sitting in the Oval Office.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:20 AM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
It's fucking inconceivable that this person has even the slightest chance of sitting in the Oval Office.
You keep using &c.
posted by dersins at 9:24 AM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
You keep using &c.
posted by dersins at 9:24 AM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
Gingrich: Let's Create New Version Of House Un-American Activities Committee
I'm getting uncomfortable flashbacks to the second phase of the Swift Boat mess, where it became clear that what they really wanted to nail Kerry on was his vocal opposition to the war and contention that the Vietnam War was a fiasco. WHICH IT WAS. So a little over a decade ago conservatives were essentially arguing that the Vietnam War was justified and right (or at least that anyone who denied its justification and rightness was a bad person), and now they're waxing nostalgic for HUAC? Shit, I thought there were at least a few things which were universally understood in America to be terrible, but I guess not.
posted by jackbishop at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
I'm getting uncomfortable flashbacks to the second phase of the Swift Boat mess, where it became clear that what they really wanted to nail Kerry on was his vocal opposition to the war and contention that the Vietnam War was a fiasco. WHICH IT WAS. So a little over a decade ago conservatives were essentially arguing that the Vietnam War was justified and right (or at least that anyone who denied its justification and rightness was a bad person), and now they're waxing nostalgic for HUAC? Shit, I thought there were at least a few things which were universally understood in America to be terrible, but I guess not.
posted by jackbishop at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
Trump and Clinton’s combined score make them by far the oldest duo ever to compete for the Presidency—a fact that has received almost zero attention.
I'd say the reason it's received little attention is because people don't consider Trump's age as a factor at all, whereas plenty of ageist shit has been thrown Clinton's way. (Hm. I wonder what could be the cause of this discrepancy?)
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'd say the reason it's received little attention is because people don't consider Trump's age as a factor at all, whereas plenty of ageist shit has been thrown Clinton's way. (Hm. I wonder what could be the cause of this discrepancy?)
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:27 AM on June 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
So in my nightmares Trump/Palin get elected. Trump is impeached. Palin quits. We are left with whomever Palin chooses to fill her shoes.
I dunno, that seems a lot less nightmarish to me than the scenario where Trump and/or Palin don't vacate their position. I mean, whoever we end up with afterwards can't be much worse.
posted by jackbishop at 9:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I dunno, that seems a lot less nightmarish to me than the scenario where Trump and/or Palin don't vacate their position. I mean, whoever we end up with afterwards can't be much worse.
posted by jackbishop at 9:29 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Washington Post: Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump
posted by DynamiteToast
Holy bananas, this article raises more questions than it answers, WaPo!
posted by moody cow at 9:31 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by DynamiteToast
Holy bananas, this article raises more questions than it answers, WaPo!
posted by moody cow at 9:31 AM on June 14, 2016
Hm. I wonder what could be the cause of this discrepancy?
how can we consider him an old man when he has such a lush, natural head of hair
posted by murphy slaw at 9:31 AM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
how can we consider him an old man when he has such a lush, natural head of hair
posted by murphy slaw at 9:31 AM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
And such a sharp wit.
posted by Artw at 9:34 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 9:34 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've considered it, which is why I think it's absolutely nuts that people are seriously proposing the *74 year old* Sanders as VP, apart from any other issues.
posted by tavella at 9:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tavella at 9:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
From that WaPo hacking article:
posted by maudlin at 9:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some GOP political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.So were these networks also penetrated, or did the hackers fail to get in? My bias is that Trump's network would be most vulnerable, given how underfunded and slipshod his campaign is, but who knows?
posted by maudlin at 9:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Washington Post: Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump
posted by DynamiteToast
Holy bananas, this article raises more questions than it answers, WaPo!
My ability to judge the importance of things is kind of broken at the moment.
I can't decide if this is:
a) spies gonna spy, film at 11
or
b) advance indication that Putin is going to do everything he can to manipulate things so that Trump gets elected
I'm going to go with a) for the moment because things are already shitty enough.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:36 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast
Holy bananas, this article raises more questions than it answers, WaPo!
My ability to judge the importance of things is kind of broken at the moment.
I can't decide if this is:
a) spies gonna spy, film at 11
or
b) advance indication that Putin is going to do everything he can to manipulate things so that Trump gets elected
I'm going to go with a) for the moment because things are already shitty enough.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:36 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
The underlying conditions make this a seriously challenging race for even "generic republican". Electoral college math is awful for Republicans regardless of who they pick to run.
The current Real Clear Politics electoral map has Clinton ahead 201 electoal votes to Trump's 164. Trump right now is a lock on fewer electoral votes than Mitt Romney got, and he lost to Obama 332-206.
In order to win, Trump would have to run the table on the toss-ups, winning at least 106 electoral votes of the 170 currently up for grabs. The most pessimistic of these aggregate maps still have Clinton with at least 250 EVs, with a number of toss-up states undecided.
But it's hard to see how Trump will wind up peeling away many Obama states. As I mentioned in the other thread, Trump could win the Rust Belt, flipping Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, plus Iowa, and still lose to Clinton.
posted by Gelatin at 9:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
The current Real Clear Politics electoral map has Clinton ahead 201 electoal votes to Trump's 164. Trump right now is a lock on fewer electoral votes than Mitt Romney got, and he lost to Obama 332-206.
In order to win, Trump would have to run the table on the toss-ups, winning at least 106 electoral votes of the 170 currently up for grabs. The most pessimistic of these aggregate maps still have Clinton with at least 250 EVs, with a number of toss-up states undecided.
But it's hard to see how Trump will wind up peeling away many Obama states. As I mentioned in the other thread, Trump could win the Rust Belt, flipping Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, plus Iowa, and still lose to Clinton.
posted by Gelatin at 9:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Like all women, Clinton is either too old or too young for whatever thing she is wanting to do, and has been her whole life.
That said, damn it ma'am, it's not watchlists that protect us, it's making guns less available. Hateful shitbags are too numerous and too hard to spot. Keeping guns out of their hands is much easier and much less likely to increase the police state for everyone else. Can we just focus on things that work without making life materially worse for everyone, that would be NICE, for the love of god.
(I suspect that just like Obama and the motherfucking TPP, we are going to have to keep demanding our liberal leaders be actual goddamn liberals, jesus.)
(man I'm cursing a lot today)
posted by emjaybee at 9:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
That said, damn it ma'am, it's not watchlists that protect us, it's making guns less available. Hateful shitbags are too numerous and too hard to spot. Keeping guns out of their hands is much easier and much less likely to increase the police state for everyone else. Can we just focus on things that work without making life materially worse for everyone, that would be NICE, for the love of god.
(I suspect that just like Obama and the motherfucking TPP, we are going to have to keep demanding our liberal leaders be actual goddamn liberals, jesus.)
(man I'm cursing a lot today)
posted by emjaybee at 9:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
My bias is that Trump's network would be most vulnerable, given how underfunded and slipshod his campaign is, but who knows?
If they got into it what would they even find? I rather think that internal emails at Trump HQ consist of racist/conspiracy theory meme forwards. Insiders have already basically said that the campaign strategy begins and ends with whatever Donald Trump shat onto his twitter feed most recently.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:40 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
If they got into it what would they even find? I rather think that internal emails at Trump HQ consist of racist/conspiracy theory meme forwards. Insiders have already basically said that the campaign strategy begins and ends with whatever Donald Trump shat onto his twitter feed most recently.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:40 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
If they got into it what would they even find?
Proof that he's a saboteur sent to destroy the Republican part from within?
posted by paper chromatographologist at 9:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Proof that he's a saboteur sent to destroy the Republican part from within?
posted by paper chromatographologist at 9:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump's running mate pick is very important just because of the likelihood that ultimately the GOP Congressional Leadership will lose patience with him and Impeach his orange ass, and a ridiculous VP is a good defense (just like Agnew for Nixon... when Spiro was gone and Ford was in, it was safe to dump Tricky Dick).
As far as ages, the Beloved Biden is less than a full year younger than Bernie. So I'm still baffled at the claim that, at 65, Al Franken is too old.
My bias is that Trump's network would be most vulnerable, given how underfunded and slipshod his campaign is, but who knows?
Considering his public statements, Trump's "opposition research" is whatever comes to his mind at the moment, and NOBODY wants to hack Donald's brain.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
As far as ages, the Beloved Biden is less than a full year younger than Bernie. So I'm still baffled at the claim that, at 65, Al Franken is too old.
My bias is that Trump's network would be most vulnerable, given how underfunded and slipshod his campaign is, but who knows?
Considering his public statements, Trump's "opposition research" is whatever comes to his mind at the moment, and NOBODY wants to hack Donald's brain.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:43 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Again, it has nothing to do with her being a woman, in my case. In an ideal world for me, we wouldn't be electing anyone near retirement age to what is hopefully an 8-year job. It's why, despite liking him quite a lot, I had no desire for Biden to run. It's not an absolute bar for me, obviously, but it's not ideal.
posted by tavella at 9:45 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tavella at 9:45 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
If the GOP continues to control the House, I see zero chance they would impeach Trump, short of his actively gunning down people in the streets, and maybe not then. This is not 1974.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 9:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Trump oppo research file is just a whiteboard with CROOKED HILLARY!!! written on it in non-whiteboard marker
posted by theodolite at 9:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [49 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 9:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [49 favorites]
The Trump oppo research file is just a link to Fox News' archive.
posted by dersins at 9:50 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by dersins at 9:50 AM on June 14, 2016
Crooked Hillary This one! -DJT
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:54 AM on June 14, 2016 [17 favorites]
A friend of mine in Oklahoma shared this link about Trump meeting with Gov. Mary Fallin today. Apparently she's already endorsed Trump and has been mentioned by his team in the context of a VP pick.
I don't know that much about her, but my understanding is that she's been partially responsible for under-funding schools and is generally qualified in terms of awfulness to be on the Trump ticket. My impression is that she's reasonably popular with evangelicals, and might help bring in that wing of the party?
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:54 AM on June 14, 2016
I don't know that much about her, but my understanding is that she's been partially responsible for under-funding schools and is generally qualified in terms of awfulness to be on the Trump ticket. My impression is that she's reasonably popular with evangelicals, and might help bring in that wing of the party?
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:54 AM on June 14, 2016
I'm pretty sure it's one of those zip files that creates another zip file when you unzip it.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:54 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:54 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Trump oppo research file is written in BASIC and reads as follows:
10 PRINT "DONALD TRUMP RULES!!!"
20 GOTO 10So I know "Fallin" is pronounced like "Fallon," but Trump/Fallin 2016 reads like "fallin(g)" or "failin'," either of which is amusing.
posted by stolyarova at 10:02 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 10:02 AM on June 14, 2016
Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump
Some more details from Dmitri Alperovitch, cofounder of CrowdStrike:
Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee.
Beware COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR!
posted by Kabanos at 10:03 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Some more details from Dmitri Alperovitch, cofounder of CrowdStrike:
Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee.
Beware COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR!
posted by Kabanos at 10:03 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Thank you to the kind poster upthread who linked again to Charlie Pierce. I've followed his posts regularly, but I'd forgotten how darned good his profile of Elizabeth Warren was. It's a fantastic article - and again, while I'd *love* to see what she could do with the ultimate in bully pulpits, I think she's best placed in the Senate right now.
What I wouldn't give for Chuck Schumer to become Senate majority leader, leaving Warren to chair the Finance and Banking committees as they write bills for President Clinton to sign. (Except for that hitch with the House of Representatives. What are we going to do about that?)
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:05 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
What I wouldn't give for Chuck Schumer to become Senate majority leader, leaving Warren to chair the Finance and Banking committees as they write bills for President Clinton to sign. (Except for that hitch with the House of Representatives. What are we going to do about that?)
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:05 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
NOT Care Bears.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:05 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:05 AM on June 14, 2016
Oh my God. I am reading Mary Fallin's Wikipedia Page right now, and I had no idea...
Under Fallin, Oklahoma has pushed for increased use of lethal injection as a means of ending life in capital punishment, while refusing to release details of the new chemical concoctions used in these executions following chemical company Hospira's decision to stop producing sodium thiopental, which had previously been widely used. Fallin pushed strongly for the execution of convicted murderer Clayton Lockett to proceed in spite of the lack of tested drugs to use for lethal injection. When the Oklahoma State Supreme Court granted a stay of execution, Fallin immediately overruled it, leading some political commentators to raise the possibility of a constitutional crisis surrounding the separation of powers. At the same time, a member of the Oklahoma legislature moved to impeach the seven justices on the Supreme Court who had granted the stay.[31][32] Lockett's execution was attempted on April 29, 2014, but was abandoned when he could not be sedated and was left writhing in pain. Lockett died 43 minutes later of a heart attack.posted by OnceUponATime at 10:06 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Should have renamed it LOTSA HEARTS if stealing info about GOP candidate.
posted by Kabanos at 10:07 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by Kabanos at 10:07 AM on June 14, 2016
I don't know that much about her, but my understanding is that she's been partially responsible for under-funding schools and is generally qualified in terms of awfulness to be on the Trump ticket.
Mary Fallin has been an unmitigated disaster for Oklahoma. It's not about underfunding schools -- it's that she pushed hard for a oil royalty tax cut, one that everyone thought was pointless. Then the price of oil cratered and... yep.
School districts are cutting hundreds of teachers, per capita spending per pupil is now lower than Mississippi (the long-time benchmark for "at least we're not" when you're comparing education), others teachers are moving to Texas and Arkansas, and now families are leaving Oklahoma. Even the GOP budget leadership is talking higher taxes now.
Her as VP candidate is a mixed blessing. Oklahoma would love to get rid of her (luckily OK has term limits so she'll be done in 2018), but making her a heartbeat away from the presidency?
But she's perfect for Trump. Honestly.
posted by dw at 10:12 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Mary Fallin has been an unmitigated disaster for Oklahoma. It's not about underfunding schools -- it's that she pushed hard for a oil royalty tax cut, one that everyone thought was pointless. Then the price of oil cratered and... yep.
School districts are cutting hundreds of teachers, per capita spending per pupil is now lower than Mississippi (the long-time benchmark for "at least we're not" when you're comparing education), others teachers are moving to Texas and Arkansas, and now families are leaving Oklahoma. Even the GOP budget leadership is talking higher taxes now.
Her as VP candidate is a mixed blessing. Oklahoma would love to get rid of her (luckily OK has term limits so she'll be done in 2018), but making her a heartbeat away from the presidency?
But she's perfect for Trump. Honestly.
posted by dw at 10:12 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Who would the democrats have run who is younger? Who could they run in 2020?
posted by zutalors! at 10:20 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 10:20 AM on June 14, 2016
I'm glad to see Obama call them out over the "radical islam" thing. Nice job.
posted by bongo_x at 10:26 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bongo_x at 10:26 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
"The entire political system has been tilted more in the Republicans’ favor, to the point where the presidency is the only prize that Democrats can fight for on equal terms—"
The issue is non-democratic court decisions (money = free speech), gerrymandering and voter suppression. I keep hoping Bernie will focus on this and I think Hillary would support him.
But his only comments for weeks have been about independents being able to vote in primaries, which has nothing to do with Republicans' success and is not fundamentally an issue of fairness. Seems more like sour grapes.
posted by msalt at 10:33 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
The issue is non-democratic court decisions (money = free speech), gerrymandering and voter suppression. I keep hoping Bernie will focus on this and I think Hillary would support him.
But his only comments for weeks have been about independents being able to vote in primaries, which has nothing to do with Republicans' success and is not fundamentally an issue of fairness. Seems more like sour grapes.
posted by msalt at 10:33 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
So I know "Fallin" is pronounced like "Fallon," but Trump/Fallin 2016 reads like "fallin(g)" or "failin'," either of which is amusing.
“Trailin’”, like their poll numbers.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:35 AM on June 14, 2016
“Trailin’”, like their poll numbers.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:35 AM on June 14, 2016
>SPROUT AND THE BEAN IN 2016
"They say Trump will try to hurt me,
Like a slow, low-flying turkey,
Like a Texan drying jerky
But his meaty mitts can't hurt me."
posted by msalt at 10:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
"They say Trump will try to hurt me,
Like a slow, low-flying turkey,
Like a Texan drying jerky
But his meaty mitts can't hurt me."
posted by msalt at 10:35 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't see anywhere where this has been noted before.
Obama: Nobel Prize.
Gore: Nobel Prize.
Trump: Razzie.
Ghosts Can't Do It. (Anthony Quinn commits suicide and then returns as a ghost to convince his widow (Bo Derek) to kill a studly man so he can keep on banging her.) Released (USA) the same month as Ghost Dad.
The clip.
The dialogue:
Donald Trump: Be assured, Mrs. Scott, that in this room there are knives sharp enough to cut you to the bone and hearts cold enough to eat yours as hors-d'oeuvres.
Katie O'Dare Scott (Bo Derek): You're too pretty to be bad!
Donald Trump: You noticed.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Obama: Nobel Prize.
Gore: Nobel Prize.
Trump: Razzie.
Ghosts Can't Do It. (Anthony Quinn commits suicide and then returns as a ghost to convince his widow (Bo Derek) to kill a studly man so he can keep on banging her.) Released (USA) the same month as Ghost Dad.
The clip.
The dialogue:
Donald Trump: Be assured, Mrs. Scott, that in this room there are knives sharp enough to cut you to the bone and hearts cold enough to eat yours as hors-d'oeuvres.
Katie O'Dare Scott (Bo Derek): You're too pretty to be bad!
Donald Trump: You noticed.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:37 AM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Re: Gingrich on the return of HUAC
If memory serves, someone on Fox has been hawking books over the last couple of years painting McCarthy as hero, not villain. I'm sure the return of HUAC plays beautifully to Trump's base.
posted by wittgenstein at 10:51 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
If memory serves, someone on Fox has been hawking books over the last couple of years painting McCarthy as hero, not villain. I'm sure the return of HUAC plays beautifully to Trump's base.
posted by wittgenstein at 10:51 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
If memory serves, someone on Fox has been hawking books over the last couple of years painting McCarthy as hero, not villain.
And let's not forget that in the wake of 9/11, the odious Michelle Malkin wrote a book called In Defense of Internment.
(While we're strolling down memory lane, let's chuckle at the feeble attempt of Jonah Goldberg to deflect attention to so-called "Liberal Fascism").
posted by Gelatin at 10:58 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
And let's not forget that in the wake of 9/11, the odious Michelle Malkin wrote a book called In Defense of Internment.
(While we're strolling down memory lane, let's chuckle at the feeble attempt of Jonah Goldberg to deflect attention to so-called "Liberal Fascism").
posted by Gelatin at 10:58 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Narenda Modi, whom, I was given the impression by this interview, is a unicorn made of rainbows who shits gold.
As opposed to the reality, which is that he is a fascist who, at a minimum, refused to stop the massacre of Muslims while he was chief minister of Gujarat, and whose stint as prime minister has been marked by a huge uptick in the targeting of minorities in the largest democracy in the world.
posted by bardophile at 10:59 AM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
As opposed to the reality, which is that he is a fascist who, at a minimum, refused to stop the massacre of Muslims while he was chief minister of Gujarat, and whose stint as prime minister has been marked by a huge uptick in the targeting of minorities in the largest democracy in the world.
posted by bardophile at 10:59 AM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
I don't "fascist" is a disqualifier for Aaron Schock.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:01 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 11:01 AM on June 14, 2016
Who would the democrats have run who is younger? Who could they run in 2020?
I say Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota (who is 56). Name her VP this year -- Minnesota has a Democratic governor so the seat is safe. I'd love to see Al Franken, but a) the fact that he was literally a comedian will hurt him, and b) women get under Trump's skin in a way he can't.
Humor will be crucial to competing with Trump for entertainment while winning likability. By all accounts Klobuchar is even funnier than Franken, she might help shore up the Upper Midwest, and her victory will set her up for 2024 as the Lady Biden candidate.
posted by msalt at 11:04 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I say Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota (who is 56). Name her VP this year -- Minnesota has a Democratic governor so the seat is safe. I'd love to see Al Franken, but a) the fact that he was literally a comedian will hurt him, and b) women get under Trump's skin in a way he can't.
Humor will be crucial to competing with Trump for entertainment while winning likability. By all accounts Klobuchar is even funnier than Franken, she might help shore up the Upper Midwest, and her victory will set her up for 2024 as the Lady Biden candidate.
posted by msalt at 11:04 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, but were the 1980s the Amy Klobuchar Decade?
posted by Chrysostom at 11:09 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 11:09 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
I wonder if he'd even pick Michelle Malkin, come to that. She'd make a pretty Palin for him, except that whatever else she is, Malkin isn't lazy or stupid.
The name "Castro" could make some low-information voters as nervous as "Hussein," but I don't suppose such voters were likely to be swayed to Hillary anyway.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:09 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The name "Castro" could make some low-information voters as nervous as "Hussein," but I don't suppose such voters were likely to be swayed to Hillary anyway.
posted by Countess Elena at 11:09 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who would the democrats have run who is younger? Who could they run in 2020?
Gavin Newsom?
posted by aspersioncast at 11:16 AM on June 14, 2016
Gavin Newsom?
posted by aspersioncast at 11:16 AM on June 14, 2016
I mean he's currently running for CA Gov. 2018, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him on the ballot in a few years.
posted by aspersioncast at 11:22 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by aspersioncast at 11:22 AM on June 14, 2016
I finally read the HuffPost piece with the Cruz, Bush, and Rubio campaign managers and its incredible. As I read I kept glossing over the individual names, and only going back and seeing who said what if it got specific. A fun game is to see if you can tell which is which by the end without reading who said it (hint - if it's a super salty comment it's Cruz's campaign manager).
Also, I had to remember which was which and had a little mnemonic that might help. Roe is gross fish eggs and goes with Cruz because he's a disgusting reptile piece of shit. I don't know how to keep the other two straight but who cares.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:26 AM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
Also, I had to remember which was which and had a little mnemonic that might help. Roe is gross fish eggs and goes with Cruz because he's a disgusting reptile piece of shit. I don't know how to keep the other two straight but who cares.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:26 AM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
Let's not forget that Obama took less than 4 years from his '04 democratic convention speech to being the democratic nominee. Political celebrity can move pretty fast, so I'm not worried.
posted by Think_Long at 11:26 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Think_Long at 11:26 AM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, but if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:32 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 11:32 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
> I finally read the HuffPost piece ...
Yeah, I'm reading it, and right off the bat, we meet:
Trump had a floor. He was always going to have 25 to 30 percent of liberal-to-moderates, he was going to have 25 to 30 percent of somewhat conservatives, he was going to have 25 to 30 percent of very conservatives.
Why, it's our old friend, the 27% Crazification Factor. It's uncanny!
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:38 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I'm reading it, and right off the bat, we meet:
Trump had a floor. He was always going to have 25 to 30 percent of liberal-to-moderates, he was going to have 25 to 30 percent of somewhat conservatives, he was going to have 25 to 30 percent of very conservatives.
Why, it's our old friend, the 27% Crazification Factor. It's uncanny!
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:38 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Let's not forget that Obama took less than 4 years from his '04 democratic convention speech to being the democratic nominee.
When his immediate predecessor as President was inaugurated, Obama had just gotten stomped in a House primary by 30 points. When Bush's immediate predecessor was inaugurated, Bush was 0-1 in elections, also having lost a House race. There is a very good chance that 90 percent of us have never heard of whoever will end up as the 46th president.
posted by Etrigan at 11:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
When his immediate predecessor as President was inaugurated, Obama had just gotten stomped in a House primary by 30 points. When Bush's immediate predecessor was inaugurated, Bush was 0-1 in elections, also having lost a House race. There is a very good chance that 90 percent of us have never heard of whoever will end up as the 46th president.
posted by Etrigan at 11:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
*2000 words about how nobody in the Republican Party was able to control Donald Trump*
How can you then turn around and say, “You know, the system will restrain Trump”?
Bcause Republicans control themselves. We police ourselves better.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
How can you then turn around and say, “You know, the system will restrain Trump”?
Bcause Republicans control themselves. We police ourselves better.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:39 AM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
There is a very good chance that 90 percent of us have never heard of whoever will end up as the 46th president.
Oh god, it's going to be one of those goddamn Youtube stars, isn't it?
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:44 AM on June 14, 2016 [18 favorites]
Oh god, it's going to be one of those goddamn Youtube stars, isn't it?
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:44 AM on June 14, 2016 [18 favorites]
Minecraft Dan
posted by Artw at 11:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:46 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
IWILLDOMINATE/IMAQTPIE 2024!
They could personally thank each person that pledges to vote for them live on stream!
posted by Talez at 11:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
They could personally thank each person that pledges to vote for them live on stream!
posted by Talez at 11:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Tyler Oakley turns 35 in 2024.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:47 AM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd vote for a PewdiePie/MatPat ticket over any republican candidate, any day.
posted by dotgirl at 11:49 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by dotgirl at 11:49 AM on June 14, 2016
I'd vote for a PewdiePie/MatPat ticket over any republican candidate, any day.
PewdiePie is a svenskar so no bueno there.
posted by Talez at 11:52 AM on June 14, 2016
PewdiePie is a svenskar so no bueno there.
posted by Talez at 11:52 AM on June 14, 2016
I've said it before, I'll say it again - I've run the numbers, and the 2024 president *must* be named Yelnick McWawa.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:53 AM on June 14, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 11:53 AM on June 14, 2016
Are you sure you're not confusing it with those weird three word addresses?
posted by Talez at 11:55 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Talez at 11:55 AM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Minecraft Dan
IWILLDOMINATE/IMAQTPIE
I'd vote for a PewdiePie/MatPat ticket
OK, now you people are just making shit up.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:57 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
IWILLDOMINATE/IMAQTPIE
I'd vote for a PewdiePie/MatPat ticket
OK, now you people are just making shit up.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:57 AM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
CookieSwirl C / DisneyCollectorBR 2028
posted by Artw at 12:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 12:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I assume that eventually there is an extremely good chance that Kirsten Gillibrand will eventually follow in Hillary's footsteps.
In general she seems like her positions have been more along the centrist side of Democratic politics but there has been some evidence that when she became a Senator her positions became a lot more progressive even though I personally find her political positions problematic on a number of issues (Death Penalty and some economical conservative positions) but she seems to have.
Klobuchar is the other major up and comer on the Democratic side in the Senate and I wouldn't be surprised if we see her make a transition to either Attorney General or the SCOTUS.
I'm less certain of the up and coming individuals in the house besides the Castro brother, maybe Patrick Murphy if becomes a Florida Senator. I would love if someone like Jared Polis could move up as well but I have to imagine that rampant homophobia will probably limit how high he can rise.
Of course there are also people like Kamala Harris who definitely could be seen as potentially taking the fast track to leadership.
posted by vuron at 12:01 PM on June 14, 2016
In general she seems like her positions have been more along the centrist side of Democratic politics but there has been some evidence that when she became a Senator her positions became a lot more progressive even though I personally find her political positions problematic on a number of issues (Death Penalty and some economical conservative positions) but she seems to have.
Klobuchar is the other major up and comer on the Democratic side in the Senate and I wouldn't be surprised if we see her make a transition to either Attorney General or the SCOTUS.
I'm less certain of the up and coming individuals in the house besides the Castro brother, maybe Patrick Murphy if becomes a Florida Senator. I would love if someone like Jared Polis could move up as well but I have to imagine that rampant homophobia will probably limit how high he can rise.
Of course there are also people like Kamala Harris who definitely could be seen as potentially taking the fast track to leadership.
posted by vuron at 12:01 PM on June 14, 2016
On the plus side of a Mary Fallin nomination, a debate between her and Elizabeth Warren would be brutal. Plus Warren can play her own Okie card, so I'd expect a debate filled with references to "fraidy holes" and "Sonic limeades" and "rain-wrapped mesocyclones."
posted by dw at 12:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dw at 12:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Let's not forget that Obama took less than 4 years from his '04 democratic convention speech to being the democratic nominee.
The same for Bill Clinton. Few had heard of him before his Democratic convention speech in 1988, although, in contrast to Obama, his speech did not go over very well, being much to long and boring for a convention crowd.
At the 1992 convention in his acceptance speech Clinton said “I ran for president this year for one reason and one reason only,” he said, “I wanted to come back to this convention and finish that speech I started four years ago!”
posted by JackFlash at 12:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
The same for Bill Clinton. Few had heard of him before his Democratic convention speech in 1988, although, in contrast to Obama, his speech did not go over very well, being much to long and boring for a convention crowd.
At the 1992 convention in his acceptance speech Clinton said “I ran for president this year for one reason and one reason only,” he said, “I wanted to come back to this convention and finish that speech I started four years ago!”
posted by JackFlash at 12:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Vuron, it should be remembered that Gillibrand came into Congress representing an upstate New York district, which tends to be much more conservative than New York State as a whole. I don't know a ton about her personal politics pre elected office, but it makes sense that she'd have been a Blue Dog in the house and more progressive in the senate.
posted by Sara C. at 12:22 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by Sara C. at 12:22 PM on June 14, 2016
> Allegra Kirkland: Gingrich: Let's Create New Version Of House Un-American Activities Committee
Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani Have Bold Plans to Make Trumpism Even Worse. Constitution, schmonstitution.
posted by homunculus at 12:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani Have Bold Plans to Make Trumpism Even Worse. Constitution, schmonstitution.
posted by homunculus at 12:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Gillibrand has been asked about that - she's said she felt it was her responsibility to (within limits) reflect her constituents. Her congressional district was more conservative than her state as a whole.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:32 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 12:32 PM on June 14, 2016
I agree Sara and honestly I'm perfectly willing to have politicians develop more liberal positions over time. But let's be honest if the progressive wing of the Democratic party thinks that Clinton is too conservative then I figure they'll freak out over Gillibrand.
That being said I think she's got a very strong chance of rocketing into the national spotlight moving forward especially if she continues to adopt leadership roles in regards to a number of issues.
posted by vuron at 12:33 PM on June 14, 2016
That being said I think she's got a very strong chance of rocketing into the national spotlight moving forward especially if she continues to adopt leadership roles in regards to a number of issues.
posted by vuron at 12:33 PM on June 14, 2016
The same for Bill Clinton. Few had heard of him before his Democratic convention speech in 1988, although, in contrast to Obama, his speech did not go over very well, being much to long and boring for a convention crowd.
Yes, and that was the same year keynote speaker Ann Richards brought down the house with her famous "George Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth!" speech. (Then, twelve years later, America would go on to elect the wrong Texas governor as president. RIP Ann.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yes, and that was the same year keynote speaker Ann Richards brought down the house with her famous "George Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth!" speech. (Then, twelve years later, America would go on to elect the wrong Texas governor as president. RIP Ann.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
The same for Bill Clinton. Few had heard of him before his Democratic convention speech in 1988, although, in contrast to Obama, his speech did not go over very well, being much to long and boring for a convention crowd.
He had been Governor of Arkansas four times and the chair of the National Governors Association. He wasn't the Inevitable Next Candidate in 1988, but he wasn't a wide-eyed neophyte.
posted by Etrigan at 12:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
He had been Governor of Arkansas four times and the chair of the National Governors Association. He wasn't the Inevitable Next Candidate in 1988, but he wasn't a wide-eyed neophyte.
posted by Etrigan at 12:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Gina Raimundo is another name to be on the lookout for - a fiscally conservative, socially progressive technocrat that will appeal to the Clinton base, she's also a compelling speaker.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:43 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:43 PM on June 14, 2016
"George Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth!"
As opposed to his son W, who was born with a silver spoon in his nose.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:43 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
As opposed to his son W, who was born with a silver spoon in his nose.
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:43 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Rebecca Traister's latest on the campaign: This Election is a Civil War.
posted by emjaybee at 12:46 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 12:46 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Since I'm the person who raised the "younger Dem" question, it's more that I am curious about the nurture program. Maybe the public hadn't heard of Clinton or Obama but to the leadership they certainly didn't come from nowhere.
posted by zutalors! at 12:48 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zutalors! at 12:48 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Someone else to keep an eye out for in 2020 and 2024 is Brian Sandoval. He's a centrist Hispanic Republican, pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-ACA, pro-renewable energy, and the very popular two-term governor of Nevada. If the GOP can recover at all from this year's dumpster fire he's the kind of guy they should nominate in the future.
posted by stolyarova at 12:49 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 12:49 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sandoval is incidentally also highly traditional-President-shaped (like a Latino Mitt Romney) so the Republicans will probably like that.
posted by stolyarova at 12:52 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 12:52 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Anyone saying a Clinton win is inevitable, take a look at how the "inevitable" victory predicted for the Remain side in the UK's coming EU referendum is going...
Don't get complacent.
posted by knapah at 12:54 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
Don't get complacent.
posted by knapah at 12:54 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
Speaking of the dumpster fire, this week's great Republican flight from Trump's disgraceful reaction to Orlando has already begun. Plus the President and HRC have landed some very hard blows. I can't wait for the weekend news shows.
posted by bearwife at 12:57 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 12:57 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Since I'm the person who raised the "younger Dem" question, it's more that I am curious about the nurture program.
Oh, the Dem's growth program is the complete opposite of a dumpster fire, in that a dumpster fire can be said to exist. A friend of mine who's run for the statehouse a couple of times was called by the state Democratic party about running again this year, because apparently they hadn't thought about our district until one week before the filing deadline.
posted by Etrigan at 12:59 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, the Dem's growth program is the complete opposite of a dumpster fire, in that a dumpster fire can be said to exist. A friend of mine who's run for the statehouse a couple of times was called by the state Democratic party about running again this year, because apparently they hadn't thought about our district until one week before the filing deadline.
posted by Etrigan at 12:59 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
So apparently Sanders called for "changes to the Democratic Party" today:
posted by zombieflanders at 12:59 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
-New leadershipWhich sounds nice at first glance, especially #1 and #2. But voter registration is controlled by the individual states' Secretaries of State, and unilaterally opening primaries sounds like a recipe for (Operation) chaos. Having half his proposal be either unworkable or likely to cause more problems than it solves makes it look like this wasn't thought through properly, which is especially disappointing seeing as how he's supposed to have been working on this kind of reform for months.
-Elimination of superdelegates
-Same day registration for voting
-Open primaries
posted by zombieflanders at 12:59 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
Re the "Obama came from nowhere" thing, he was definitely on my radar as early as 2000 when he ran for the House. I remember my community college journalism 101 instructor bringing in an article about the upstart Illinois civil rights lawyer and saying something along the lines of "this is a guy to watch."
posted by aspersioncast at 1:03 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by aspersioncast at 1:03 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
The same for Bill Clinton. Few had heard of him before his Democratic convention speech in 1988, although, in contrast to Obama, his speech did not go over very well, being much to long and boring for a convention crowd.
Yes, and that was the same year keynote speaker Ann Richards brought down the house with her famous "George Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth!" speech. (Then, twelve years later, America would go on to elect the wrong Texas governor as president. RIP Ann.)
Could've used this a few days ago in LearnedLeague, thanks for nothing guys.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Elimination of superdelegates
Keeping the republican party's nomination process and results in mind, I see how superdelegates might be a reasonable idea.
posted by peeedro at 1:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [18 favorites]
Keeping the republican party's nomination process and results in mind, I see how superdelegates might be a reasonable idea.
posted by peeedro at 1:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [18 favorites]
Allegra Kirkland: Gingrich: Let's Create New Version Of House Un-American Activities Committee
is this real life
posted by biogeo at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016
is this real life
posted by biogeo at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016
What a wild coincidence that all of Bernie Sanders' goals for the Democratic Party involve killing things that appear to have hurt his nomination chances in particular. Such high, lofty principles he has!
(Although at this point the argument against superdelegates is that they let a hopeless candidate stay in the race long past the point where it's rationally over, not that they overturn the will of the electorate.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [24 favorites]
(Although at this point the argument against superdelegates is that they let a hopeless candidate stay in the race long past the point where it's rationally over, not that they overturn the will of the electorate.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [24 favorites]
Yes, it's crazy to me that they just keep implying, if not actually saying, that Sanders lost because of superdelegates. Losing respect by the minute.
posted by bongo_x at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by bongo_x at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yeah, superdelegates were never really his problem, and him tilting at that particular windmill isn't terribly impressive.
Also, is his call for open primaries to just have open primaries across the board, or is it to open existing primaries while leaving caucuses alone? Because if it's the latter, that is some hot bullshit.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Also, is his call for open primaries to just have open primaries across the board, or is it to open existing primaries while leaving caucuses alone? Because if it's the latter, that is some hot bullshit.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
-Elimination of superdelegates
-Same day registration for voting
-Open primaries
Sounds like a recipe for Republican ratfucking.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [21 favorites]
-Same day registration for voting
-Open primaries
Sounds like a recipe for Republican ratfucking.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [21 favorites]
It's like Sanders wants the Dems to have a Trump problem in the future.
posted by bongo_x at 1:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by bongo_x at 1:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
I was going to ask the same thing as NoxAeternum. Is he calling for elimination of both closed primaries and caucuses or just closed primaries?
posted by Justinian at 1:13 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by Justinian at 1:13 PM on June 14, 2016
Gay and voting for Trump after Orlando: how the right is eyeing the LGBT vote
Jim Hoft, a longtime hard-right blogger also known as the Gateway Pundit, thinks he has the answer. Yesterday, Hoft revealed that he was gay on Breitbart news and argued that it was time for gay people to “come home” to the conservative party. He wrote: “I can no longer remain silent as my gay brothers and sisters are being slaughtered at dance clubs. There is only one man who can lead this nation and protect all gays and all Americans. His name is Donald Trump.”
UCF Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos’ Scheduled Speech on ‘Gays and Islam’
Brett Meade, Deputy Chief of Police at UCF said he made an executive decision to postpone the event due to lack of resources to assure Milo’s security.
They have 70 officers deployed for tonight’s vigil at the university and “cannot guarantee focus” on anything but that event.
Meade provided Milo’s tour manager, Tim Treadstone, with a folder of threats made against the Breitbart Tech editor on social media.
It's difficult for me to come up with any adequate words to express the disgust I feel for these people.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
Jim Hoft, a longtime hard-right blogger also known as the Gateway Pundit, thinks he has the answer. Yesterday, Hoft revealed that he was gay on Breitbart news and argued that it was time for gay people to “come home” to the conservative party. He wrote: “I can no longer remain silent as my gay brothers and sisters are being slaughtered at dance clubs. There is only one man who can lead this nation and protect all gays and all Americans. His name is Donald Trump.”
UCF Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos’ Scheduled Speech on ‘Gays and Islam’
Brett Meade, Deputy Chief of Police at UCF said he made an executive decision to postpone the event due to lack of resources to assure Milo’s security.
They have 70 officers deployed for tonight’s vigil at the university and “cannot guarantee focus” on anything but that event.
Meade provided Milo’s tour manager, Tim Treadstone, with a folder of threats made against the Breitbart Tech editor on social media.
It's difficult for me to come up with any adequate words to express the disgust I feel for these people.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [16 favorites]
Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump
Hey, given the bro-mance between Putin and Trump, the perhaps the most obvious conclusion is that the Russians are working for Trump.
posted by JackFlash at 1:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hey, given the bro-mance between Putin and Trump, the perhaps the most obvious conclusion is that the Russians are working for Trump.
posted by JackFlash at 1:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Ugh. Milo Yiannopolous (and his alt-right troll army) are everything that is wrong with political discussion on the internet.
posted by stolyarova at 1:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 1:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
"But it's hard to see how Trump will wind up peeling away many Obama states. As I mentioned in the other thread, Trump could win the Rust Belt, flipping Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, plus Iowa, and still lose to Clinton."
The RNC today basically conceded Illinois and won't be running field operations or national advertising here.
They are focusing on "Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Utah, Wisconsin - even deep blue California and New York."
(Regarding a 50-state strategy by Democrats -- discussion of the GOP conceding Illinois on local political blogs has involved VERY BITTER COMPLAINING that the Democrats have been running a tiny handful of national ads during national programming in Illinois and people are not used to having to see presidential advertising and they do not like it. Which makes me LOL.)
"I don't "fascist" is a disqualifier for Aaron Schock."
Yeah, I mean, let's recall this is the little scamp of the House who advocated "giving nukes to Taiwan" and did not appear to know, upon questioning, what or where Taiwan was, and then later walked this back by claiming it was "a joke." Which would be more persuasive if it hadn't almost caused an international incident and if he appeared to know what Taiwan was when he made the "joke" instead of being a violence-obsessed 14-year-old boy failing social studies class whose knowledge of foreign affairs was so fully complex as "China is our enemy! Let's give their enemies nukes!"
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
The RNC today basically conceded Illinois and won't be running field operations or national advertising here.
They are focusing on "Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Utah, Wisconsin - even deep blue California and New York."
(Regarding a 50-state strategy by Democrats -- discussion of the GOP conceding Illinois on local political blogs has involved VERY BITTER COMPLAINING that the Democrats have been running a tiny handful of national ads during national programming in Illinois and people are not used to having to see presidential advertising and they do not like it. Which makes me LOL.)
"I don't "fascist" is a disqualifier for Aaron Schock."
Yeah, I mean, let's recall this is the little scamp of the House who advocated "giving nukes to Taiwan" and did not appear to know, upon questioning, what or where Taiwan was, and then later walked this back by claiming it was "a joke." Which would be more persuasive if it hadn't almost caused an international incident and if he appeared to know what Taiwan was when he made the "joke" instead of being a violence-obsessed 14-year-old boy failing social studies class whose knowledge of foreign affairs was so fully complex as "China is our enemy! Let's give their enemies nukes!"
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
Caucuses need to go, even you Iowa Caucuses, because we really shouldn't let the front runners in elections be determined by who can show up in rural diners about 4 years in advance.
Same day voter registration gets into the territory of each state's Secretary of State. This is not something that can be mandated.
I'm not entirely sold on whether open primaries would be good or bad. I really haven't seen evidence that open primaries would've changed much in this election (Sanders would still have gotten stomped) and if we can get rid of caucuses I can definitely be willing to go with open primaries.
Honestly I haven't seen evidence that Superdelegates actually mean much, Clinton led with them in 2008 until it seemed like Obama was going to retain his lead and then they switched.
For the most part they really haven't matter at all this season until Sanders has started his bullshit campaign about getting the Superdelegates to ignore the Pledge Delegate lead of Clinton.
posted by vuron at 1:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Same day voter registration gets into the territory of each state's Secretary of State. This is not something that can be mandated.
I'm not entirely sold on whether open primaries would be good or bad. I really haven't seen evidence that open primaries would've changed much in this election (Sanders would still have gotten stomped) and if we can get rid of caucuses I can definitely be willing to go with open primaries.
Honestly I haven't seen evidence that Superdelegates actually mean much, Clinton led with them in 2008 until it seemed like Obama was going to retain his lead and then they switched.
For the most part they really haven't matter at all this season until Sanders has started his bullshit campaign about getting the Superdelegates to ignore the Pledge Delegate lead of Clinton.
posted by vuron at 1:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Democrats have been running a tiny handful of national ads during national programming in Illinois and people are not used to having to see presidential advertising and they do not like it.
Nobody is forcing these people to watch television...
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:24 PM on June 14, 2016
Nobody is forcing these people to watch television...
posted by Faint of Butt at 1:24 PM on June 14, 2016
How about just one frikkin' day for all primaries so we get it over with and don't have the B.S. antidemocratic "early lead" and "momentum" media narratives that favor the voices of voters in some states over others? I don't understand why you'd bother with other reforms of the party nomination process without tackling that obvious flaw. This election season will have been over a year long by the time it's over. This on its own is damaging our democracy. Look at how it let the Republicans justify their refusal to vote on Garland's nomination by calling Obama a lame duck a year before he leaves office.
posted by biogeo at 1:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 1:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Oh right, the only systemic problems that needs addressing are Wall Street and political corruption.
posted by biogeo at 1:26 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by biogeo at 1:26 PM on June 14, 2016
Ugh. Milo Yiannopolous (and his alt-right troll army) are everything that is wrong with political discussion on the internet.
ftfy
posted by murphy slaw at 1:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
ftfy
posted by murphy slaw at 1:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
A single-day primary, however, will mean that the only viable candidates will be either strong establishment figures who already have national recognition or celebrities. A spread-out primary system that starts in small states enables lesser-known, less-establishment candidates, like Obama and Sanders, to build recognition, credibility, and fundraising. A single-day primary in a country this large will be MUCH more subject to party control and much less available to outsider or insurgent candidates.
It doesn't have to be THIS spread out and insanely long. But there are real benefits to a slow-starting primary system that gives a foothold to less-known candidates and allows the media more time to vet and requires retail politicking and takes some of the selection out of the hands of the party apparatus.
I was spitballing in a prior thread and I thought maybe Democrats should move DC up to third place, behind Iowa and New Hampshire (on the assumption that displacing Iowa and New Hampshire as "first" is politically impossible), because they're fairly rural, fairly white electorates. DC has the benefit of being small (like Iowa and NH), which makes it possible to do retail politics there and prevents such an early contest from being decisive while voters are still forming opinions, but is unique in that while tiny, it's entirely urban and extremely diverse, and pretty lefty. It's also politically well-educated by the nature of its domination by the federal government. It might bring a little more balance to the early part of the Democratic calendar without upsetting the process by which we start small to start the vetting process without committing to big states that assign decisive numbers of delegates until much later on when we've all had a chance to get to know the candidates.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [37 favorites]
It doesn't have to be THIS spread out and insanely long. But there are real benefits to a slow-starting primary system that gives a foothold to less-known candidates and allows the media more time to vet and requires retail politicking and takes some of the selection out of the hands of the party apparatus.
I was spitballing in a prior thread and I thought maybe Democrats should move DC up to third place, behind Iowa and New Hampshire (on the assumption that displacing Iowa and New Hampshire as "first" is politically impossible), because they're fairly rural, fairly white electorates. DC has the benefit of being small (like Iowa and NH), which makes it possible to do retail politics there and prevents such an early contest from being decisive while voters are still forming opinions, but is unique in that while tiny, it's entirely urban and extremely diverse, and pretty lefty. It's also politically well-educated by the nature of its domination by the federal government. It might bring a little more balance to the early part of the Democratic calendar without upsetting the process by which we start small to start the vetting process without committing to big states that assign decisive numbers of delegates until much later on when we've all had a chance to get to know the candidates.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [37 favorites]
I like the long primary season because I think it gives relative nobodies a better chance. Unless you are very well funded, running a national campaign is prohibitively expensive. But you can campaign in just Iowa and New Hampshire. Good showings there can get you a lot of free media coverage, and can be leveraged to give you a better chance in later states. It just seems like a lower barrier to entry. And the sheer amount of time it takes to get through all the elections gives lesser-known candidates time to get known.
But it does seem unfair that it's always Iowa and New Hampshire first. We should maybe just let a random selection of congressional districts from all over the country vote every week (ideally over the weekend!) for four months until they've all voted. Or switch to mail in voting and give everyone four months to get their ballot in, like filing your taxes.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
But it does seem unfair that it's always Iowa and New Hampshire first. We should maybe just let a random selection of congressional districts from all over the country vote every week (ideally over the weekend!) for four months until they've all voted. Or switch to mail in voting and give everyone four months to get their ballot in, like filing your taxes.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
"I don't "fascist" is a disqualifier for Aaron Schock."
Yeah, I mean, let's recall this is the little scamp of the House who advocated "giving nukes to Taiwan" and did not appear to know, upon questioning, what or where Taiwan was, and then later walked this back by claiming it was "a joke." Which would be more persuasive if it hadn't almost caused an international incident and if he appeared to know what Taiwan was when he made the "joke" instead of being a violence-obsessed 14-year-old boy failing social studies class whose knowledge of foreign affairs was so fully complex as "China is our enemy! Let's give their enemies nukes!"
Sure. I just think Narenda Modi's name should never be taken without also identifying him as a fascist. The recent closer ties between the US and India make it even more important that this be so. Even in these election threads, people have praised Tulsi Gabbard as a progressive role model, without recognizing how sketchy her support of Modi and his RSS buddies is.
posted by bardophile at 1:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, I mean, let's recall this is the little scamp of the House who advocated "giving nukes to Taiwan" and did not appear to know, upon questioning, what or where Taiwan was, and then later walked this back by claiming it was "a joke." Which would be more persuasive if it hadn't almost caused an international incident and if he appeared to know what Taiwan was when he made the "joke" instead of being a violence-obsessed 14-year-old boy failing social studies class whose knowledge of foreign affairs was so fully complex as "China is our enemy! Let's give their enemies nukes!"
Sure. I just think Narenda Modi's name should never be taken without also identifying him as a fascist. The recent closer ties between the US and India make it even more important that this be so. Even in these election threads, people have praised Tulsi Gabbard as a progressive role model, without recognizing how sketchy her support of Modi and his RSS buddies is.
posted by bardophile at 1:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Because the states run the elections, they have to balance "being influential in the presidential election" vs. "paying for two elections, because we can't run our state-offices primary in February."
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 1:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Let's not forget that Obama took less than 4 years from his '04 democratic convention speech to being the democratic nominee.
That's true, but he wasn't exactly unknown, even then. Two months before the convention:
posted by The Bellman at 1:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
That's true, but he wasn't exactly unknown, even then. Two months before the convention:
Jan Schakowsky told me about a recent visit she had made to the White House with a congressional delegation. On her way out, she said, President Bush noticed her "obama" button. "He jumped back, almost literally," she said. "And I knew what he was thinking. So I reassured him it was Obama, with a 'b.' And I explained who he was. The President said, 'Well, I don’t know him.' So I just said, 'You will.'"The Candidate, The New Yorker, May 31, 2004. (Worth a read, incidentally. Just for old times' sake.)
posted by The Bellman at 1:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
"If Aaron Schock is for it, I'm agin it," has never steered me wrong.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
A single-day primary, however, will mean that the only viable candidates will be either strong establishment figures who already have national recognition or celebrities.
Everyone keeps saying this, but it's nothing but cargo cult logic. Consider that nobody really comes out of nowhere -- they're all current or recent politicians except for wild card like Trump who have a platform already. The electoral contests are the way we currently let candidates "gain a foothold" and "build momentum", but they're not the only ways that can happen.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Everyone keeps saying this, but it's nothing but cargo cult logic. Consider that nobody really comes out of nowhere -- they're all current or recent politicians except for wild card like Trump who have a platform already. The electoral contests are the way we currently let candidates "gain a foothold" and "build momentum", but they're not the only ways that can happen.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm glad to see Obama call them out over the "radical islam" thing. Nice job.
Here it is on video.
posted by peeedro at 1:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here it is on video.
posted by peeedro at 1:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
My general feeling is that the race as it stands now is basically the following:
Solid Democratic- 251
Solid Republican- 180
With the following states as the battleground states:
Arizona- Normally I would consider this as safe Republican but McCain looks vulnerable and while Phoenix is a fortress of Red it seems like there is a general weakening of the Republican position as more and more new residents come into the state.
Colorado- Honestly I think this is rapidly shifting into solid Democratic territory but there is a lot of libertarian sentiment as well and I'm unsure whether that will hurt or help Trump's chances. Still it's hard to imagine a state that legalized pot going for Trump
Florida- Always a big battleground and this is a must win for Trump. Currently without VPs nominated I'd say this is a fairly close state but the right VP could shift this one way or the other. The fact that there is also a pretty high profile senate race in this state could make stuff interesting
Iowa- I just don't know where I think Iowa will go, I think there should be some antipathy for Trump here but I also think there is some antipathy for Clinton.
Nevada- I would say that Clinton should win this state relatively easily based upon demographics but right now it seems appropriate to consider it as a battleground state.
New Hampshire - Iconoclastic as hell they seem to be the only NE state that is remotely willing to listen to Trump's bullshit. I think it will go to Clinton but who knows.
North Carolina- Haha this state should never of become a battleground this quickly, yeah influx on new residents and stuff but Republicans have to be worried if North Carolina becomes vulnerable because if they lose NC they pretty much get wiped out in the General Election.
Ohio- Trump absolutely has to win this state and I think it will force him to go with Kasich (in a vain attempt to also put Pennsylvania into a contest- Pro-tip never going to happen). Clinton's strength during the primaries seemed really really strong.
Virginia- One of the swingiest states in the nation it seems like demographics are killing Republicans for state wide office. Yeah Virginia Democrats are centrist as hell but it doesn't seem like it's a solid state for Trump currently. It is also more or less a must win for Trump.
Trump basically has to run the table and the reality is based upon the current polling if things pretty much keep in the current trajectory I think it's not impossible for things to become a 358- 180 ass kicking.
posted by vuron at 1:45 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Solid Democratic- 251
Solid Republican- 180
With the following states as the battleground states:
Arizona- Normally I would consider this as safe Republican but McCain looks vulnerable and while Phoenix is a fortress of Red it seems like there is a general weakening of the Republican position as more and more new residents come into the state.
Colorado- Honestly I think this is rapidly shifting into solid Democratic territory but there is a lot of libertarian sentiment as well and I'm unsure whether that will hurt or help Trump's chances. Still it's hard to imagine a state that legalized pot going for Trump
Florida- Always a big battleground and this is a must win for Trump. Currently without VPs nominated I'd say this is a fairly close state but the right VP could shift this one way or the other. The fact that there is also a pretty high profile senate race in this state could make stuff interesting
Iowa- I just don't know where I think Iowa will go, I think there should be some antipathy for Trump here but I also think there is some antipathy for Clinton.
Nevada- I would say that Clinton should win this state relatively easily based upon demographics but right now it seems appropriate to consider it as a battleground state.
New Hampshire - Iconoclastic as hell they seem to be the only NE state that is remotely willing to listen to Trump's bullshit. I think it will go to Clinton but who knows.
North Carolina- Haha this state should never of become a battleground this quickly, yeah influx on new residents and stuff but Republicans have to be worried if North Carolina becomes vulnerable because if they lose NC they pretty much get wiped out in the General Election.
Ohio- Trump absolutely has to win this state and I think it will force him to go with Kasich (in a vain attempt to also put Pennsylvania into a contest- Pro-tip never going to happen). Clinton's strength during the primaries seemed really really strong.
Virginia- One of the swingiest states in the nation it seems like demographics are killing Republicans for state wide office. Yeah Virginia Democrats are centrist as hell but it doesn't seem like it's a solid state for Trump currently. It is also more or less a must win for Trump.
Trump basically has to run the table and the reality is based upon the current polling if things pretty much keep in the current trajectory I think it's not impossible for things to become a 358- 180 ass kicking.
posted by vuron at 1:45 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Watch Ken Burns insult Donald Trump for 7 minutes straight at Stanford’s commencement
And then he did, delivering a seven-minute string of blistering insults to Trump, calling him an "infantile, bullying man," a "spoiled, misbehaving child," a "charlatan," and a "naked emperor." He blasted Trump's speeches as riddled with "troubling, unfiltered Tourette's of his tribalism."posted by tonycpsu at 1:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [20 favorites]
[...]
It's up to graduates to reverse it, he said, to applause: "Asking this man to assume the highest office in the land would be like asking a newly minted car driver to fly a 747."
Re younger Democrats - don't forget, there's a 35 year old, very serious, very handsome next generation Kennedy in the House.
Maybe also Seth Moulton?
As far as Kirsten Gillibrand, I have never met a better cusser in my life. (There are lots of other good things about her too)
posted by sallybrown at 1:51 PM on June 14, 2016
Maybe also Seth Moulton?
As far as Kirsten Gillibrand, I have never met a better cusser in my life. (There are lots of other good things about her too)
posted by sallybrown at 1:51 PM on June 14, 2016
Jeff Sessions, Trump's right-hand man in the Senate, claimed that Pulse was not an LGBT club. In response to a question about LGBT legislation, no less.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:58 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by zombieflanders at 1:58 PM on June 14, 2016
Even aside from a single-day primary there are plenty of steps we can take to make the primary elections more equitable while giving less well-known candidates a larger voice. My own hobby horse here is to reform voting rules to make them more democratic, ideally something like approval voting. And if the idea of extending things to give outsider candidates more attention is what we really want, why not a series of one-on-one tournament-style elections over the course of a few weeks? Then each candidate gets a chance to present their case to the entire country in a series of smaller campaigns, roughly equally-weighted in terms of importance and media attention. The current system just feels like the worst possible way of doing it.
posted by biogeo at 1:58 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by biogeo at 1:58 PM on June 14, 2016
Seth Moulton went to my high school, in my year. I mainly just knew him by reputation, which was a good one, so I don't have anything to add, except that having somebody from my class on the ticket would be the one thing that would make this election even weirder for me.
posted by Countess Elena at 2:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 2:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Guys you don't need to keep selling me on Gillibrand. I'm willing to jump on the bandwagon 8 years in advance ;)
posted by vuron at 2:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 2:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
So this whole DNC Trump file hack, anybody else getting the feeling that Putin may have had it done to deliver the info to Trump?
posted by stolyarova at 2:04 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 2:04 PM on June 14, 2016
Talking about the electoral vote, this is the map you get from current prediction market values: Clinton 332, Trump 206.
Trump needs to flip 63 EVs to win. The closest states to flipping red (and their EVs), according to prediction markets, are:
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:05 PM on June 14, 2016
Trump needs to flip 63 EVs to win. The closest states to flipping red (and their EVs), according to prediction markets, are:
Win EVs OH 39% 18 FL 38% 29 NH 35% 4 PA 34% 20 < tipping point IA 32% 6 MI 30% 16 CO 26% 9Pennsylvania seems incredibly unlikely to be in play this year. Seems like his best path to "victory" is an electoral tie by taking Ohio, Florida, and Michigan.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:05 PM on June 14, 2016
So this whole DNC Trump file hack, anybody else getting the feeling that Putin may have had it done to deliver the info to Trump?
oh crap, Trump is going to find out he's an asshole!
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
oh crap, Trump is going to find out he's an asshole!
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Clinton Leads Trump 49-37 In Dramatic New Poll.
posted by Justinian at 2:07 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:07 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't see what good Trump could do with his own oppo file, other than maybe owning up to all of it at once (which would be insane, so I guess that's a good option).
It's like the 30 Rock episode where Jack hires a P.I. to investigate his own past.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:08 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's like the 30 Rock episode where Jack hires a P.I. to investigate his own past.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:08 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
So this whole DNC Trump file hack, anybody else getting the feeling that Putin may have had it done to deliver the info to Trump?
Makes sense for Putin to undermine Trump's opposition. A weak president like Trump means Putin can more easily spread his fascist claws over the rest of Eastern Europe, for instance.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Makes sense for Putin to undermine Trump's opposition. A weak president like Trump means Putin can more easily spread his fascist claws over the rest of Eastern Europe, for instance.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
A weak president like Trump means Putin can more easily spread his fascist claws over the rest of Eastern Europe, for instance.
Exactly. As I've mentioned before, my husband was born in the former Soviet Union, and he thinks it's hilarious how Trump believes Putin is his friend. Putin likes Trump because he can play him like a slide whistle.
posted by stolyarova at 2:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [31 favorites]
Exactly. As I've mentioned before, my husband was born in the former Soviet Union, and he thinks it's hilarious how Trump believes Putin is his friend. Putin likes Trump because he can play him like a slide whistle.
posted by stolyarova at 2:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [31 favorites]
I don't see what good Trump could do with his own oppo file, other than maybe owning up to all of it at once (which would be insane, so I guess that's a good option).
A disciplined, well-strategized campaign would be able to use knowledge of its opponent's planned attacks in controlled "leaks" and persistent messaging that would undercut those attacks before they're even made. So, yeah, I'm not sure what Trump would use it for either.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [25 favorites]
A disciplined, well-strategized campaign would be able to use knowledge of its opponent's planned attacks in controlled "leaks" and persistent messaging that would undercut those attacks before they're even made. So, yeah, I'm not sure what Trump would use it for either.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [25 favorites]
Seth Moulton wants it too. If Warren gets the nod and they manage to do whatever 'write a letter on the third new moon during the House of Virgo' incantation they need to do to keep Baker from appointing a senator who lasts more than five minutes before melting back into wax and component parts, then I fully expect Moulton (veteran, big on veteran affairs, coming out swinging on assault rifles) to run for her seat.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 2:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 2:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump basically has to run the table and the reality is based upon the current polling if things pretty much keep in the current trajectory I think it's not impossible for things to become a 358- 180 ass kicking.
I saw a 401 map this morning. Current polling has her kicking his ass in Kansas and a tie in Utah.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I saw a 401 map this morning. Current polling has her kicking his ass in Kansas and a tie in Utah.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
To be honest, I think Clinton has a good chance to take Utah. Mormons hate Trump.
posted by stolyarova at 2:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 2:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
> Jeff Sessions, Trump's right-hand man in the Senate, claimed that Pulse was not an LGBT club. In response to a question about LGBT legislation, no less.
Scott Brown Says Orlando Shooting Did Not Primarily Target Gay People
posted by homunculus at 2:23 PM on June 14, 2016
Scott Brown Says Orlando Shooting Did Not Primarily Target Gay People
posted by homunculus at 2:23 PM on June 14, 2016
why not a series of one-on-one tournament-style elections over the course of a few weeks?
Why not actual tournaments? They always work well in the shonen anime I watch.
Besides, I'm still disappointed I didn't get to see my Clinton shoryuken during the California voting.
posted by happyroach at 2:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why not actual tournaments? They always work well in the shonen anime I watch.
Besides, I'm still disappointed I didn't get to see my Clinton shoryuken during the California voting.
posted by happyroach at 2:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Chris Christie Calls For The U.S. Military To Retaliate For The Orlando Massacre. He’s Not Sure Where.
posted by homunculus at 2:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 2:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
If this was Ranma, we could have Martial Arts Primary Elections.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 2:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
> While we're strolling down memory lane, let's chuckle at the feeble attempt of Jonah Goldberg to deflect attention to so-called "Liberal Fascism"
Pretty much all of these conservative doorstoppers that mainly exist because they're part of the wingnut welfare scam should be named "Nuh UH, LIEberals!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pretty much all of these conservative doorstoppers that mainly exist because they're part of the wingnut welfare scam should be named "Nuh UH, LIEberals!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
To be honest, I think Clinton has a good chance to take Utah. Mormons hate Trump.
It's gonna happen if Romney endorses Gary Johnson.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:27 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's gonna happen if Romney endorses Gary Johnson.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:27 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Chris Christie Calls For The U.S. Military To Retaliate For The Orlando Massacre. He’s Not Sure Where.
Full disclosure, if I had a chance to replace the War On Drugs with a War On Florida I'm not entirely sure which way I'd come down.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Full disclosure, if I had a chance to replace the War On Drugs with a War On Florida I'm not entirely sure which way I'd come down.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Holy shit. Bloomberg poll of 1,000 likely voters Friday to Monday. Clinton 49, Trump 37. 12 point lead.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Ironmouth at 2:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Don't get complacent, everyone.
On the other hand, a 400+ EV victory would be amazing.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:29 PM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
On the other hand, a 400+ EV victory would be amazing.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:29 PM on June 14, 2016 [14 favorites]
The Two Democratic Victors - "Hillary Clinton has won the Democratic nomination for president, while Bernie Sanders has won the party’s battle of ideas. That may be cold comfort to the Sanders faithful, but it shouldn’t be: He clearly has transformed both the Democrats and the substance of American liberalism."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:30 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:30 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Chris Christie Calls For The U.S. Military To Retaliate For The Orlando Massacre
Much like Trump's assertion that he will ban immigration from countries where terrorists come from, the obvious answer is the US.
So we should ban everyone born in the US, with military force.
Given that the homicide rate in the US is one of the highest in the world, leaving the country to the immigrants should make it less violent.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Much like Trump's assertion that he will ban immigration from countries where terrorists come from, the obvious answer is the US.
So we should ban everyone born in the US, with military force.
Given that the homicide rate in the US is one of the highest in the world, leaving the country to the immigrants should make it less violent.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
"So this whole DNC Trump file hack, anybody else getting the feeling that Putin may have had it done to deliver the info to Trump?"
It's possible, but I think it's highly unlikely. I think the point was probably more to prove their ability to infiltrate and intimidate the systems of the person they think will be the next president (Hillary) to keep her off balance. While Putin certain enjoys feeding off Trump's free publicity, and Putin is many things, one thing he is not is stupid. There is not actually a lot of upside for Putin if Trump actually wins, because Trump is a literal crazy person who will then have nukes, and certainly Russia's relations with the US still revolve a great deal around nuclear questions. It's to Putin's benefit if Trump weakens Clinton and she is perceived as a weak president without a mandate; I'm really, really not sure it's to Putin's benefit to have Trump in the White House because, as noted, Trump is crazy. Putin's brand of crazy-like-a-fox works against rational foils like Merkel and Obama; it doesn't work even a little against ACTUAL crazy, and Putin would be able to do a lot less strongman posturing with an American president who is not capable of separating posturing from actual realpolitik positioning.
I suspect there are few people in the entire world who are more concerned about the possibility of a President Trump with his finger on the nuclear button than Putin. Putin can be pretty sure that the US for its last several presidents has understood the consequences of nuclear-involving escalation and has been extremely reluctant to engage in anything to ramps up the risks of a nuclear attack; Trump has made it clear he is way too stupid to understand the realities of international politics and that he is willing to threaten and risk anything to make "deals" or to engage in his own strongman posturing.
A Hillary Clinton perceived as weak is probably Putin's best possible outcome. An actual ally in the White House would not fit Putin's strategies or domestic political narratives, which depend heavily on the US being an opponent. An actual crazy person in the White House is not in his interest at all, that's a literal existential threat. That's super-cool that Putin wants to be the strongman of Eastern Europe, but Russia doesn't have the force-projection ability to be the strongman of the world (other than through nuclear war), and the US DOES, with or without nukes. Putin does not want an actual shooting war involving the US (his slow, careful escalation in Eastern Europe with difficult-to-respond-to semi-aggressions has made that very clear); he definitely does not want anyone to start setting off nukes.
Remember that Russia's strategic imperatives also involve careful balancing of its relations with China and the EU; it's not a Cold War US/USSR scenario but even leaving the US aside Russia has two very powerful neighbors on its borders (China and the EU) who arguably rival Russia militarily at this point (certainly economically). Any strategic decision-making Russia makes involves balancing all of those relationships, and a relatively stable US makes it a lot easier for Russia to balance its relationships with the EU and China. A major shift in the US's relationships with Europe or China would be seismic for Russia.
Anyway I think Putin's delighted to ride Trump's free media train and to troll the shit out of the US and its allies by doing so; I think he's way too canny to actually help Trump. And that's leaving aside the natural grumpiness that countries feel when they think another country has interfered in its elections -- recall the backlash when some magazine (Time? Newsweek?) ran a "who do not-Americans want for president?" poll in 2004 and there was outrage and a (brief) Bush bump when the rest of the world weighed in in opinion polls and urged Americans to vote Kerry? Or recall the recent rage when Obama made relatively innocuous factual comments on Brexit (that it would take a relatively long time to remake US/UK trade agreements, contrary to the claims of pro-Brexit politicians that it would be instant)? Imagine if Russian spies actually started stumping for Trump! It would be more likely to hurt than help, and they know that.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [18 favorites]
It's possible, but I think it's highly unlikely. I think the point was probably more to prove their ability to infiltrate and intimidate the systems of the person they think will be the next president (Hillary) to keep her off balance. While Putin certain enjoys feeding off Trump's free publicity, and Putin is many things, one thing he is not is stupid. There is not actually a lot of upside for Putin if Trump actually wins, because Trump is a literal crazy person who will then have nukes, and certainly Russia's relations with the US still revolve a great deal around nuclear questions. It's to Putin's benefit if Trump weakens Clinton and she is perceived as a weak president without a mandate; I'm really, really not sure it's to Putin's benefit to have Trump in the White House because, as noted, Trump is crazy. Putin's brand of crazy-like-a-fox works against rational foils like Merkel and Obama; it doesn't work even a little against ACTUAL crazy, and Putin would be able to do a lot less strongman posturing with an American president who is not capable of separating posturing from actual realpolitik positioning.
I suspect there are few people in the entire world who are more concerned about the possibility of a President Trump with his finger on the nuclear button than Putin. Putin can be pretty sure that the US for its last several presidents has understood the consequences of nuclear-involving escalation and has been extremely reluctant to engage in anything to ramps up the risks of a nuclear attack; Trump has made it clear he is way too stupid to understand the realities of international politics and that he is willing to threaten and risk anything to make "deals" or to engage in his own strongman posturing.
A Hillary Clinton perceived as weak is probably Putin's best possible outcome. An actual ally in the White House would not fit Putin's strategies or domestic political narratives, which depend heavily on the US being an opponent. An actual crazy person in the White House is not in his interest at all, that's a literal existential threat. That's super-cool that Putin wants to be the strongman of Eastern Europe, but Russia doesn't have the force-projection ability to be the strongman of the world (other than through nuclear war), and the US DOES, with or without nukes. Putin does not want an actual shooting war involving the US (his slow, careful escalation in Eastern Europe with difficult-to-respond-to semi-aggressions has made that very clear); he definitely does not want anyone to start setting off nukes.
Remember that Russia's strategic imperatives also involve careful balancing of its relations with China and the EU; it's not a Cold War US/USSR scenario but even leaving the US aside Russia has two very powerful neighbors on its borders (China and the EU) who arguably rival Russia militarily at this point (certainly economically). Any strategic decision-making Russia makes involves balancing all of those relationships, and a relatively stable US makes it a lot easier for Russia to balance its relationships with the EU and China. A major shift in the US's relationships with Europe or China would be seismic for Russia.
Anyway I think Putin's delighted to ride Trump's free media train and to troll the shit out of the US and its allies by doing so; I think he's way too canny to actually help Trump. And that's leaving aside the natural grumpiness that countries feel when they think another country has interfered in its elections -- recall the backlash when some magazine (Time? Newsweek?) ran a "who do not-Americans want for president?" poll in 2004 and there was outrage and a (brief) Bush bump when the rest of the world weighed in in opinion polls and urged Americans to vote Kerry? Or recall the recent rage when Obama made relatively innocuous factual comments on Brexit (that it would take a relatively long time to remake US/UK trade agreements, contrary to the claims of pro-Brexit politicians that it would be instant)? Imagine if Russian spies actually started stumping for Trump! It would be more likely to hurt than help, and they know that.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [18 favorites]
Per that poll, apparently also "Trump did lead Clinton, 50 percent to 45 percent, when likely voters were asked who would better combat terrorist threats here and abroad."
so there's that.
The 55% NeverTrump is heartening though, and seems to be pretty in line with the other indicators such as Obama approval.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:34 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
so there's that.
The 55% NeverTrump is heartening though, and seems to be pretty in line with the other indicators such as Obama approval.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:34 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
He clearly has transformed both the Democrats and the substance of American liberalism.
He's done the latter, for sure, by shifting the narrative away from a pro-corporatist agenda, to stress progressive ideals like universal healthcare, fighting climate change, and paying working Americans a living wage. It remains to see what happens on the first score — much of that will depend on how much the official party platform changes and the progressive chops of whomever is nominated for VP.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's done the latter, for sure, by shifting the narrative away from a pro-corporatist agenda, to stress progressive ideals like universal healthcare, fighting climate change, and paying working Americans a living wage. It remains to see what happens on the first score — much of that will depend on how much the official party platform changes and the progressive chops of whomever is nominated for VP.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't see what good Trump could do with his own oppo file, other than maybe owning up to all of it at once (which would be insane, so I guess that's a good option).
If they passed it off to him, I could see his people using it to figure out what the Dems don't know.
posted by drezdn at 2:36 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
If they passed it off to him, I could see his people using it to figure out what the Dems don't know.
posted by drezdn at 2:36 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm really, really not sure it's to Putin's benefit to have Trump in the White House because, as noted, Trump is crazy.
Putin knows he just has to play Trump's ego to guide him to make the decisions Putin wants.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Putin knows he just has to play Trump's ego to guide him to make the decisions Putin wants.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, a 400+ EV victory would be amazing.
Yes; but what would the symbolic value of a mega-landslide be as opposed to merely a landslide? If the race for the White House looks to be that locked up in October, I hope that serious attention starts to be drawn to light red Congressional races.
The flip side of the heavy gerrymandering in the House means that there a a good chunk of seats that were drawn to be just Republican enough to be safe -- say 55%R 45%D in an average year. If we can get into that wall of exurbs and Midwestern semi-rural areas, our elected representatives can actually do some good in the next two years rather than this horrible kabuki nothingdance.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yes; but what would the symbolic value of a mega-landslide be as opposed to merely a landslide? If the race for the White House looks to be that locked up in October, I hope that serious attention starts to be drawn to light red Congressional races.
The flip side of the heavy gerrymandering in the House means that there a a good chunk of seats that were drawn to be just Republican enough to be safe -- say 55%R 45%D in an average year. If we can get into that wall of exurbs and Midwestern semi-rural areas, our elected representatives can actually do some good in the next two years rather than this horrible kabuki nothingdance.
posted by tivalasvegas at 2:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
(You guys know that whomever is nominated for VP has to pretty much shut up and toe the party line, right? VPs want what the president wants. VPs don't get to have competing agendas. An Elizabeth Warren VP nod either says the party is wholeheartedly embracing the platform -- but Clinton will lead that platform, not Warren -- or that Warren has to STFU for the next four years. VPs' political voices get neutered.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [21 favorites]
Full disclosure, if I had a chance to replace the War On Drugs with a War On Florida I'm not entirely sure which way I'd come down.
Many of the people who died Sunday morning were Floridians.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
Many of the people who died Sunday morning were Floridians.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
If the race for the White House looks to be that locked up in October, I hope that serious attention starts to be drawn to light red Congressional races.
We can only hope.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:40 PM on June 14, 2016
We can only hope.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:40 PM on June 14, 2016
“So this whole DNC Trump file hack, anybody else getting the feeling that Putin may have had it done to deliver the info to Trump?”
Why would Putin do this? He likes Trump conceptually, but he doesn’t know him. If Putin wanted to really screw with things, he would be trying to frame Clinton for having indeed leaked sensitive data from her email server.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:41 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why would Putin do this? He likes Trump conceptually, but he doesn’t know him. If Putin wanted to really screw with things, he would be trying to frame Clinton for having indeed leaked sensitive data from her email server.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:41 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, a 400+ EV victory would be amazing.
Yes; but what would the symbolic value of a mega-landslide be as opposed to merely a landslide? If the race for the White House looks to be that locked up in October, I hope that serious attention starts to be drawn to light red Congressional races.
The flip side of the heavy gerrymandering in the House means that there a a good chunk of seats that were drawn to be just Republican enough to be safe -- say 55%R 45%D in an average year. If we can get into that wall of exurbs and Midwestern semi-rural areas, our elected representatives can actually do some good in the next two years rather than this horrible kabuki nothingdance
I don't see how a 12 point win for Clinton would not flip the House. 12 point win is gonna be 400-plus EVs and you'll see GA, KS, UT and AZ flip for sure. Hell IN might be in play, maybe even Missouri. Reagan won all but one state with a a 17 point win in '84. And ticket-splitting which was rampant back then is comparatively rare now.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:44 PM on June 14, 2016
Yes; but what would the symbolic value of a mega-landslide be as opposed to merely a landslide? If the race for the White House looks to be that locked up in October, I hope that serious attention starts to be drawn to light red Congressional races.
The flip side of the heavy gerrymandering in the House means that there a a good chunk of seats that were drawn to be just Republican enough to be safe -- say 55%R 45%D in an average year. If we can get into that wall of exurbs and Midwestern semi-rural areas, our elected representatives can actually do some good in the next two years rather than this horrible kabuki nothingdance
I don't see how a 12 point win for Clinton would not flip the House. 12 point win is gonna be 400-plus EVs and you'll see GA, KS, UT and AZ flip for sure. Hell IN might be in play, maybe even Missouri. Reagan won all but one state with a a 17 point win in '84. And ticket-splitting which was rampant back then is comparatively rare now.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:44 PM on June 14, 2016
This is happening too fast. Trump might not make it to the convention.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:46 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Ironmouth at 2:46 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Per that poll, apparently also "Trump did lead Clinton, 50 percent to 45 percent, when likely voters were asked who would better combat terrorist threats here and abroad."
For fuck's sake, America.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:47 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
For fuck's sake, America.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:47 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
I feel like when people are asked this question they envision Trump or Clinton literally getting into a fistfight with a member of ISIS.
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:49 PM on June 14, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 2:49 PM on June 14, 2016 [18 favorites]
This is happening too fast. Trump might not make it to the convention.
What “this”? The only thing that has happened since the shooting is that a new poll has come out, and that poll presumably predates Orlando. The internet creates illusions of speed.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:49 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
What “this”? The only thing that has happened since the shooting is that a new poll has come out, and that poll presumably predates Orlando. The internet creates illusions of speed.
posted by Going To Maine at 2:49 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Gothamist: Trump's Bronx Golf Course Is A Giant Taxpayer Money Pit
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
The group NYC Park Advocates obtained financial reports regarding Trump Links, showing that the course, the most expensive city-funded golf facility in the country at around $164 million, brought in more than $8 million in its first year, none of which is going back into city coffers.If you live in the Bronx and want to play a round of golf on the course that your tax dollars paid for and help maintain? It will cost you $144-172 per round. Also one of the perks for He, Trump is he can close the course at any time for private events for up to 20 percent of the weekdays.
Under the terms outlined by the 20-year contract, the Trump Organization has to pay nothing to the city for the first four years of operation, then for the fifth year, the larger of $300,000 or 7 percent of gross revenues, and an increasing share up until year 20, when it is supposed to cough up the greater of $470,000 or 10 percent of gross revenues, plus 3 percent of sub-vendors' gross revenues.
[snip]
The Post found that city taxpayers are on the hook for the course's sewage and water fees, which ran more than $1 million in the last year and are expected to rise in the coming year. In constructing the course, for which former golf pro Jack Nicklaus also got a sweetheart design contract that includes private jet and helicopter travel, the Trump Organization only had to pitch in $10 million for construction of a permanent clubhouse. The clubhouse has yet to be completed.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
(A derail: today is Trump’s birthday, so if you visit his Twitter page you will be presented with delightful cavalcade of balloons rising across your screen.)
posted by Going To Maine at 2:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 2:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm pretty sure it's too late for the Republicans to hop on the off ramp away from Trump as GOP candidate, at least not without totaling the car.
posted by yasaman at 2:53 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by yasaman at 2:53 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
today is Trump’s birthday, so if you visit his Twitter page you will be presented with delightful cavalcade of balloons rising across your screen
Darn. I was hoping those were the Langoliers.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:58 PM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
Darn. I was hoping those were the Langoliers.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:58 PM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
Full disclosure, if I had a chance to replace the War On Drugs with a War On Florida I'm not entirely sure which way I'd come down.
No need. Florida's residents have been waging war against it, both as land and polity, for decades now.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:58 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
No need. Florida's residents have been waging war against it, both as land and polity, for decades now.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:58 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Re Trump VP, I think he has to pick a complete kiss-ass groveler who will not eclipse him in any way. He was so uncomfortable when Palin was on the stage with him and he had to share the spotlight. Pretty boy vapid Scott Brown would be ideal, sort of a slightly smarter Dan Quayle. Plus, he would be acceptable to the Republican leaders (using the term loosely; if there even is such a thing anymore) and be a hope for the future. He would fit in the on-stage Trumpian family tableaux look book.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:00 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by madamjujujive at 3:00 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
VPs don't get to have competing agendas.
Biden forced the hand of the White House on same-sex marriage, for which I will be eternally grateful.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Biden forced the hand of the White House on same-sex marriage, for which I will be eternally grateful.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
I feel like when people are asked this question they envision Trump or Clinton literally getting into a fistfight with a member of ISIS.
Yeah but considering his tiny hands and advanced years I'm not so sure Clinton wouldn't be the better choice. (I know she is only 2 years younger but I like to imagine that she is a tough brawler where he is soft, squishy bully with no backbone.)
I told my husband about the data suck this morning and we agreed that even if Putin sent Trump everything that the DNC has on him it wouldn't do him any good-- he is completely undisciplined. I mean he could forearm himself but he should already know what his dirty secrets are and how to counteract them.
today is Trump’s birthday,
Yep he turns 70 and he is spending the day in Greensboro, NC. Clinton will be coming to Raleigh on the 21. So I might try to see her. Seeing Obama speak in Raleigh is a treasured memory.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:03 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah but considering his tiny hands and advanced years I'm not so sure Clinton wouldn't be the better choice. (I know she is only 2 years younger but I like to imagine that she is a tough brawler where he is soft, squishy bully with no backbone.)
I told my husband about the data suck this morning and we agreed that even if Putin sent Trump everything that the DNC has on him it wouldn't do him any good-- he is completely undisciplined. I mean he could forearm himself but he should already know what his dirty secrets are and how to counteract them.
today is Trump’s birthday,
Yep he turns 70 and he is spending the day in Greensboro, NC. Clinton will be coming to Raleigh on the 21. So I might try to see her. Seeing Obama speak in Raleigh is a treasured memory.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:03 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is happening too fast. Trump might not make it to the convention.
What “this”? The only thing that has happened since the shooting is that a new poll has come out, and that poll presumably predates Orlando. The internet creates illusions of speed.
Poll spread is Friday to Monday. 2 nights pre, 2 nights post. Let's assume he rebounded on Sunday and Monday. How bad must he have been Friday and Saturday night?
posted by Ironmouth at 3:03 PM on June 14, 2016
What “this”? The only thing that has happened since the shooting is that a new poll has come out, and that poll presumably predates Orlando. The internet creates illusions of speed.
Poll spread is Friday to Monday. 2 nights pre, 2 nights post. Let's assume he rebounded on Sunday and Monday. How bad must he have been Friday and Saturday night?
posted by Ironmouth at 3:03 PM on June 14, 2016
I don't see how a 12 point win for Clinton would not flip the House. 12 point win is gonna be 400-plus EVs and you'll see GA, KS, UT and AZ flip for sure. Hell IN might be in play, maybe even Missouri. Reagan won all but one state with a a 17 point win in '84. And ticket-splitting which was rampant back then is comparatively rare now.
The ticket-splitting is the big question. Are moderate / anti-Trump Republicans going to go against recent trends and split their vote? Or will they vote straight Democratic? Either way could end up making sense for that bloc depending on how effectively the GOP is able/willing to distance itself from Trump.
I can't think of any way to suss it out until we have reliable district-level polling in the fall.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:05 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
The ticket-splitting is the big question. Are moderate / anti-Trump Republicans going to go against recent trends and split their vote? Or will they vote straight Democratic? Either way could end up making sense for that bloc depending on how effectively the GOP is able/willing to distance itself from Trump.
I can't think of any way to suss it out until we have reliable district-level polling in the fall.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:05 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
So, Russian hackers got the DNC's "oppo" file on Trump, detaining all the horrible things he's said and done. Wouldn't it have been easier to just use Trump's own website?
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:07 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:07 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm pretty sure it's too late for the Republicans to hop on the off ramp away from Trump as GOP candidate, at least not without totaling the car.
Yeah, sure, but I still wonder how many GOP higher-ups would rather lose with a less embarrassing candidate and maybe keep at least some of the gains they'd made with non-anglos.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:08 PM on June 14, 2016
Yeah, sure, but I still wonder how many GOP higher-ups would rather lose with a less embarrassing candidate and maybe keep at least some of the gains they'd made with non-anglos.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:08 PM on June 14, 2016
“There are some things that I’ve agreed with Mr. Trump on — he wants to make America great again … There are some things I disagree with, and when there are, we’re not going to defend those comments,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), slipping into an elevator.
How's that shit sandwich you ordered taste, Republicans? Terrible? It sounds like it tastes terrible.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [30 favorites]
How's that shit sandwich you ordered taste, Republicans? Terrible? It sounds like it tastes terrible.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [30 favorites]
Poll spread is Friday to Monday. 2 nights pre, 2 nights post. Let's assume he rebounded on Sunday and Monday. How bad must he have been Friday and Saturday night?
I don’t assume this, actually; I could both see people being burnt out on Trump, and see people going “Aaaaah! Not the idiot in our time of strife!” If that’s in the data bad on me, but it doesn’t seem given.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:11 PM on June 14, 2016
I don’t assume this, actually; I could both see people being burnt out on Trump, and see people going “Aaaaah! Not the idiot in our time of strife!” If that’s in the data bad on me, but it doesn’t seem given.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:11 PM on June 14, 2016
Ye gods, two of the Show-Me State's most odious citizens making an appearance here on just one thread.
To those of you not from Missouri, let me give a quick intro, so that later on you can't say I didn't give you full warning
if it's a super salty comment it's Cruz's campaign manager
Yeah, that's Jeff Roe, Missouri's political rat-fucker-in-chief, whom we have now exported to the national stage. At the center of a recent series of incidents that ended in the suicides of a Missouri gubernatorial candidate and one of his chief advisors--just to give a small taste of his methods.
The Politico profile is pretty much on target:
Prediction: We'll be seeing a lot more of Jeff Roe on the national stage in upcoming years.
Jim Hoft, a longtime hard-right blogger also known as the Gateway Pundit, thinks he has the answer.
This St. Louis-based blogger who bills his blog as "one of the top political blogs in the nation" runs one of the most odious and dishonest right-wing blogs in the country (and I know, I know--that's saying a LOT).
Media Matters sums it up pretty well:
I won't say any more about Hoft, except to mention that he has been particularly odious on the subject of Ferguson and its aftermath.
posted by flug at 3:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
To those of you not from Missouri, let me give a quick intro, so that later on you can't say I didn't give you full warning
if it's a super salty comment it's Cruz's campaign manager
Yeah, that's Jeff Roe, Missouri's political rat-fucker-in-chief, whom we have now exported to the national stage. At the center of a recent series of incidents that ended in the suicides of a Missouri gubernatorial candidate and one of his chief advisors--just to give a small taste of his methods.
The Politico profile is pretty much on target:
Those who have crossed Cruz’s campaign manager, Jeff Roe, say things like he’s “mean” and a “master of sleazy politics.” . . . his calling card has long been win-at-all-costs campaigning.Also his intense focus on polling and the numbers is completely in character--part of what makes him so dangerous.
Prediction: We'll be seeing a lot more of Jeff Roe on the national stage in upcoming years.
Jim Hoft, a longtime hard-right blogger also known as the Gateway Pundit, thinks he has the answer.
This St. Louis-based blogger who bills his blog as "one of the top political blogs in the nation" runs one of the most odious and dishonest right-wing blogs in the country (and I know, I know--that's saying a LOT).
Media Matters sums it up pretty well:
But despite all this stiff competition, Jim Hoft (aka Gateway Pundit) stands out as uniquely incompetent. Hoft runs with (or spawns) almost every inane story that bubbles up in the conservative blogosphere, has proven that he has absolutely no vetting process for the sources he cites, and apparently has a hard time with basic reading comprehension.Little Green Footballs has practically made a career of taking down Hoft's various ravings.
[Several screens full of embarassing mistakes, errors, out of context quotes, etc follow. Conclusion:]
Hoft makes embarrassing, credibility-killing errors on an almost daily basis. If the conservative media had any standards whatsoever, Hoft would be an afterthought in the conservative blogosphere -- a solitary, angry man screaming into the void.
I won't say any more about Hoft, except to mention that he has been particularly odious on the subject of Ferguson and its aftermath.
posted by flug at 3:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Cookiebastard: "So, Russian hackers got the DNC's "oppo" file on Trump, detaining all the horrible things he's said and done. Wouldn't it have been easier to just use Trump's own website?"
I can just imagine the hackers turning over the files to their FSB handlers:
"This is it? All of it?"
"Yes."
"These are just scans of old issues of Spy magazine and screenshots of his tweets. And not even deleted tweets."
"Yes, but there's so much in there."
posted by mhum at 3:14 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
I can just imagine the hackers turning over the files to their FSB handlers:
"This is it? All of it?"
"Yes."
"These are just scans of old issues of Spy magazine and screenshots of his tweets. And not even deleted tweets."
"Yes, but there's so much in there."
posted by mhum at 3:14 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
> Yeah, sure, but I still wonder how many GOP higher-ups would rather lose with a less embarrassing candidate and maybe keep at least some of the gains they'd made with non-anglos.
Somewhere today - can't find it now - I read an article where a Republican muckity-muck snapped "He's not our candidate yet!" at a reporter. Things are great!
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:15 PM on June 14, 2016
Somewhere today - can't find it now - I read an article where a Republican muckity-muck snapped "He's not our candidate yet!" at a reporter. Things are great!
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:15 PM on June 14, 2016
"Biden forced the hand of the White House on same-sex marriage, for which I will be eternally grateful."
Uh, Biden was the trial balloon to make sure reaction to Obama's "flip-flop" would be positive. That was neither a gaffe nor Biden going rogue; that was entirely deliberate.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [31 favorites]
Uh, Biden was the trial balloon to make sure reaction to Obama's "flip-flop" would be positive. That was neither a gaffe nor Biden going rogue; that was entirely deliberate.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [31 favorites]
Note that the hackers also broke into Trump's oppo file on Clinton. He didn't go to the press with it.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Ironmouth at 3:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Biden forced the hand of the White House on same-sex marriage, for which I will be eternally grateful.
Biden went first to test the reaction so Obama could know if his judgment on the timing of "evolution" was correct.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 3:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Biden went first to test the reaction so Obama could know if his judgment on the timing of "evolution" was correct.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 3:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, Hoft sounds to me like we've got our very own little Geert Wilders now.
Thanks, nope, we don't need your gross defense. Solidarity is and must remain at the heart of queer life.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks, nope, we don't need your gross defense. Solidarity is and must remain at the heart of queer life.
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel like when people are asked this question they envision Trump or Clinton literally getting into a fistfight with a member of ISIS.
I mean, I'd still put money down on Clinton.
posted by Salieri at 3:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
I mean, I'd still put money down on Clinton.
posted by Salieri at 3:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Was that corroborated? To this day, it has been described as Biden speaking out of turn. Anyway, the point is that VPs can stand up when it counts.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:20 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:20 PM on June 14, 2016
Can any of the speculation about the ulterior motives behind Biden's "gaffe" be backed up by actual facts?
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Gina Raimundo is another name to be on the lookout for - a fiscally conservative, socially progressive technocrat that will appeal to the Clinton base, she's also a compelling speaker.
Never heard of her. [Googles} Hmmm, interesting. Rhode Island governor though -- are we sure she's clean? That state has a pretty intense history of corruption.
posted by msalt at 3:23 PM on June 14, 2016
Never heard of her. [Googles} Hmmm, interesting. Rhode Island governor though -- are we sure she's clean? That state has a pretty intense history of corruption.
posted by msalt at 3:23 PM on June 14, 2016
Someone else to keep an eye out for in 2020 and 2024 is Brian Sandoval. He's a centrist Hispanic Republican, pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-ACA, pro-renewable energy, and the very popular two-term governor of Nevada. If the GOP can recover at all from this year's dumpster fire he's the kind of guy they should nominate in the future.
Serious question -- why is he a Republican, then? Any chance he'll jump a sinking ship?
posted by msalt at 3:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Serious question -- why is he a Republican, then? Any chance he'll jump a sinking ship?
posted by msalt at 3:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Luke Russert @LukeRussert 4h4 hours ago
Ryan declines to answer question on Trump's assertion that Obama is complicit w Islamic terrorism. Says he won't comment on day to day Trump
Just your normal everyday accusation from a major party candidate that the President is a treasonous Manchurian candidate who wants us all dead and/or converted nothing to see here. Now let's talk about my exercise regimen!
posted by Drinky Die at 3:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [19 favorites]
Ryan declines to answer question on Trump's assertion that Obama is complicit w Islamic terrorism. Says he won't comment on day to day Trump
Just your normal everyday accusation from a major party candidate that the President is a treasonous Manchurian candidate who wants us all dead and/or converted nothing to see here. Now let's talk about my exercise regimen!
posted by Drinky Die at 3:24 PM on June 14, 2016 [19 favorites]
Reports differ on what the exact timeline of events was with respect to Biden's SSM comments, but if it's true that he spoke out of turn and forced Obama's hand, it's the exception that proves the rule. A VP who continued to do that sort of thing would find themselves banished to ceremonial duties and kept as far away from cameras and microphones as possible.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 3:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Countess Elena I wonder if he'd even pick Michelle Malkin, come to that.
Michele Malkin (neé Malgalang) was born a few months after her parents immigrated to the US from the Philippines. If Malkin was a liberal instead of conservative she'd be branded with a nasty pejorative referring to her being born of recent immigrant parents. By Trump "logic" she's even more constitutionally ineligible to be president than Ted Cruz or Barack Obama.
Is Trump dumb enough to pick her? Yep. Would the hypocrisy matter to his followers? Nope.
posted by nathan_teske at 3:32 PM on June 14, 2016
Michele Malkin (neé Malgalang) was born a few months after her parents immigrated to the US from the Philippines. If Malkin was a liberal instead of conservative she'd be branded with a nasty pejorative referring to her being born of recent immigrant parents. By Trump "logic" she's even more constitutionally ineligible to be president than Ted Cruz or Barack Obama.
Is Trump dumb enough to pick her? Yep. Would the hypocrisy matter to his followers? Nope.
posted by nathan_teske at 3:32 PM on June 14, 2016
Says he won't comment on day to day Trump
How long before the Republican rank and file snap when it comes to these questions? I feel like it's fairly clear at this point that there will be no general election "pivot" towards reasonability from Trump. He's temperamentally incapable of it, and no one on his staff or in the GOP is willing or able to muzzle him. So how many weeks of "Trump said this totally batshit, politically radioactive thing, what's your response?" can they endure?
posted by yasaman at 3:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
How long before the Republican rank and file snap when it comes to these questions? I feel like it's fairly clear at this point that there will be no general election "pivot" towards reasonability from Trump. He's temperamentally incapable of it, and no one on his staff or in the GOP is willing or able to muzzle him. So how many weeks of "Trump said this totally batshit, politically radioactive thing, what's your response?" can they endure?
posted by yasaman at 3:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
"Please stop asking me about the fleas I'm infested with after I laid down with that dog. It's totally not even my dog! Geez!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:40 PM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:40 PM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
a lot of weeks probably
hate is a hell of a drug
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:40 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
hate is a hell of a drug
posted by tivalasvegas at 3:40 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, that's Jeff Roe, Missouri's political rat-fucker-in-chief, whom we have now exported to the national stage. At the center of a recent series of incidents that ended in the suicides of a Missouri gubernatorial candidate and one of his chief advisors--just to give a small taste of his methods.
Oops, forgot to provide the link with more details about the suicides incident. Here you go. This guy has had a corrosive effect on Missouri politics for a couple of decades now; it's unfortunate but perhaps inevitable that he is getting a national platform now.
This is a guy to file in the same pocket as, say, Karl Rove.
posted by flug at 3:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oops, forgot to provide the link with more details about the suicides incident. Here you go. This guy has had a corrosive effect on Missouri politics for a couple of decades now; it's unfortunate but perhaps inevitable that he is getting a national platform now.
This is a guy to file in the same pocket as, say, Karl Rove.
posted by flug at 3:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
how many weeks of "Trump said this totally batshit, politically radioactive thing, what's your response?" can they endure?
Well, two R Senators today being asked about Trump's outrageous Orlando comments indicated they've already had enough:
For many Republicans the prospect of continually facing questions about Trump was plainly wearing thin.
“I’m just not going to comment on more of his statements. It’s going to be five months of it,” said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming.
Said Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina: “What Trump does or says, every time he says something doesn’t mean I have to have an answer for it.”
posted by bearwife at 4:05 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, two R Senators today being asked about Trump's outrageous Orlando comments indicated they've already had enough:
For many Republicans the prospect of continually facing questions about Trump was plainly wearing thin.
“I’m just not going to comment on more of his statements. It’s going to be five months of it,” said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming.
Said Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina: “What Trump does or says, every time he says something doesn’t mean I have to have an answer for it.”
posted by bearwife at 4:05 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Rhode Island governor though -- are we sure she's clean? That state has a pretty intense history of corruption.
Obama spent his political career in Illinois. Just sayin'.
Tho it looks like she's very clean, even during her foray into Wallstreet.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obama spent his political career in Illinois. Just sayin'.
Tho it looks like she's very clean, even during her foray into Wallstreet.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can we please please please stop with the "hurf durf Florida" comments? There are people who live here who are citizens who are politically active and involved and WE FIGHT DAILY against the policies being enacted and the politicians who are enacting them, and it's a difficult and discouraging fight that we lose most of the time. There's not an insignificant number of liberal/progressive citizens in this state that are overlooked so that people can make cheap jokes.
posted by hollygoheavy at 4:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [38 favorites]
posted by hollygoheavy at 4:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [38 favorites]
Oh, Hoft sounds to me like we've got our very own little Geert Wilders now.
You don't see Trump that way? From my point of view, even though I know the USA is completely different than my country, I see so many similarities between Trump and Wilders. It fits in strange ways too. Wilders and Trump both have interesting hair and a mother who is born in a different country, for example.
And if Trump is our Wilders Sanders is our Marijnissen (former leader of the Socialist Party). In the other thread delfin said If you're capable of Trump<>Sanders pivoting, you're not FOR anything. You're AGAINST something and that literally used to be the slogan of the SP for years: vote against, vote SP. That was it. And it worked (in the sense that the SP grew and became a party of significance). And indeed, a not insignificant part of SP supporters will inexplicably vote for Wilders (and vice versa too).
posted by blub at 4:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
You don't see Trump that way? From my point of view, even though I know the USA is completely different than my country, I see so many similarities between Trump and Wilders. It fits in strange ways too. Wilders and Trump both have interesting hair and a mother who is born in a different country, for example.
And if Trump is our Wilders Sanders is our Marijnissen (former leader of the Socialist Party). In the other thread delfin said If you're capable of Trump<>Sanders pivoting, you're not FOR anything. You're AGAINST something and that literally used to be the slogan of the SP for years: vote against, vote SP. That was it. And it worked (in the sense that the SP grew and became a party of significance). And indeed, a not insignificant part of SP supporters will inexplicably vote for Wilders (and vice versa too).
posted by blub at 4:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
What I meant specifically was the disgusting rhetorical move of purporting to defend "progressive Western values" like gay rights, feminism, etc. against the religious or racial Other (in the last 15-20 years, Muslims and Arab people in particular).
As I said above, it's an affront to the principle of solidarity. It's another in the long line of attempts to divide and conquer.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
As I said above, it's an affront to the principle of solidarity. It's another in the long line of attempts to divide and conquer.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think Trump tries to make that move to some extent but he's too old-school misogynist to make it plausibly stick.
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:22 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:22 PM on June 14, 2016
Trump has enough real estate 'deals' (mostly to put his name on other people's buildings) in the Middle East that he is likely two degrees of separation from Al Queda and maybe three from ISIS. He's certainly not going to nuke anyplace where the fallout would spread to a Trump Building.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton Leads Trump 49-37 In Dramatic New Poll.
Bad news for the Trumpers is that it will take only a few polls like that and nobody will want to put any money into the Trump campaign because it will be universally viewed as a hopeless cause.
Bad news for the rest of us is that a good portion of those dollars will be diverted into downticket races where they can do a lot a mischief . . . .
posted by flug at 4:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bad news for the Trumpers is that it will take only a few polls like that and nobody will want to put any money into the Trump campaign because it will be universally viewed as a hopeless cause.
Bad news for the rest of us is that a good portion of those dollars will be diverted into downticket races where they can do a lot a mischief . . . .
posted by flug at 4:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hey I just voted! Am I last?
posted by Cocodrillo at 4:54 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Cocodrillo at 4:54 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
People need to keep in mind that despite the media needing to push a horse race narrative like always there is a very good chance that the sort of polling that we are seeing now will extend outward for most if not all of the election.
Yes there are still undecided voters and there is still some element of uncertainty concerning third party candidates but if you look back at the 2012 Obama vs Romney polling there was a great deal of consistency in the polling for months. Some tightening around the RNC and to a degree around the 1st debate but you can see a remarkably amount of stability once the nomination process was finished.
The polling coming out now is the first real polling post Clinton effectively clinching the nomination (even though it's been a foregone conclusion for months) and while there is probably some bounce in the current polling from that it seems like the number of undecided voters is really small and if they are still undecided it's because they are still investigating third party options.
I have no doubt that Stein will peal off some support from Clinton but there number of Bernie or Bust partisans that are firmly committed to voting for any but Clinton seems to be pretty small and as Trump continues to display how deranged he is I suspect that number will drop further.
On the other hand we are beginning to see more and more Republicans say "no fucking way" when it comes to Trump. Seriously 55% of the people in that poll said no way ever which seems to suggest that his ceiling is going to be in the low 40s. I think there are lots of Republicans that are still privately hoping their party will come to it's senses but I think there are some that are beginning to strongly consider voting for the Libertarian or God Forbid Clinton.
Seriously when we have former GOP senators like Larry Pressler that are apparently willing to not just say #NeverTrump but that they actually endorse Hillary the dam is about to break. Current GOP congress critters are of course stuck because they can't buck the party line without suffering in some future election but they also see Trump as a catastrophic challenge for their party. People with no need to run again though are actively saying NOPE. If former politicians are committing the public Heresy of not just challenging Trump but endorsing Clinton you have to know that a huge number of average Republicans now realize that there is a madman driving the bus and no real expectations that someone else other than Clinton can stop him.
As much as I would tend to expect the race to become more or less stable from here there is a non-zero chance that collapse of Trump's polling could become absolutely devastating to the party in 2016, like 1994 Midterms bad.
posted by vuron at 5:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yes there are still undecided voters and there is still some element of uncertainty concerning third party candidates but if you look back at the 2012 Obama vs Romney polling there was a great deal of consistency in the polling for months. Some tightening around the RNC and to a degree around the 1st debate but you can see a remarkably amount of stability once the nomination process was finished.
The polling coming out now is the first real polling post Clinton effectively clinching the nomination (even though it's been a foregone conclusion for months) and while there is probably some bounce in the current polling from that it seems like the number of undecided voters is really small and if they are still undecided it's because they are still investigating third party options.
I have no doubt that Stein will peal off some support from Clinton but there number of Bernie or Bust partisans that are firmly committed to voting for any but Clinton seems to be pretty small and as Trump continues to display how deranged he is I suspect that number will drop further.
On the other hand we are beginning to see more and more Republicans say "no fucking way" when it comes to Trump. Seriously 55% of the people in that poll said no way ever which seems to suggest that his ceiling is going to be in the low 40s. I think there are lots of Republicans that are still privately hoping their party will come to it's senses but I think there are some that are beginning to strongly consider voting for the Libertarian or God Forbid Clinton.
Seriously when we have former GOP senators like Larry Pressler that are apparently willing to not just say #NeverTrump but that they actually endorse Hillary the dam is about to break. Current GOP congress critters are of course stuck because they can't buck the party line without suffering in some future election but they also see Trump as a catastrophic challenge for their party. People with no need to run again though are actively saying NOPE. If former politicians are committing the public Heresy of not just challenging Trump but endorsing Clinton you have to know that a huge number of average Republicans now realize that there is a madman driving the bus and no real expectations that someone else other than Clinton can stop him.
As much as I would tend to expect the race to become more or less stable from here there is a non-zero chance that collapse of Trump's polling could become absolutely devastating to the party in 2016, like 1994 Midterms bad.
posted by vuron at 5:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Thanks for voting cocodrillo, hopefully we can work together so that DC gets some sort of representation in the not so distant future. It seems like that is something that both Clinton and Sanders agree on.
posted by vuron at 5:03 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by vuron at 5:03 PM on June 14, 2016
There have been a lot of election threads, so I'm sorry if this has already been discussed and I missed it, but what happens if Trump throws a tantrum and quits in September/October? Does his VP pick take over?
posted by yasaman at 5:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by yasaman at 5:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The RNC picks the new nominee. So it depends on who the VP pick is. If it were John Kasich they'd probably ratify that. If it were Looney McCrazypants they would likely go for Ted Cruz or the like.
posted by Justinian at 5:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 5:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The parties can choose their candidates however they want, so presumably the RNC would anoint someone.
On the other hand, that's the ultimate October Surprise and it would represent a total forfeit by the Republican Party. There's no way they could win an election after something like that.
On the other other hand, this isn't going to happen.
posted by Sara C. at 5:13 PM on June 14, 2016
On the other hand, that's the ultimate October Surprise and it would represent a total forfeit by the Republican Party. There's no way they could win an election after something like that.
On the other other hand, this isn't going to happen.
posted by Sara C. at 5:13 PM on June 14, 2016
The RNC gets to pick a replacement, apparently. Though there may be individual state ballot access laws that also come into play.
posted by tavella at 5:13 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by tavella at 5:13 PM on June 14, 2016
These livetweets from tonight's Trump Rally in Greensboro, NC are horrifying.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:14 PM on June 14, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:14 PM on June 14, 2016 [30 favorites]
He's certainly not going to nuke anyplace where the fallout would spread to a Trump Building.
Honestly if he has Trump America I don't think he'll give a rat's ass what happens to any Trump Towers. He'd either just deny that it was ever a Trump property or brag that it glows, just, real bigly, folks, it's the glowingest building, a yuge, beautiful glow.
posted by biogeo at 5:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Honestly if he has Trump America I don't think he'll give a rat's ass what happens to any Trump Towers. He'd either just deny that it was ever a Trump property or brag that it glows, just, real bigly, folks, it's the glowingest building, a yuge, beautiful glow.
posted by biogeo at 5:17 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
So right now, #LGBTQHatesTrumpParty is trending...and Trump supporters are responding with pictures of ISIS executions.
Also, Seattle Police just arrested a dude who threatened to shoot up a local mosque. (Said mosque is literally three blocks away from my house, as it happens.)
America, 2016.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also, Seattle Police just arrested a dude who threatened to shoot up a local mosque. (Said mosque is literally three blocks away from my house, as it happens.)
America, 2016.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
How to Cover Donald Trump Fairly: A Style Guide
posted by rewil at 5:27 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by rewil at 5:27 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
If those livetweets are truly indicative of the tone of all of, or even some, Trump rallies, the attack ads write themselves. Is it possible for someone to get in one of the rallies, take video footage of this kind of behavior, and then use it in an attack ad (with appropriate identifying features blurred out)? "Trump says he wants to make America great again. This is how his supporters behave. Is this making America great? Is this the America you want to live in, or that you want your children to live in?"
posted by yasaman at 5:27 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by yasaman at 5:27 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump just accused U.S. soldiers of stealing from the "giant baskets of money" we sent to Iraq.— denis horgan (@dhjr) June 14, 2016
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:29 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
One beneficial side effect of the Trump candidacy is I've trimmed my Facebook follow list by a third. I like to see what others think, have an open mind, and learn from other viewpoints, but there's only so much daily crap I can take. Most of which so obviously false, if not at first glance then certainly after a few seconds of searching, that I can't believe otherwise intelligent people post it.
*sigh*
posted by beowulf573 at 5:30 PM on June 14, 2016
*sigh*
posted by beowulf573 at 5:30 PM on June 14, 2016
"Is it possible for someone to get in one of the rallies, take video footage of this kind of behavior, and then use it in an attack ad (with appropriate identifying features blurred out)?"
The name for this job is "tracker" and presumably there are a dozen of them following Trump around already.
Politicians sometimes try to keep trackers out of private events (like Romney's 47% fundraising dinner thing), but they can't really keep them out of public events, and turning on trackers usually draws a storm of negative media.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
The name for this job is "tracker" and presumably there are a dozen of them following Trump around already.
Politicians sometimes try to keep trackers out of private events (like Romney's 47% fundraising dinner thing), but they can't really keep them out of public events, and turning on trackers usually draws a storm of negative media.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
Apparently that actually happened! Well, point to Donald Trump.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:34 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by Elementary Penguin at 5:34 PM on June 14, 2016
The guy George Felix Allen destroyed his career by calling an obscure racial slur was a tracker, for instance.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:34 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:34 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
As noxious as I think Trump rallies are, I think it's bad form to go find the craziest Trump supporters and try to milk them for attack ads. For one thing, first amendment, right to assembly, etc. For another thing, as a frequent protester on the opposite side, it always burned me the way that journalists would show up to a rally, get a soundbyte from the craziest crank there, and make it seem like that's what the protest was about/what activism is like.
Not to mention, all the Republicans have to do is show the Nevada Bernie Bro chair throwing footage and claim it's typical Democrat behavior.
posted by Sara C. at 5:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not to mention, all the Republicans have to do is show the Nevada Bernie Bro chair throwing footage and claim it's typical Democrat behavior.
posted by Sara C. at 5:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
There have been a lot of election threads, so I'm sorry if this has already been discussed and I missed it, but what happens if Trump throws a tantrum and quits in September/October? Does his VP pick take over?
This is one of the benefits (?) of the Electoral College. Even if his name stayed on the ballot, you're not voting for Donald Trump, specifically; you're voting for a list of his electors. As long as he drops out before the electors vote (in December), they can still try to figure out what to do. Presumably the RNC would provide guidance for this, but they could pretty much vote however they want.
This happened before, in 1872, when Horace Greeley died after Election Day. His electors voted for four different candidates, and three electors voted for Greeley anyway; Congress rejected those votes. Ulysses S. Grant had won re-election anyway.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:40 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is one of the benefits (?) of the Electoral College. Even if his name stayed on the ballot, you're not voting for Donald Trump, specifically; you're voting for a list of his electors. As long as he drops out before the electors vote (in December), they can still try to figure out what to do. Presumably the RNC would provide guidance for this, but they could pretty much vote however they want.
This happened before, in 1872, when Horace Greeley died after Election Day. His electors voted for four different candidates, and three electors voted for Greeley anyway; Congress rejected those votes. Ulysses S. Grant had won re-election anyway.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 5:40 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know it was a real nailbiter and could have swung the election but CNN has reported that Hillary Clinton has pulled out a victory in D.C. The suspense is over.
posted by Justinian at 5:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [17 favorites]
I would joke that finally we know who the Democratic nominee will be, but there are Bernie supporters on my Facebook insisting that it's not over till the convention, so
posted by Sara C. at 5:43 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sara C. at 5:43 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Per that poll, apparently also "Trump did lead Clinton, 50 percent to 45 percent, when likely voters were asked who would better combat terrorist threats here and abroad."Ok, but a tiny minority answered yes to the proposition that law enforcement agencies should increase surveillance of all Muslim Americans, even if it conflicts with civil liberties. (27% yes, 69% no.) There was also strong disagreement with the suggestion that Obama has not taken forceful action to stop domestic terrorism because he sides with Muslims. (31% yes; 61% no). So basically, Americans are repudiating Trump's vision for fighting terrorism, even if they maybe think it would work better. Which is interesting.
so there's that.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:46 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, and 63% of women say they could never vote for Trump, which has to be some sort of record.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:47 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:47 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
I would joke that finally we know who the Democratic nominee will be, but there are Bernie supporters on my Facebook insisting that it's not over till the convention, so
The die-hards are still holding out hope for an indictment. My brother-in-law just posted an Uncut article claiming that Wikileaks are about to release documents that will "provide “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict" Clinton.
Sigh.
posted by Pink Frost at 6:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The die-hards are still holding out hope for an indictment. My brother-in-law just posted an Uncut article claiming that Wikileaks are about to release documents that will "provide “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict" Clinton.
Sigh.
posted by Pink Frost at 6:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
My least favorite aspect of the Bernie-or-Bust phenomenon is the willingness of Sanderistas to believe, and repeat, a quarter-century of scurrilous right-wing nonsense that they're mostly not old enough and/or savvy enough to realize is just recycled Republican slander.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [45 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [45 favorites]
There was also strong disagreement with the suggestion that Obama has not taken forceful action to stop domestic terrorism because he sides with Muslims. (31% yes; 61% no).
Why that's just within the margin of error of the crazification factor. It's everywhere!
posted by zachlipton at 6:18 PM on June 14, 2016
Why that's just within the margin of error of the crazification factor. It's everywhere!
posted by zachlipton at 6:18 PM on June 14, 2016
The folks I know hoping for an indictment just depress me. Like we are all in the same large, diverse tent, but you shouldn't want the candidate that got the most (by a lot) votes and delegates to be indicted as it will just encourage folks to become more disengaged and cynical about politics. Similarly, while I think Trump is depressing as a candidate, it's difficult to think of any way to remove him because every last way it could be done has down sides in terms of voter engagement (as is him running and being the candidate at all.) :(
posted by R343L at 6:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by R343L at 6:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would joke that finally we know who the Democratic nominee will be, but there are Bernie supporters on my Facebook insisting that it's not over till the convention
2061: After working for decades in secret, a coalition of top physicists and jurists calling themselves "The Brothers of Bernard" finally perfect the Acausal Indictment.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 6:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
2061: After working for decades in secret, a coalition of top physicists and jurists calling themselves "The Brothers of Bernard" finally perfect the Acausal Indictment.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 6:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh hey so I found the line where I WILL HAVE TO COMMENT on my Facebook. I barely post stuff myself, really only on it because that's how my family and extended family communicates now and have either culled my list or just hide crap. Unfortunately I do see comments on my parents posts which I usually ignore. At least until now.
My line is when Mom posts something related to Orlando which is basically a comment about keeping perspective on the whole Islamic Terrorism thing eg lots of shootings and crap by non-Muslims etc etc. And this lady who is part of the local theatre group, which they see all the time, comments " there's much more to come ......just brace your blind liberal asses !!"
Like wtf? What she said is bad enough but you say this to you're supposed friends. It pissed me off right because I know Mom is so nice and conflict adverse she wouldn't say anything back. I asked Dad about it and she said that this woman is the swiftest type and has started to be a Trump parrot on social media. My line is being threatening and being rude to my parents like this because I know they are socialized differently. Strangers are one thing but people you know? Just no.
So yeah. I commented. Basically called it out and asked her point blank if this is something she would have the courage to say to the people in the convo face to face and or whether this was keyboard courage. I'm just totally disgusted with people and this sort of toxic, right wing, trumpass shit and hiding in places like Facebook. Like we KNOW you are the same person who is posting vile crap. There's another guy in that circle that has been doing it for a long time and has said when I brought it up one time, 'well that's Facebook this is real life.' No buddy you're pushing the buttons, that's good old sexist you in all your glory and I do not have to respect you or talk to you if I don't damn well feel like it.
posted by Jalliah at 6:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [26 favorites]
My line is when Mom posts something related to Orlando which is basically a comment about keeping perspective on the whole Islamic Terrorism thing eg lots of shootings and crap by non-Muslims etc etc. And this lady who is part of the local theatre group, which they see all the time, comments " there's much more to come ......just brace your blind liberal asses !!"
Like wtf? What she said is bad enough but you say this to you're supposed friends. It pissed me off right because I know Mom is so nice and conflict adverse she wouldn't say anything back. I asked Dad about it and she said that this woman is the swiftest type and has started to be a Trump parrot on social media. My line is being threatening and being rude to my parents like this because I know they are socialized differently. Strangers are one thing but people you know? Just no.
So yeah. I commented. Basically called it out and asked her point blank if this is something she would have the courage to say to the people in the convo face to face and or whether this was keyboard courage. I'm just totally disgusted with people and this sort of toxic, right wing, trumpass shit and hiding in places like Facebook. Like we KNOW you are the same person who is posting vile crap. There's another guy in that circle that has been doing it for a long time and has said when I brought it up one time, 'well that's Facebook this is real life.' No buddy you're pushing the buttons, that's good old sexist you in all your glory and I do not have to respect you or talk to you if I don't damn well feel like it.
posted by Jalliah at 6:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [26 favorites]
The oppo file hacking stuff - intelligence on the enemy during wartime is most valuable when the two sides are evenly matched. If the other guys are sweeping all before them, then it doesn't really matter what you know's going on behind the scenes. Likewise if they're falling back in disarray. But if you're duking it out trying to find the weak spots to change the balance, then that intelligence is king.
Have to see how things shape up after the conventions, but I don't think it needs a Bletchley Park to find Trump's weak spots and I do suspect the battle will not be evenly matched.
posted by Devonian at 6:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Have to see how things shape up after the conventions, but I don't think it needs a Bletchley Park to find Trump's weak spots and I do suspect the battle will not be evenly matched.
posted by Devonian at 6:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am sorry you can't put endless articles from Breitbart and then pretend you don't know that you are not buying into right wing and alt-right slander.
Between the Bernie Bros spamming endless right wing talking points and ostensibly progressive journalists spamming endless conspiracy theories about the MSM and Clinton conspiring to dupe the public I am beginning to see signs that a left wing opinion bubble is beginning to form and I am terrified by it because I really can't handle yet another group of people obsessed with ideological purity.
Either that or the Trump trolls are doing double duty as Sanders supporters and MAGA memesters.
posted by vuron at 6:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Between the Bernie Bros spamming endless right wing talking points and ostensibly progressive journalists spamming endless conspiracy theories about the MSM and Clinton conspiring to dupe the public I am beginning to see signs that a left wing opinion bubble is beginning to form and I am terrified by it because I really can't handle yet another group of people obsessed with ideological purity.
Either that or the Trump trolls are doing double duty as Sanders supporters and MAGA memesters.
posted by vuron at 6:28 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
I cannot really imagine what the value of opposition research would be to the Russians.
I mean presumably any intelligence agency can replicate this sort of data relatively easily or even get better stuff that would be of strategic value if Trump becomes President.
I guess it's cheaper and easier to steal info than collect it yourself.
The only other long shot would be that they are collecting black mail material on the off chance there is something in there that threatening to release could be used to force Trump to reveal intelligence briefing material when the Obama administration begins to brief Trump.
Which is frightening enough as is because the man has no filter.
posted by vuron at 6:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean presumably any intelligence agency can replicate this sort of data relatively easily or even get better stuff that would be of strategic value if Trump becomes President.
I guess it's cheaper and easier to steal info than collect it yourself.
The only other long shot would be that they are collecting black mail material on the off chance there is something in there that threatening to release could be used to force Trump to reveal intelligence briefing material when the Obama administration begins to brief Trump.
Which is frightening enough as is because the man has no filter.
posted by vuron at 6:42 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I cannot really imagine what the value of opposition research would be to the Russians.
they're probably looking for the kind of thing one would find in a russian politician's info - whatever that might be
i'm sure there's a lot of things that puzzle them very much
posted by pyramid termite at 6:48 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
they're probably looking for the kind of thing one would find in a russian politician's info - whatever that might be
i'm sure there's a lot of things that puzzle them very much
posted by pyramid termite at 6:48 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
WaPo:
Donald Trump’s new favorite slogan was invented for Nazi sympathizers
'America First' was Charles Lindbergh's motto in the 1930s
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:55 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Donald Trump’s new favorite slogan was invented for Nazi sympathizers
'America First' was Charles Lindbergh's motto in the 1930s
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:55 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oh dear lord help me... the woman replied back. Lots of ranting about how her opinion is valid because Mom is SHOVING her liberalness in her face by posting things on FB. lol
It's so on now lady. I'll admit it, she's now the symbolic standin for everyone Trumpass person that I have ignored or waved away thus far because I despise Facebook arguing and I don't care.
posted by Jalliah at 7:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
It's so on now lady. I'll admit it, she's now the symbolic standin for everyone Trumpass person that I have ignored or waved away thus far because I despise Facebook arguing and I don't care.
posted by Jalliah at 7:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
I cannot really imagine what the value of opposition research would be to the Russians.
Scandals are always possibly useful for blackmail. That said, the real story here is “Russian hackers have been in the DNC for months, and they got LOTS OF THINGS.” The Trump news seems to be a distraction - it’s the biggest and most exciting thing, and keeps everyone from thinking about all of the other stuff they might have nabbed. Heck, I’d argue that we’re still thinking about this as a story about Trump and not about shoddy computer security practiced by a major political party. These guys make the plumbers look like amateur hour.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:03 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Scandals are always possibly useful for blackmail. That said, the real story here is “Russian hackers have been in the DNC for months, and they got LOTS OF THINGS.” The Trump news seems to be a distraction - it’s the biggest and most exciting thing, and keeps everyone from thinking about all of the other stuff they might have nabbed. Heck, I’d argue that we’re still thinking about this as a story about Trump and not about shoddy computer security practiced by a major political party. These guys make the plumbers look like amateur hour.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:03 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Robert White just beat Vincent Orange by around 2200 votes for D.C. Council. Woohoo, time for a no-more-Vincent party--
Oh wait, Vincent Gray just won his old Council seat back...
#OrangeisthenewGraybutGrayisalsothenewOrange
posted by sallybrown at 7:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Oh wait, Vincent Gray just won his old Council seat back...
#OrangeisthenewGraybutGrayisalsothenewOrange
posted by sallybrown at 7:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Do all the local politicians have to have color names? Is it exactly like Clue?!?
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [31 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:12 PM on June 14, 2016 [31 favorites]
WaPo: Donald Trump’s new favorite slogan was invented for Nazi sympathizers
Looks like a lot of folks at the Post aren't all that dismayed by the news that they no longer have access and can go on the attack now.
posted by jackbishop at 7:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Looks like a lot of folks at the Post aren't all that dismayed by the news that they no longer have access and can go on the attack now.
posted by jackbishop at 7:13 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Even if the Republicans were somehow able to get Trump to step aside at this point which would basically require a massive degree of blackmail along the lines of "pretend that you are too ill to continue with some unspecified illness or we let x happen" I don't know that it would do them much good. Trump has already revealed the dirty little "secret" that there are a fuck ton of incredibly angry and militant bigots present in the base of the Republican party. At least enough of them that they were able to propel Trump to the nomination.
This faction is incredibly loud, feels important and is extremely likely to resist any attempts to hide their hate behind a veneer of compassionate conservatism. This faction is tired of having to use dog whistles because apparently that's too PC so the idea that they are going to want to go back to being muzzled seems ludicrous.
At this point in time Republican leaders are probably hoping that Trump loses (because he's awful for their brand long term) but not at a level that hurts other candidates too much. They have to support him because they are still dependent on the bigot vote for their GotV strategies but as long as he loses they can say "No the idea that McCain and Romney lost because they just weren't conservative enough is false" and they can go back to trying to realign their party.
My personally preference would be for Republican leaders to do a 180 and abandon bigotry even if it hurts them until they can create a new political coalition but I strongly suspect that there are too many ambitious people in the ranks to be willing to give up the bigot vote in the short term.
posted by vuron at 7:14 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
This faction is incredibly loud, feels important and is extremely likely to resist any attempts to hide their hate behind a veneer of compassionate conservatism. This faction is tired of having to use dog whistles because apparently that's too PC so the idea that they are going to want to go back to being muzzled seems ludicrous.
At this point in time Republican leaders are probably hoping that Trump loses (because he's awful for their brand long term) but not at a level that hurts other candidates too much. They have to support him because they are still dependent on the bigot vote for their GotV strategies but as long as he loses they can say "No the idea that McCain and Romney lost because they just weren't conservative enough is false" and they can go back to trying to realign their party.
My personally preference would be for Republican leaders to do a 180 and abandon bigotry even if it hurts them until they can create a new political coalition but I strongly suspect that there are too many ambitious people in the ranks to be willing to give up the bigot vote in the short term.
posted by vuron at 7:14 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
i'm sure there's a lot of things that puzzle them very much
The image of a knot of Very Serious Kremlin Analysts crowded around a little desk and poring worriedly over the printout of some meaningless Trump email rant pleaseth me.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
The image of a knot of Very Serious Kremlin Analysts crowded around a little desk and poring worriedly over the printout of some meaningless Trump email rant pleaseth me.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trumpology
posted by um at 7:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by um at 7:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I haven't really read a whole lot of reports about the methods the Russians used to get this data and what sort of infosec capabilities that the DNC was using to protect this data but the reality is that between the capabilities of the big cybercrime syndicates and the state actors the level of capabilities of various persistent threats are simply incredible. I'm largely getting to the point of acknowledging that if some of these persistent threats haven't already penetrated your security you probably have nothing that they really want or the effort spent trying to penetrate your systems would be more profitably spent in building yet another bit of ransomware.
posted by vuron at 7:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 7:20 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do all the local politicians have to have color names? Is it exactly like Clue?!?
See also:
LaRuby May
Elissa Silverman
Past:
Kwame Brown
Marian Barry (too much of a stretch?)
Unfortunately, dealing with many of these folks is closer to playing Clue than is ideal as far as government officials go...
posted by sallybrown at 7:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
See also:
LaRuby May
Elissa Silverman
Past:
Kwame Brown
Marian Barry (too much of a stretch?)
Unfortunately, dealing with many of these folks is closer to playing Clue than is ideal as far as government officials go...
posted by sallybrown at 7:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
Okay this is no fun. The first time and only time I have ever responded to a Trump person on social media, I get called out for a face to face chat because I asked if she was willing to say what she says on Facebook to peoples faces....
Fuckin hell. I agreed because well I guess it's some sort of social media playing chicken thing and it won't be me that backs down. Did ask is I should prepare for name calling or if it can be civil (heh). She's really is full on Trump though and since it's Canada they're are a rarer species. I'd like to humanize the whole thing (if it actually happens) but I'm afraid I may have to look at it like some sort of social research to get through it.
WHAT HAVE I DONE TO MYSELF!!
Grrr Arrgh.
posted by Jalliah at 7:25 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Fuckin hell. I agreed because well I guess it's some sort of social media playing chicken thing and it won't be me that backs down. Did ask is I should prepare for name calling or if it can be civil (heh). She's really is full on Trump though and since it's Canada they're are a rarer species. I'd like to humanize the whole thing (if it actually happens) but I'm afraid I may have to look at it like some sort of social research to get through it.
WHAT HAVE I DONE TO MYSELF!!
Grrr Arrgh.
posted by Jalliah at 7:25 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
if you get stuck you can always play the Canadian nationalism card. Make the Trumpist explain to you how Donald stands for peace, order and good government, etc, etc.
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 7:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh wait, LaRuby May just lost her D.C. Council seat...
...to Trayon White
OMG THIS IS CLUE
posted by sallybrown at 7:33 PM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
...to Trayon White
OMG THIS IS CLUE
posted by sallybrown at 7:33 PM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
It's not as bad as the time we had two guys named Michael Brown running for the same council seat in the same election.
posted by schmod at 7:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by schmod at 7:37 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
Did Radagast the Brown get reelected?
posted by biogeo at 7:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 7:38 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Said Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina: “What Trump does or says, every time he says something doesn’t mean I have to have an answer for it.”
From TPM's endorsement scorecard:
posted by nubs at 7:45 PM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
From TPM's endorsement scorecard:
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) had endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for the presidency, but said he could support Trump as the nominee.Sorry, Sen. Scott. Until you have the guts to clearly distance yourself from this vile train of poo and hate, as long as you think anything with an (R) after its name is better than any other alternative, you do have to answer for it. I hope this flaming trainwreck is a fucking albatross around your neck that drags your career into obscurity and irrelevance.
The country is better off having a Republican in the White House than having a Democrat in the White House. I’m certain that the center-right construct is better for our country than the far liberal left that we have to contend with.
posted by nubs at 7:45 PM on June 14, 2016 [12 favorites]
I’m certain that the center-right construct is better for our country
BREAKING: Republican Senator Admits: Trump Is A Toupee Golem
posted by murphy slaw at 7:55 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
BREAKING: Republican Senator Admits: Trump Is A Toupee Golem
posted by murphy slaw at 7:55 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
So Bernie and Hillary finished their hotel meeting. No sign of an endorsement from Bernie. Looks like he's planning on going all the way to the convention.
posted by Talez at 7:57 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by Talez at 7:57 PM on June 14, 2016
If political media can do one good thing in my lifetime, please do not let these asshats think they don't have to answer for Trump and then write more stories about how they don't eat candy instead, thanks.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:57 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:57 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
No sign of an endorsement from Bernie. Looks like he's planning on going all the way to the convention.
What makes you say that? As noted upthread, his online speech Thursday is probably when he'll be making his next move, and not before.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
What makes you say that? As noted upthread, his online speech Thursday is probably when he'll be making his next move, and not before.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, regardless of the election outcome, EVERY time one of the Republicans that endorsed or "stood behind" or "supported" Trump is interviewed, that should be the first question. Never, ever let that be forgotten. It should be a permanent orange stain on their political career.
posted by mmoncur at 8:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 8:01 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
TPM: "A new Bloomberg poll published Tuesday shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 49 percent to 37 percent among likely voters nationwide. It also showed that 55 percent of those polled said that they would never vote for Trump."
Wow. The trend just this week has been dramatic towards Clinton. Republicans are literally running from their own nominee, and McConnell just said he won't talk about Trump. The SENATE MAJORITY LEADER cannot go on record regarding his own party's nominee for President. This really is unprecedented and should by all rights be the end of the Republican party as we know it. Just in case anyone forgot how Republicans tried repeatedly to destroy the country with government shutdowns and trying to default on the world's reserve currency, they reminded us all by trying to destroy the country, or the world, by handing the nuclear codes to an unstable lunatic. They've nominated a madman, admitted it, and said he should lead us all anyway. None of them should ever be allowed to walk away from Trump, ever. Everything he says is fully supported by every member of the Republican party from top to bottom until they unequivocally and publicly disavow him, and that includes campaigning for Hilary to stop him. He's that dangerous, and nothing short of that is remotely close to sufficient atonement for their attempts to destroy the United States.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [42 favorites]
Wow. The trend just this week has been dramatic towards Clinton. Republicans are literally running from their own nominee, and McConnell just said he won't talk about Trump. The SENATE MAJORITY LEADER cannot go on record regarding his own party's nominee for President. This really is unprecedented and should by all rights be the end of the Republican party as we know it. Just in case anyone forgot how Republicans tried repeatedly to destroy the country with government shutdowns and trying to default on the world's reserve currency, they reminded us all by trying to destroy the country, or the world, by handing the nuclear codes to an unstable lunatic. They've nominated a madman, admitted it, and said he should lead us all anyway. None of them should ever be allowed to walk away from Trump, ever. Everything he says is fully supported by every member of the Republican party from top to bottom until they unequivocally and publicly disavow him, and that includes campaigning for Hilary to stop him. He's that dangerous, and nothing short of that is remotely close to sufficient atonement for their attempts to destroy the United States.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [42 favorites]
I was going to correct you for saying they were "literally" running away from Trump, but then I read the article. THEY ARE LITERALLY RUNNING AWAY when asked to talk about Trump...
Strange times indeed.
posted by mmoncur at 8:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
Strange times indeed.
posted by mmoncur at 8:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
Jared Yates Sexton attended and live tweeted tonight's Trump rally in Greensboro. Storify here. (Dear god, is it awful.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
Many of us view a vote for the Iraq War / support for the War as a permanent stain on politicians. Support for Trump, or even failure to denounce Trump, should be similar or substantially more disqualifying. I know for the rest of my life I will never cast a vote for someone who could have refused to support Trump and didn't.
And Mitt Romney has my permanent respect.
posted by sallybrown at 8:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
And Mitt Romney has my permanent respect.
posted by sallybrown at 8:09 PM on June 14, 2016 [9 favorites]
That Ken Burns speech! I was nodding an agreeing pleasantly, thinking this is one of those fucking "independants" we have to hear so much about all the time, and then he dropped the "Vichy Republicans" bomb.
I literally fell of my stool and flopped around on the ground, hands clamped over my mouth as I have a wife and kid asleep upstairs. That is about the sickest of burns from the sickest of Burns.
How do you recover from that? This is a guy who let Shelby fucking Foote natter on endlessly with his "Lost Casue" bullshit. Who remained deathly quiet on politics during both Bush II campaigns and the Obama Resurgance. He looks like he's twelve with a really fake beard and he was 9 in 1962. If he is explicitly taking a side, NOW...
Get up. Off your asses. All of you. There are doors to be knocked on. Voters to be registered.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
I literally fell of my stool and flopped around on the ground, hands clamped over my mouth as I have a wife and kid asleep upstairs. That is about the sickest of burns from the sickest of Burns.
How do you recover from that? This is a guy who let Shelby fucking Foote natter on endlessly with his "Lost Casue" bullshit. Who remained deathly quiet on politics during both Bush II campaigns and the Obama Resurgance. He looks like he's twelve with a really fake beard and he was 9 in 1962. If he is explicitly taking a side, NOW...
Get up. Off your asses. All of you. There are doors to be knocked on. Voters to be registered.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:10 PM on June 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
And now I'm feeling sheepish and kicking myself for diving into FB arguing but I think I'm going to just laugh at how silly that whole thing was. Woman came back with 'well be prepared to try to handle a different opinion'. (ooo ominous).
I was writing my reply and then all of sudden Mom jumps in and told her that if XXX didn't like her posts then she could just block Mom and that Mom wasn't forcing her to read anything. And that she did not appreciate being called and ass.
Then before I could reply the whole thing disappeared.
Mom messaged me. " I deleted the post and deleted her. You're right I don't like being called an ass and shouldn't put up with it."
When I said "Aww but I was going to meet up with her..."
"Spend your time doing something useful!"
"Yes Mom, you're right...." *looks down and stubs toe into the ground
And as a postscript just got another message that Mom deleted a bunch of other people which for her is a pretty big thing. She usually feels super bad doing it as she doesn't want people feelings to be hurt. Glad I could help her stand up for herself more so that's a good thing.
And yeah...no more political comments on Facebook for me. I'm just going to stick with cats and baby nephews from now on.
posted by Jalliah at 8:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [62 favorites]
I was writing my reply and then all of sudden Mom jumps in and told her that if XXX didn't like her posts then she could just block Mom and that Mom wasn't forcing her to read anything. And that she did not appreciate being called and ass.
Then before I could reply the whole thing disappeared.
Mom messaged me. " I deleted the post and deleted her. You're right I don't like being called an ass and shouldn't put up with it."
When I said "Aww but I was going to meet up with her..."
"Spend your time doing something useful!"
"Yes Mom, you're right...." *looks down and stubs toe into the ground
And as a postscript just got another message that Mom deleted a bunch of other people which for her is a pretty big thing. She usually feels super bad doing it as she doesn't want people feelings to be hurt. Glad I could help her stand up for herself more so that's a good thing.
And yeah...no more political comments on Facebook for me. I'm just going to stick with cats and baby nephews from now on.
posted by Jalliah at 8:11 PM on June 14, 2016 [62 favorites]
People in my line of work try to be careful about predictions, because, you know, the future comes eventually, and you might be wrong. When I do make predictions, I’m always careful to add the conditions—if this, assuming that.Hillary Clinton Is About To Clean Donald Trump's Clock
So let’s not call this a prediction, but an observation: I hereby observe that it is entirely possible that this election could—could—be a blowout. A humiliation. A decapitation. A world-historical debacle for one party. And I bet you can guess which one.
This observation is occasioned by the appearance this week of the first full-blown general-election Electoral College forecast, from frontloadingHQ.com. The folks at FHQ looked at polls and recent electoral history and voting trends to take a stab at what the electoral college might look like on the night of November 8 if things don’t change much from today. And if you’re a fan of the candidate who’s a person of color—orange—it isn’t pretty.
...Two points. One: It’s psychologically devastating for a party to lose a state it’s supposed to win. If, say, Clinton actually carried Georgia, it would wound the GOP badly and lead to loads of stories about how even the solid South is now slipping out of the ossified party’s geriatric hands. It wouldn’t be the same as, for example, Obama’s winning Indiana in 2008, which everyone knew was a fluke. Clinton winning Georgia wouldn’t be a fluke.
Two: It’s what the man himself deserves. There’s one word Trump hates more than any other in the English language, and it’s not “Mexican” or “Muslim.” It’s “loser.” How sweet it would be for him to have to live out his remaining years as a history-making loser. To a “girl,” no less! FHQ, from your spreadsheets to God’s ears.
posted by y2karl at 8:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [23 favorites]
This really is unprecedented and should by all rights be the end of the Republican party as we know it.
if i had a nickel for every thing that should have been the end of the republican party since the clinton administration i might not be worried about them eviscerating social security before i retire
posted by murphy slaw at 8:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [36 favorites]
if i had a nickel for every thing that should have been the end of the republican party since the clinton administration i might not be worried about them eviscerating social security before i retire
posted by murphy slaw at 8:16 PM on June 14, 2016 [36 favorites]
Yes, there's a reason "surely, this" is a cliche on Mefi...
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 8:18 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
There’s one word Trump hates more than any other in the English language, and it’s not “Mexican” or “Muslim.” It’s “loser.” How sweet it would be for him to have to live out his remaining years as a history-making loser. To a “girl,” no less!
this is why I will relish voting against him so hard. SO HARD.
posted by sallybrown at 8:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
this is why I will relish voting against him so hard. SO HARD.
posted by sallybrown at 8:19 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
TPM: "A new Bloomberg poll published Tuesday shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 49 percent to 37 percent among likely voters nationwide. It also showed that 55 percent of those polled said that they would never vote for Trump."
Was just talking to Dad about how I just really want his numbers to get bad enough where I can observe what's going on without or with at least less of the underlying feeling of being terrified that he could actually win. The whole thing is so messed up and from someone who has followed US politics for years unpredictable, fascinating and quite astonishing. I also admit that I do want the satisfaction seeing him and everything he and his ilk stand for soundly repudiated and I want to at least sort of enjoy watching the politics of it happen.
I'm thinking though that if the numbers do go that bad then other nasty stuff will start happening as his most diehard supporters rage and become frustrated and what they potentially will do is just terrible to contemplate. I really can see more people getting really hurt this election. I'm also way more concerned for Hilary's safety then I was Obama's and I was pretty stressed out then!
I hate this election because it's making me think of things that just shouldn't be thought of. Like "oh hey maybe it might be better if his numbers actually stay close enough that his supporters still think there's hope so they won't go off all super ragey and hurt all the types of people that Trump is othering.." I shouldn't be having to think things like this....
posted by Jalliah at 8:30 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Was just talking to Dad about how I just really want his numbers to get bad enough where I can observe what's going on without or with at least less of the underlying feeling of being terrified that he could actually win. The whole thing is so messed up and from someone who has followed US politics for years unpredictable, fascinating and quite astonishing. I also admit that I do want the satisfaction seeing him and everything he and his ilk stand for soundly repudiated and I want to at least sort of enjoy watching the politics of it happen.
I'm thinking though that if the numbers do go that bad then other nasty stuff will start happening as his most diehard supporters rage and become frustrated and what they potentially will do is just terrible to contemplate. I really can see more people getting really hurt this election. I'm also way more concerned for Hilary's safety then I was Obama's and I was pretty stressed out then!
I hate this election because it's making me think of things that just shouldn't be thought of. Like "oh hey maybe it might be better if his numbers actually stay close enough that his supporters still think there's hope so they won't go off all super ragey and hurt all the types of people that Trump is othering.." I shouldn't be having to think things like this....
posted by Jalliah at 8:30 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
What are the chances he loses and then just.. doesn't concede. brb searching ebay for crates of BP-5 rations
posted by theodolite at 8:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by theodolite at 8:39 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
What are the chances he loses and then just.. doesn't concede.
0.o
Has anything remotely like that happened before? And what happens if someone does do that? Is it something that has to be done at the end of an election or is it just symbolic?
posted by Jalliah at 8:44 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
0.o
Has anything remotely like that happened before? And what happens if someone does do that? Is it something that has to be done at the end of an election or is it just symbolic?
posted by Jalliah at 8:44 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
He doesn't have to concede. All that matters is the Electoral College vote.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:46 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 8:46 PM on June 14, 2016 [15 favorites]
Even if he wanted to try and claim he somehow really won, it would only matter if the Secret Service and military decided to support a coup, basically. Otherwise if he tried to show up to the White House, Clinton would just have him escorted off the premises.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 8:50 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Mitch McConnell. Especially don't let this guy not talk about the election. He's decided not to do his job and hold a vote on a Supreme Court nominee because of this election, so don't let him fucking say he doesn't have to talk about it. Tell us more about why it's so important this guy you won't discuss gets to nominate people for the Supreme Court, Mitch.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:54 PM on June 14, 2016 [48 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 8:54 PM on June 14, 2016 [48 favorites]
Basically the Republican leadership's Trump strategy at this point.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:00 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:00 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Even if the Republicans were somehow able to get Trump to step aside at this point which would basically require a massive degree of blackmail ..."
All the party establishment needs to do - all they ever needed to do - is buy him off. Suck it up, put together another super-PAC, pay off the $50M in "loans" Trump Corp made to the Trump Campaign and sweeten it with 15% on top to his favorite offshore shell corp. It's not an insignificant sum, but it does reflect the going rate for national election influence. Really, that's all he ever wanted anyway. Trump Campaign was structured exactly like Trump Steaks, Trump Ties, Trump Dress Shirts and Trump University: all just siphons to move suckers' money into his own pocket.
Finally, give him an hour at the podium during the convention; he knows how to save face when losing.
posted by klarck at 9:08 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
All the party establishment needs to do - all they ever needed to do - is buy him off. Suck it up, put together another super-PAC, pay off the $50M in "loans" Trump Corp made to the Trump Campaign and sweeten it with 15% on top to his favorite offshore shell corp. It's not an insignificant sum, but it does reflect the going rate for national election influence. Really, that's all he ever wanted anyway. Trump Campaign was structured exactly like Trump Steaks, Trump Ties, Trump Dress Shirts and Trump University: all just siphons to move suckers' money into his own pocket.
Finally, give him an hour at the podium during the convention; he knows how to save face when losing.
posted by klarck at 9:08 PM on June 14, 2016 [8 favorites]
Otherwise if he tried to show up to the White House, Clinton would just have him escorted off the premises.
Or let him park cars at one of the inaugural balls. Where there might be a toilet what needs to be snaked.
posted by y2karl at 9:08 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or let him park cars at one of the inaugural balls. Where there might be a toilet what needs to be snaked.
posted by y2karl at 9:08 PM on June 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's like Sanders wants the Dems to have a Trump problem in the future.
I think it's more like Sanders wants to be the Dems' Trump problem.
posted by dersins at 9:33 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think it's more like Sanders wants to be the Dems' Trump problem.
posted by dersins at 9:33 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
He doesn't have to concede. All that matters is the Electoral College vote.
There's a lot more to fear from what Trump's supporters will do than from Trump personally in defeat. He's opened an entire Pandora's Box of hatred, underscored by legitimate economic insecurity, that cannot be put back. Disaffected Trump voters, especially the white male losers of globalization and the top down 21st century economy do not have much else to lose, have less and less buy in with the entire concept of an inclusive America, and have put all their eggs in Trump's basket as their last Great White Hope.
Trump won't concede, and he's highly likely to lead a sort of shadow Presidency of the alt-right/FOX News sphere, if only because that's where all the best grift is located. His business is based on selling his name, which will be radioactive going forward, but there's an infinite market of rightwing marks happy to keep throwing money at whatever conspiracy he can sputter. Plus coming this close to power (even if he's not all that close) will only fuel his narcissism. But as a side effect of that, he'll keep encouraging the worst of the base impulses he's uncorked, and who knows what violence will come out of that.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
There's a lot more to fear from what Trump's supporters will do than from Trump personally in defeat. He's opened an entire Pandora's Box of hatred, underscored by legitimate economic insecurity, that cannot be put back. Disaffected Trump voters, especially the white male losers of globalization and the top down 21st century economy do not have much else to lose, have less and less buy in with the entire concept of an inclusive America, and have put all their eggs in Trump's basket as their last Great White Hope.
Trump won't concede, and he's highly likely to lead a sort of shadow Presidency of the alt-right/FOX News sphere, if only because that's where all the best grift is located. His business is based on selling his name, which will be radioactive going forward, but there's an infinite market of rightwing marks happy to keep throwing money at whatever conspiracy he can sputter. Plus coming this close to power (even if he's not all that close) will only fuel his narcissism. But as a side effect of that, he'll keep encouraging the worst of the base impulses he's uncorked, and who knows what violence will come out of that.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:35 PM on June 14, 2016 [13 favorites]
Otherwise if he tried to show up to the White House, Clinton would just have him escorted off the premises
Brb, savoring image of HRC ordering Trump dragged off White House lawn in cuffs.
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Brb, savoring image of HRC ordering Trump dragged off White House lawn in cuffs.
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Has anything remotely like that happened before?
No. This is dumb.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
No. This is dumb.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:21 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
There's a lot more to fear from what Trump's supporters will do than from Trump personally in defeat. He's opened an entire Pandora's Box of hatred, underscored by legitimate economic insecurity, that cannot be put back.
I could see that, but the problem is easily solved, at the price of surrendering one precious freedom: internet anonymity. All of 4/8chan, online harassment, rape and death threats, MRAs, the dark enlightenment, all the death and rape threats, all of it vanishes very quickly the second that the electronic klan hood of anonymity is wiped away.
There are real civil liberties costs to that move. But on the plus side, it would really cut back on spam emails.
posted by msalt at 10:22 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
I could see that, but the problem is easily solved, at the price of surrendering one precious freedom: internet anonymity. All of 4/8chan, online harassment, rape and death threats, MRAs, the dark enlightenment, all the death and rape threats, all of it vanishes very quickly the second that the electronic klan hood of anonymity is wiped away.
There are real civil liberties costs to that move. But on the plus side, it would really cut back on spam emails.
posted by msalt at 10:22 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
A new Bloomberg poll published Tuesday shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump 49 percent to 37 percent among likely voters nationwide.
I'll say it for every poll -- it's just one data point. Don't overfocus on a single data point.
That said, Hillary was +7 in the NBC poll (a poll she's been steadily gaining in the last two weeks) and hasn't been behind (tho within MoE) in any poll taken in June. This is probably the consolidation bump post-California.
Trump seems stuck between 37-42% in the polls, save some outliers and the strangely high-running Gravis/OneAmerica poll which remains the only one to poll him >=50% this entire cycle.
Sam Wang has Hillary at a 65% chance of winning.
We are still a month out from the conventions. There's a LOT of road ahead. But at this point, Hillary is coming out of the blocks strong.
posted by dw at 10:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'll say it for every poll -- it's just one data point. Don't overfocus on a single data point.
That said, Hillary was +7 in the NBC poll (a poll she's been steadily gaining in the last two weeks) and hasn't been behind (tho within MoE) in any poll taken in June. This is probably the consolidation bump post-California.
Trump seems stuck between 37-42% in the polls, save some outliers and the strangely high-running Gravis/OneAmerica poll which remains the only one to poll him >=50% this entire cycle.
Sam Wang has Hillary at a 65% chance of winning.
We are still a month out from the conventions. There's a LOT of road ahead. But at this point, Hillary is coming out of the blocks strong.
posted by dw at 10:23 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'll start to treat this like a comedy instead of a tragedy when those Trump percentages get down below 10%. Or at least below the 27% Crazy Factor.
posted by mmoncur at 10:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 10:31 PM on June 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
37-fucking-% of America might vote for a raving bigoted elitist imbecile. I don't care if the dems take it in a landslide. The fact that this loon can get anything over a tiny bigoted fraction of the vote is a full-on existential threat to the republic.
posted by aspersioncast at 10:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by aspersioncast at 10:32 PM on June 14, 2016 [30 favorites]
In theory, Trump could protest the election and convince a GOP-led Congress to refuse to accept the electoral college vote. They could reject enough states to force the vote to be thrown to the House and Senate.
But the question would be whether they could really pull it off without pissing away the last fragments of respect the American people have for them. It wouldn't just be dishonorable, it'd be the closest we've come to a blodless coup since the disastrous 1876 election.
posted by dw at 10:37 PM on June 14, 2016
But the question would be whether they could really pull it off without pissing away the last fragments of respect the American people have for them. It wouldn't just be dishonorable, it'd be the closest we've come to a blodless coup since the disastrous 1876 election.
posted by dw at 10:37 PM on June 14, 2016
Oh, one more thing about Trump's poll numbers: Against Sanders, Trump polls 36-40%. So only a tick or two less than vs Clinton. There really are 37% of Americans ready to vote for him.
posted by dw at 10:40 PM on June 14, 2016
posted by dw at 10:40 PM on June 14, 2016
He's such an transparently self-aggrandizing fraud that anyone, regardless of education or political engagement, should be able to see through him in two minutes.
[…]
If we elect Trump, we deserve him. Doing so would be an eyes-wide-open rejection of constitutional democracy.
No one can say the people are deceived
posted by salix at 11:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
[…]
If we elect Trump, we deserve him. Doing so would be an eyes-wide-open rejection of constitutional democracy.
No one can say the people are deceived
posted by salix at 11:02 PM on June 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'll say it for every poll -- it's just one data point. Don't overfocus on a single data point.
Sure, that's exactly correct. But the national average is clearly trending Hilary, with the RCP showing 5.5 Dem. A 5% national advantage translates to a crushing electoral college defeat. A 5% margin is about what Obama had in 2012, which wasn't really in doubt. If that's at all accurate, and with the EC map strongly tilted in favor of Democrats, it's all but insurmountable.
Trump is horrible and dangerous, and Republicans are absolute fucking monsters, no hyperbole, monsters, for putting him this close; but we can take some solace that even 40% of monstrous Americans voting for him isn't close to enough. This is one time where we should all be thankful for the electoral college, it's almost worth 8 years of Bush the Lesser to stave off Trump and the end of democracy.
All polling subject to actual events of course, but this week has given me a lot more optimism that maybe America won't cross this particular bridge.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:06 PM on June 14, 2016
Sure, that's exactly correct. But the national average is clearly trending Hilary, with the RCP showing 5.5 Dem. A 5% national advantage translates to a crushing electoral college defeat. A 5% margin is about what Obama had in 2012, which wasn't really in doubt. If that's at all accurate, and with the EC map strongly tilted in favor of Democrats, it's all but insurmountable.
Trump is horrible and dangerous, and Republicans are absolute fucking monsters, no hyperbole, monsters, for putting him this close; but we can take some solace that even 40% of monstrous Americans voting for him isn't close to enough. This is one time where we should all be thankful for the electoral college, it's almost worth 8 years of Bush the Lesser to stave off Trump and the end of democracy.
All polling subject to actual events of course, but this week has given me a lot more optimism that maybe America won't cross this particular bridge.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:06 PM on June 14, 2016
If we elect Trump, we deserve him. Doing so would be an eyes-wide-open rejection of constitutional democracy.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard”
posted by Going To Maine at 11:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard”
posted by Going To Maine at 11:06 PM on June 14, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sam Wang has Hillary at a 65% chance of winning.
That means Sam Wang thinks there's over a 1 in 3 chance Trump could be president. Nothing to be happy about in those odds. If someone offered you chocolate ice cream and said, "By the way, there's a 1 in 3 chance that's actually just a frozen turd," would you want to eat it?
posted by biogeo at 11:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
That means Sam Wang thinks there's over a 1 in 3 chance Trump could be president. Nothing to be happy about in those odds. If someone offered you chocolate ice cream and said, "By the way, there's a 1 in 3 chance that's actually just a frozen turd," would you want to eat it?
posted by biogeo at 11:26 PM on June 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
That means Sam Wang thinks there's over a 1 in 3 chance Trump could be president. Nothing to be happy about in those odds.
“Nothing” is a bit of a stretch. There’s absolutely no other R. candidate against which Clinton would be doing this strongly at this point in the race. The expected value of competing against Trump is awful because of the cost of a loss, but those odds are darned good.
(Goldwater and McGovern each got 37.5% of the popular vote. It would be great if the public would round on Trump with more force, given that he’s literally - truly, literally- the worst candidate ever, but I find it hard to see.)
posted by Going To Maine at 11:48 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
“Nothing” is a bit of a stretch. There’s absolutely no other R. candidate against which Clinton would be doing this strongly at this point in the race. The expected value of competing against Trump is awful because of the cost of a loss, but those odds are darned good.
(Goldwater and McGovern each got 37.5% of the popular vote. It would be great if the public would round on Trump with more force, given that he’s literally - truly, literally- the worst candidate ever, but I find it hard to see.)
posted by Going To Maine at 11:48 PM on June 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
It would be great if the public would round on Trump with more force,,, but I find it hard to see.
I said it a while back, in an election thread long ago, but I'm betting historic blowout.
posted by bongo_x at 12:05 AM on June 15, 2016
I said it a while back, in an election thread long ago, but I'm betting historic blowout.
posted by bongo_x at 12:05 AM on June 15, 2016
Sure, but we could get a historic blowout without getting Trump below 37.5% of the popular vote.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:10 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 12:10 AM on June 15, 2016
Is possible that Trump realizes, perhaps only subconsciously, that he could not handle the job of President, and his response to the Orlando massacre is a way of giving the GOP an excuse to prevent his nomination? That way he isn't a loser; he was cheated out of winning.
posted by haiku warrior at 12:24 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by haiku warrior at 12:24 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Scandals are always possibly useful for blackmail. That said, the real story here is “Russian hackers have been in the DNC for months, and they got LOTS OF THINGS.”
Along those lines there is this: Russia is Reportedly Set to Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails:
posted by 3urypteris at 1:06 AM on June 15, 2016
Along those lines there is this: Russia is Reportedly Set to Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails:
Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages intercepted from U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server from the time she was U.S. Secretary of State. The release would, the messaging indicated, prove that Secretary Clinton had, in fact, laid open U.S. secrets to foreign interception by putting highly-classified Government reports onto a private server in violation of U.S. law, and that, as suspected, the server had been targeted and hacked by foreign intelligence services.The source for this article is Defense and Foreign Affairs, published by International Strategic Studies Association, I haven't heard of either before and can't say one way or another how reliable they are.
posted by 3urypteris at 1:06 AM on June 15, 2016
That means Sam Wang thinks there's over a 1 in 3 chance Trump could be president.
Yes. And there are a number of things that could happen that might make those odds even closer, such as:
(a) Coordinated series of suicide bombings by ISIS sympathizers in, say, San Francisco, Boston and New York;
(b) Clinton disappearing from the race for a week or longer due to health reasons;
(c) Refugee crisis in Europe worsens dramatically with sleepers blowing up things;
(d) Trump pivoting heavily after all and half the country being relieved that he's not so bad after all.
So it's much too early to call this race yet.
posted by sour cream at 1:11 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes. And there are a number of things that could happen that might make those odds even closer, such as:
(a) Coordinated series of suicide bombings by ISIS sympathizers in, say, San Francisco, Boston and New York;
(b) Clinton disappearing from the race for a week or longer due to health reasons;
(c) Refugee crisis in Europe worsens dramatically with sleepers blowing up things;
(d) Trump pivoting heavily after all and half the country being relieved that he's not so bad after all.
So it's much too early to call this race yet.
posted by sour cream at 1:11 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think Donald Trump really is terrified of winning, on some level, but the only way he knows to deal with fear is to go for broke and bluff his way through it. I think he is trying to "fake it till he makes it," and that this tactic has worked well for him his whole career. It's like that story Ivanka tells about when Trump pointed to a homeless guy and said "that guy is $8 million richer than me" because he was so deeply in debt. How do you get out of a hole like that? You keep your poker face and convince other people to stake you until you start winning again. At least, you do if you're Donald.
Most people who present themselves as mostrous egos are actually very insecure, aren't they? And we've seen how thin-skinned Donald can be.
I've had jobs where I felt a lot of "imposter syndrome." I bulled my way through them until I got my confidence, powered by a certain amount of belligerence. "I'm gonna do what makes sense to me, and if they don't like it, let them fire me. Who cares what they think anyway? They're jerks." As long as you don't actually get fired this is a great way to cope with imposter syndrome! Works for stage fright too, if you can manage to convince yourself the entire audience is probably jerks, or idiots. Who do they think they are, sitting there and judging you?
Donald must be feeling imposter syndrome and stage fright in a big way right now. This is the ultimate in final exams you didn't study for, job interviews where you don't have answers. Like Louis C.K. said, he's like a guy who's never flown a plane before trying to get a job as a pilot. God help him (and the rest of us) if he gets it!
So he says these outrageous things, because either they will cost him the race, or they won't. And if they don't it will prove that he really can be president after all, because if he's lucky and talented enough to bluff his way into winning the campaign, then he can probably bluff his way through the presidency too! And if not, he would probably tell himself, we hired him. It's our fault really if he isn't competent at the job. Right?
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:26 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Most people who present themselves as mostrous egos are actually very insecure, aren't they? And we've seen how thin-skinned Donald can be.
I've had jobs where I felt a lot of "imposter syndrome." I bulled my way through them until I got my confidence, powered by a certain amount of belligerence. "I'm gonna do what makes sense to me, and if they don't like it, let them fire me. Who cares what they think anyway? They're jerks." As long as you don't actually get fired this is a great way to cope with imposter syndrome! Works for stage fright too, if you can manage to convince yourself the entire audience is probably jerks, or idiots. Who do they think they are, sitting there and judging you?
Donald must be feeling imposter syndrome and stage fright in a big way right now. This is the ultimate in final exams you didn't study for, job interviews where you don't have answers. Like Louis C.K. said, he's like a guy who's never flown a plane before trying to get a job as a pilot. God help him (and the rest of us) if he gets it!
So he says these outrageous things, because either they will cost him the race, or they won't. And if they don't it will prove that he really can be president after all, because if he's lucky and talented enough to bluff his way into winning the campaign, then he can probably bluff his way through the presidency too! And if not, he would probably tell himself, we hired him. It's our fault really if he isn't competent at the job. Right?
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:26 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
If there is one thing these threads have convinced me of, it is that I need to continue to use a throw-away Facebook account for contests and never, ever make a legitimate account where I might actually see what people I know are posting. Ignorance is bliss.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 1:42 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 1:42 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Donald must be feeling imposter syndrome and stage fright in a big way right now. This is the ultimate in final exams you didn't study for, job interviews where you don't have answers.
But this is based on the premise that Trump is wired like most normal people and actually experiences emotions such as shame, remorse and regret. "I didn't study for my exams! I hope noone finds out how underqualified I am, because if someone does, that will be so EMBARRASSING!"
But, as should be painfully evident by now, Trump does not experience any of those emotions (just like he is incapable of feeling empathy). So, no stage fright and also no imposter syndrome.
Most people who present themselves as mostrous egos are actually very insecure, aren't they?
There is a certain narrative on how bullies are really insecure and vulnerable people at heart. I think this is a "meme" that is thousands of years old, originating in the Bible. Think conversion from Saul to Paul, redemption etc. So it's really deeply ingrained into our (Western) culture and we try to fit the facts to the narrative whenever we can.
But the narrative is mostly wrong. Most bullies are just assholes, nothing more, nothing less.
posted by sour cream at 2:14 AM on June 15, 2016 [16 favorites]
But this is based on the premise that Trump is wired like most normal people and actually experiences emotions such as shame, remorse and regret. "I didn't study for my exams! I hope noone finds out how underqualified I am, because if someone does, that will be so EMBARRASSING!"
But, as should be painfully evident by now, Trump does not experience any of those emotions (just like he is incapable of feeling empathy). So, no stage fright and also no imposter syndrome.
Most people who present themselves as mostrous egos are actually very insecure, aren't they?
There is a certain narrative on how bullies are really insecure and vulnerable people at heart. I think this is a "meme" that is thousands of years old, originating in the Bible. Think conversion from Saul to Paul, redemption etc. So it's really deeply ingrained into our (Western) culture and we try to fit the facts to the narrative whenever we can.
But the narrative is mostly wrong. Most bullies are just assholes, nothing more, nothing less.
posted by sour cream at 2:14 AM on June 15, 2016 [16 favorites]
The Anthony Clark/KC Green webcomic "Back" has just reached a point in its story where a mad villain has just had his scheme foiled and reading his rant, I thought "this could be Trump's inevitable 'concession' speech". And I realized, yes, everything is political.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:28 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:28 AM on June 15, 2016
Do you Approve/Disapprove of Orlando response:
Obama: 44/34 (+10)
Clinton: 36/34 (+2)
Trump: 25/51 (-26)
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:30 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
Obama: 44/34 (+10)
Clinton: 36/34 (+2)
Trump: 25/51 (-26)
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 5:30 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
Along those lines there is this: Russia is Reportedly Set to Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails:
Defense and Foreign Affairs magazine, and the International Strategic Studies Association seem like another one of those weird alt media sites, like globalresearch.ca, that sell hastily written books on international affairs to lay audiences of tin foil hatters who like to think of themselves as intellectuals. But maybe I'm wrong.
If the Russians had email intercepts, they'd probably wait until Clinton was President and they needed something from her before threatening to release them. To quote former Governor and current felon Rod Blagojevich, thats a fucking valuable thing, you don't just give it away for nothing.
I guess their game might be getting Trump in power because Putin might think that with an incompetent like Trump at the helm, Russia will be more successful in its efforts to reclaim the former Soviet territories? I guess it just doesn't make sense to me at all.
posted by dis_integration at 5:55 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Defense and Foreign Affairs magazine, and the International Strategic Studies Association seem like another one of those weird alt media sites, like globalresearch.ca, that sell hastily written books on international affairs to lay audiences of tin foil hatters who like to think of themselves as intellectuals. But maybe I'm wrong.
If the Russians had email intercepts, they'd probably wait until Clinton was President and they needed something from her before threatening to release them. To quote former Governor and current felon Rod Blagojevich, thats a fucking valuable thing, you don't just give it away for nothing.
I guess their game might be getting Trump in power because Putin might think that with an incompetent like Trump at the helm, Russia will be more successful in its efforts to reclaim the former Soviet territories? I guess it just doesn't make sense to me at all.
posted by dis_integration at 5:55 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Election Predictions- Keep in mind that a lot of the variability in the predictions offered by 538 and Sam Wang are based upon simulations and because of the long time horizon between polling now and the actual election there is an inherent level of fuzziness.
For example if the polling averages that we have now were predicting a general election next week the chance of Clinton winning would be extremely high. I'm not sure exactly how high because I don't think Nate and Sam reveal numbers like that (and their value would be extremely limited to most readers).
Even then if you look at sites like 538 you'll already see talk about how the current polling is making states that shouldn't be remotely competitive like Georgia and Utah are now moving into "battleground" state territory and many of the states that are supposedly targeted by the Trump campaign are completely delusional. Okay let's be honest California and NY have always been completely delusional (and frankly so are Michigan and Pennsylvania) and I'm having a hard time seeing why Trump and allies wouldn't focus almost all their media buys on absolute must win states and more or less abandon the "battleground" states like Nevada which are rapidly becoming lol good luck categories for Republicans. Some of that might be the relatively low cost of some media markets (I don't know I assume Reno is relatively cheap but I suspect Las Vegas is probably an expensive market).
As we move forward the uncertainty inherent in predictions concerning the General election decreases so that if the polling stays pretty much in the 5-8 range (which has been remarkably consistent for an extended period of time suggesting that the number of truly undecided voters is pretty small) for the next couple of months the chance of Clinton winning the GE will go up significantly even without poll movement. If the long term trend line move into the solid 12% range i.e. that the current polling aren't outliers then her chances in November are crazy good.
I'm less certain about the betting markets current because in the past some of the big players in that space seemed to have lots of "investors" engaging in more or less short term positions where big movement by a single player or group of players could shift the values rapidly and IIRC there was probably some profiteering by manipulating the market through these mechanism. I'm less certain about how the current betting markets which seem more like gambling odds makers than financial markets work and if they allow for the same sort of manipulation.
I think regardless we'll see a definite attempt by conventional pundits to point to the work by this quants as suspect because people like Silver and Wang are stealing page views and undermining the horse race narrative. I also think we'll see a bunch of poll unskewers show up to generate false hope for conservatives.
posted by vuron at 6:02 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
For example if the polling averages that we have now were predicting a general election next week the chance of Clinton winning would be extremely high. I'm not sure exactly how high because I don't think Nate and Sam reveal numbers like that (and their value would be extremely limited to most readers).
Even then if you look at sites like 538 you'll already see talk about how the current polling is making states that shouldn't be remotely competitive like Georgia and Utah are now moving into "battleground" state territory and many of the states that are supposedly targeted by the Trump campaign are completely delusional. Okay let's be honest California and NY have always been completely delusional (and frankly so are Michigan and Pennsylvania) and I'm having a hard time seeing why Trump and allies wouldn't focus almost all their media buys on absolute must win states and more or less abandon the "battleground" states like Nevada which are rapidly becoming lol good luck categories for Republicans. Some of that might be the relatively low cost of some media markets (I don't know I assume Reno is relatively cheap but I suspect Las Vegas is probably an expensive market).
As we move forward the uncertainty inherent in predictions concerning the General election decreases so that if the polling stays pretty much in the 5-8 range (which has been remarkably consistent for an extended period of time suggesting that the number of truly undecided voters is pretty small) for the next couple of months the chance of Clinton winning the GE will go up significantly even without poll movement. If the long term trend line move into the solid 12% range i.e. that the current polling aren't outliers then her chances in November are crazy good.
I'm less certain about the betting markets current because in the past some of the big players in that space seemed to have lots of "investors" engaging in more or less short term positions where big movement by a single player or group of players could shift the values rapidly and IIRC there was probably some profiteering by manipulating the market through these mechanism. I'm less certain about how the current betting markets which seem more like gambling odds makers than financial markets work and if they allow for the same sort of manipulation.
I think regardless we'll see a definite attempt by conventional pundits to point to the work by this quants as suspect because people like Silver and Wang are stealing page views and undermining the horse race narrative. I also think we'll see a bunch of poll unskewers show up to generate false hope for conservatives.
posted by vuron at 6:02 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Putin has designs on the Baltic Republics and I think most conventional wisdom is that he does although I feel like we are getting into almost Cold War Kremlinologist territory when we start trying to determine Putin's intentions I could see some vague benefit for Putin by having Trump in the White House.
Not because they would remotely be friendly but that the extreme nationalism of Trump's brand might see our foreign policy become more isolationist along the lines of "Let Europe fix their own problems with Russia" which would dramatically undermine the US position in world affairs but there are elements of the Republican base that would eat that shit up.
However let's keep in mind that Putin is also a cold war intelligence type and while he might be a true believer instead of a Kleptocrat I think that's a really dumb assumption and would really not fit in with the optimal game theory strategy for how to achieve his objectives.
Clinton would not be the opponent that I would want if I'm planning on engaging in sabre rattling and a quick occupation of the Baltic Republics because I think the chances that she'll go full appeasement are extremely low but let's be honest having Trump as your opponent increases the chance that pursuing your objective could turn out really bad.
I think Putin is an awful man but I don't think he's dumb and I don't think his inner circle are dumb
posted by vuron at 6:14 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Not because they would remotely be friendly but that the extreme nationalism of Trump's brand might see our foreign policy become more isolationist along the lines of "Let Europe fix their own problems with Russia" which would dramatically undermine the US position in world affairs but there are elements of the Republican base that would eat that shit up.
However let's keep in mind that Putin is also a cold war intelligence type and while he might be a true believer instead of a Kleptocrat I think that's a really dumb assumption and would really not fit in with the optimal game theory strategy for how to achieve his objectives.
Clinton would not be the opponent that I would want if I'm planning on engaging in sabre rattling and a quick occupation of the Baltic Republics because I think the chances that she'll go full appeasement are extremely low but let's be honest having Trump as your opponent increases the chance that pursuing your objective could turn out really bad.
I think Putin is an awful man but I don't think he's dumb and I don't think his inner circle are dumb
posted by vuron at 6:14 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Along those lines there is this: Russia is Reportedly Set to Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails
Oilprice.com ? ORLY.C'MON.
posted by y2karl at 6:14 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oilprice.com ? ORLY.C'MON.
posted by y2karl at 6:14 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
I can't believe anyone on the world stage would want to see president trump with the exception of true wild card despots who want to see the world burn.
posted by museum of fire ants at 6:26 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by museum of fire ants at 6:26 AM on June 15, 2016
I don't know, some corrupt world leaders are bound to think "I bet if I offered this guy a million dollars he'd pretty much do whatever I wanted."
posted by mmoncur at 7:05 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by mmoncur at 7:05 AM on June 15, 2016
I don't know, some corrupt world leaders are bound to think "I bet if I offered this guy a million dollars he'd pretty much do whatever I wanted."
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Trump had promised Putin, for example, that he would not honor the mutual defense clause of NATO in exchange for intelligence leaks that delivered him the presidency. Nixon made a similar, although less disastrous move, in 1968, by delaying a cease-fire in Vietnam (source). Trump's (lack of) moral compass makes Nixon look like a boy scout.
posted by dis_integration at 7:18 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Trump had promised Putin, for example, that he would not honor the mutual defense clause of NATO in exchange for intelligence leaks that delivered him the presidency. Nixon made a similar, although less disastrous move, in 1968, by delaying a cease-fire in Vietnam (source). Trump's (lack of) moral compass makes Nixon look like a boy scout.
posted by dis_integration at 7:18 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Okay let's be honest California and NY have always been completely delusional (and frankly so are Michigan and Pennsylvania)
I don't think Pennsylvania is out of play. Trump is polling better than expected in the Northeast, the middle of the state is your classic Trump voter, and it's the sort of place where you could see Bernie supporters staying home while the people of Altoona show up by the busload.
That said, neither Hillary nor Bill have ever lost PA. Ever. Not in a primary, not in the general election.
And winning PA is futile if Trump loses Ohio or Florida. And if Utah and Arizona are in play, they have 3 fewer electoral votes than PA.
posted by dw at 7:52 AM on June 15, 2016
I don't think Pennsylvania is out of play. Trump is polling better than expected in the Northeast, the middle of the state is your classic Trump voter, and it's the sort of place where you could see Bernie supporters staying home while the people of Altoona show up by the busload.
That said, neither Hillary nor Bill have ever lost PA. Ever. Not in a primary, not in the general election.
And winning PA is futile if Trump loses Ohio or Florida. And if Utah and Arizona are in play, they have 3 fewer electoral votes than PA.
posted by dw at 7:52 AM on June 15, 2016
I feel like when people are asked this question they envision Trump or Clinton literally getting into a fistfight with a member of ISIS.
In which case I still wouldn't bet on Trump, pampered, doughy, man-baby that he is.
posted by emjaybee at 8:00 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
In which case I still wouldn't bet on Trump, pampered, doughy, man-baby that he is.
posted by emjaybee at 8:00 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Let me just say, given our governors' history of voter suppression, I would be more comfortable with models that show Clinton winning without needing Florida.
posted by wittgenstein at 8:01 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by wittgenstein at 8:01 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's numerous paths to a D victory without Florida. There's really none for Rs without it.
posted by chris24 at 8:05 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by chris24 at 8:05 AM on June 15, 2016
I don't think Pennsylvania is out of play. Trump is polling better than expected in the Northeast, the middle of the state is your classic Trump voter, and it's the sort of place where you could see Bernie supporters staying home while the people of Altoona show up by the busload.
Yeah but the center of the state is so underpopulated that the Philly and Pittsburgh regions can carry the state. And don't forget that we elected a democratic governor two years ago by a ten point margin.
posted by octothorpe at 8:08 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah but the center of the state is so underpopulated that the Philly and Pittsburgh regions can carry the state. And don't forget that we elected a democratic governor two years ago by a ten point margin.
posted by octothorpe at 8:08 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
And don't forget that we elected a democratic governor two years ago by a ten point margin.
To be fair, Corbett's margin in 2010 was near double digits as well, but that was during a GOP wave election, so I'm inclined to agree that PA is going to be a tough get for Trump. It's definitely not out of play, though.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:12 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
To be fair, Corbett's margin in 2010 was near double digits as well, but that was during a GOP wave election, so I'm inclined to agree that PA is going to be a tough get for Trump. It's definitely not out of play, though.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:12 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
WaPo - Negative views of Donald Trump just hit a new campaign high: 7 in 10 Americans
New poll from ABC/WaPo has Trumps unfavorables climbing from 60% to 70% over the past month.
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
New poll from ABC/WaPo has Trumps unfavorables climbing from 60% to 70% over the past month.
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:33 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unless there's an astonishing upset somewhere else, the Republicans need to take at least two of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida, and not lose any of their weaker strongholds (e.g. North Carolina). This may not be impossible but it is unlikely enough that I'm almost breathing easily. Pennsylvania, despite being demographically Trump-inclined outside of the cities, has generally slanted just Democratic enough; Virginia is a close thing in an ordinary year, and with establishment beltway Republicans who detest Trump and newly-reinstated felons in the mix it looks a lot more Democratic-leaning than usual; in Florida I dare to hope conservative (and nonconservative, although they were never voting Republican) Latinos are a large enough bloc to seriously shift the election.
I mean, this could be a close thing because there are just enough crazies out there, but the overall shape of the nation seriously favors Democrats here, and Trump is an unfavorable enough antagonist that places nobody thought would ever come into play (Georgia? Kansas? Utah? Maybe even Texas?) are being tossed around as serious points of weakness.
posted by jackbishop at 8:34 AM on June 15, 2016
I mean, this could be a close thing because there are just enough crazies out there, but the overall shape of the nation seriously favors Democrats here, and Trump is an unfavorable enough antagonist that places nobody thought would ever come into play (Georgia? Kansas? Utah? Maybe even Texas?) are being tossed around as serious points of weakness.
posted by jackbishop at 8:34 AM on June 15, 2016
This may not be impossible but it is unlikely enough that I'm almost breathing easily.
I will not breathe easily until Hillary Clinton walks off the stage having taken the Oath of Office.
Trump's just short of unhinged, and that's giving him benefit of the doubt he doesn't deserve.
posted by Mooski at 8:37 AM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
I will not breathe easily until Hillary Clinton walks off the stage having taken the Oath of Office.
Trump's just short of unhinged, and that's giving him benefit of the doubt he doesn't deserve.
posted by Mooski at 8:37 AM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
Trump's down to 29% favorable? With the "the 27% baseline crazification factor of the American electorate" Eyebrows referred to, that makes 2% NON-crazy still like him. The best possible effect would be for Republicans who can't stand him and feel they can't go elsewhere to not bother to vote at all, which would certainly turn the down-ticket races against the Rs.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
It would fill me with glee if Arizona finally caught up on its demographics, turned blue and then kicked Arpaio out of office with him spitting bile about Mexicans all the way out.
posted by Talez at 8:54 AM on June 15, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by Talez at 8:54 AM on June 15, 2016 [23 favorites]
Trump is an unfavorable enough antagonist that places nobody thought would ever come into play (Georgia? Kansas? Utah? Maybe even Texas?) are being tossed around as serious points of weakness.
I think this is about as likely as any of the scenarios in John Lennon's "Imagine" coming to fruition, but just like with the song, the mere idea of this makes my heart go all warm and gooey.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:59 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think this is about as likely as any of the scenarios in John Lennon's "Imagine" coming to fruition, but just like with the song, the mere idea of this makes my heart go all warm and gooey.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:59 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
...I'm calling it: Trump will drop out of the race by July 5 at the latest. He will blame the unfair media and political correctness, allude to some wack-ass conspiracy involving Black Lives Matter and/or Hezbollah, and go to his grave telling everyone he knows that if he had stayed in the race, he would’ve beaten Clinton. Remember: It’s better to be a quitter than a loser, because a quitter can always say he would’ve been a winner. (NOTE: Do not share this fact with your children.)Trump Won’t Lose—So He’ll Have to Quit
posted by y2karl at 9:00 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
...I'm calling it: Trump will drop out of the race by July 5 at the latest.
Back a few months ago I thought this would be the case. But no, he's staying in. He's gotten the scent of the presidency. He smells the power. The notoriety. The prestige. Trump isn't going to drop out. He's going to have to get beaten.
posted by cashman at 9:03 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Back a few months ago I thought this would be the case. But no, he's staying in. He's gotten the scent of the presidency. He smells the power. The notoriety. The prestige. Trump isn't going to drop out. He's going to have to get beaten.
posted by cashman at 9:03 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
States that I think are surprisingly in play for Democrats: North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, Utah. Arizona and Utah are interesting because of the large number of Mormon voters who will have a very difficult time voting for Trump. The other states are in play because of demographics -- new voters tend to be transplants from more liberal places (NC especially) and/or Hispanic (Texas, Arizona particularly). I *don't* think Clinton has much of a chance in states like Indiana, Kansas, or Nebraska, but that's a prediction that I'd love to be wrong about.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:18 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:18 AM on June 15, 2016
Take Texas. What happens if you have 7-8% of traditional Republican voters pull the lever for Gary Johnson, AND you have a net increase of +400K Hispanic voters? It is super hard to pull off, but I do think that one of the really big unreported stories of this election is Hispanic voter registration and turnout.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:22 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:22 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
What happens to a candidate's business interests if they get elected President? Aren't they run at arms-length? If the Trump empire is a house of cards built on sand, what will happen to it if he's not there to spin the plates?
posted by Devonian at 9:23 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Devonian at 9:23 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
It would fill me with glee if Arizona finally caught up on its demographics, turned blue and then kicked Arpaio out of office with him spitting bile about Mexicans all the way out.
There are even more signs for Paul Penzone, Sheriff Joe's opponent, around my neighborhood than there were last time. It's an established older neighborhood in central Phoenix, so I'm hopeful.
In other news, I've agreed to join a group protesting (peacefully, I hope) at Trump's rally here this Saturday. I feel I really need to experience this firsthand to truly grasp what's going on.
Wish me luck.
posted by Superplin at 9:27 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
There are even more signs for Paul Penzone, Sheriff Joe's opponent, around my neighborhood than there were last time. It's an established older neighborhood in central Phoenix, so I'm hopeful.
In other news, I've agreed to join a group protesting (peacefully, I hope) at Trump's rally here this Saturday. I feel I really need to experience this firsthand to truly grasp what's going on.
Wish me luck.
posted by Superplin at 9:27 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
I have friends who are sure he's going to win, but they're the same friends who think he's not really going to do any of the things he says he's going to do/only being a bigot to win over voters, and all of them were Bernie Or Busters a week ago, and now I'm really starting to think that everything they think about the election is pure misogyny and I feel really sad about what shitbags some of my friends are.
The few people i've met like this seem to think that he not only doesn't know how to get anything done, but would propose things so ridiculous and fucked up that congress would just shoot them down, or they would be illegal and impossible to implement, etc. They think that Clinton would propose/try to implement bad things and know exactly how.
Is this stupid as fuck? Yea, but it's a bit more nuanced than "misogyny lol". They literally think Clinton is bad and too competent. They'd rather get 4 years of mired in nothing really getting done than more war in the middle east/whatever is their argument.
The worse thing is all the smart people i know who flat out refuse to vote at all this time around because they won't be "forced to pick between two options that are both garbage". That group includes a lot of women and minorities :(
posted by emptythought at 9:30 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
The few people i've met like this seem to think that he not only doesn't know how to get anything done, but would propose things so ridiculous and fucked up that congress would just shoot them down, or they would be illegal and impossible to implement, etc. They think that Clinton would propose/try to implement bad things and know exactly how.
Is this stupid as fuck? Yea, but it's a bit more nuanced than "misogyny lol". They literally think Clinton is bad and too competent. They'd rather get 4 years of mired in nothing really getting done than more war in the middle east/whatever is their argument.
The worse thing is all the smart people i know who flat out refuse to vote at all this time around because they won't be "forced to pick between two options that are both garbage". That group includes a lot of women and minorities :(
posted by emptythought at 9:30 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
they won't be "forced to pick between two options that are both garbage".
...my answer to this is "So you'll let someone else choose for you?"
posted by Mooski at 9:32 AM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
...my answer to this is "So you'll let someone else choose for you?"
posted by Mooski at 9:32 AM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
Emptythought, I know a lot of people in that same category. It's hard for me to grit my teeth and not say anything in response to the sanctimonious posts about "leading a change through voting [their] conscious" (unlike all those sad people who are forced by The Establishment to vote for terrible people), but I've learned that it's pointless to argue.
posted by Superplin at 9:34 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Superplin at 9:34 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
But this is based on the premise that Trump is wired like most normal people and actually experiences emotions such as shame, remorse and regret. "I didn't study for my exams! I hope noone finds out how underqualified I am, because if someone does, that will be so EMBARRASSING!"
But, as should be painfully evident by now, Trump does not experience any of those emotions (just like he is incapable of feeling empathy). So, no stage fright and also no imposter syndrome.
I was thinking about this and I think the thing is he does feel embarrassment, he just doesn't feel shame. He does NOT like to be shown up in front of other people, especially by women, but he never, ever feels badly about what he's done or who he's hurt, only angry that other people don't think he's great. This means that he blusters and tries to brag his way through stuff and it doesn't occur to him that he's underqualified because he actually doesn't understand that the problem might be him and not everyone else so he just gets more and more angry and lashes out at more and more people but he never, ever looks inward.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:36 AM on June 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
But, as should be painfully evident by now, Trump does not experience any of those emotions (just like he is incapable of feeling empathy). So, no stage fright and also no imposter syndrome.
I was thinking about this and I think the thing is he does feel embarrassment, he just doesn't feel shame. He does NOT like to be shown up in front of other people, especially by women, but he never, ever feels badly about what he's done or who he's hurt, only angry that other people don't think he's great. This means that he blusters and tries to brag his way through stuff and it doesn't occur to him that he's underqualified because he actually doesn't understand that the problem might be him and not everyone else so he just gets more and more angry and lashes out at more and more people but he never, ever looks inward.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:36 AM on June 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
Is this stupid as fuck? Yea, but it's a bit more nuanced than "misogyny lol". They literally think Clinton is bad and too competent.
"women are evil scheming manipulators" is not an especially nuanced form of misogyny
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:38 AM on June 15, 2016 [36 favorites]
"women are evil scheming manipulators" is not an especially nuanced form of misogyny
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:38 AM on June 15, 2016 [36 favorites]
GGW: A history of paint colors as DC Councilpepople.
Assuming that the Democrats win their seats in November (which is almost guaranteed), we'll be tied for the most "colorful" (albeit monochromatic) council in DC's history, with Silverman, White, White, and Gray on the council.
posted by schmod at 9:39 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Assuming that the Democrats win their seats in November (which is almost guaranteed), we'll be tied for the most "colorful" (albeit monochromatic) council in DC's history, with Silverman, White, White, and Gray on the council.
posted by schmod at 9:39 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
it doesn't occur to him that he's underqualified because he actually doesn't understand that the problem might be him and not everyone else so he just gets more and more angry and lashes out at more and more people but he never, ever looks inward.
I wholeheartedly agree with the whole comment, but am highlighting this part because it totally explains why he thinks of himself as his own best advisor.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 9:40 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wholeheartedly agree with the whole comment, but am highlighting this part because it totally explains why he thinks of himself as his own best advisor.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 9:40 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Regarding Trump's Base-
Trump's current ceiling of support seems to represent a large number of people that are deeply angry and the demographic that he seems to be doing best with are of course White Males.
Yes there is undeniably a current "Washington is corrupt" attitude that is strongly represented among Trump supporters and Sanders supporters and let's be honest Paul supporters in 2012.
Considering all 3 have radically different policies I'm wondering what are the underlying issues that seem to be driving both Paul in 2012 and Sanders and Trump in 2016 especially since there seems to be an overlap in support (at least on the internet) between what should be 3 mutually exclusive world views. The reality is that the support of Trump and support of Sanders appear to be overlapping venn diagram but it's really hard to tell exactly how big the overlap is. Is it as big as some Bernie bros have been threatening? Almost certainly not but it's definitely a non-zero factor.
Undeniably there is economic hardship in this country driving attraction to perceived "Washington outsiders" but I definitely think it's more complex than that because many of the economic issues that seem to be driving white male attraction to these candidates don't seem to be there to the same degree with many minority voter groups who typically have much higher unemployment than the national average (at least for Black and Latino voters). So while economic status is obviously a factor it doesn't appear to be telling the whole story as minority voters drove Clinton to victory over Sanders.
Age could be a big driver as well and at least on the Democratic side there seems to a definite generational divide between Bernie and Clinton. I'm not sure that we've seen evidence of there being as much of an generational divide regarding Trump supporters so like economic status I'm not sure that the generational gap is telling us the whole story.
One thing that seems to be a commonality among all three candidates is the high percentage of each candidate's support that seems to be young college age cisgender white males and older working-class cisgender white males.
It seems like some of the proposals that were extremely popular in regards to Sanders was his Free College campaign proposal. This obviously has a very specific target audience which seems to be the younger demographic (and probably their parents). It seems specifically related to the high cost of college education and the realization among many millenials that unlike what people have probably been telling them a college degree is not an instant ticket to prosperity. It still is much better than having only a High School diploma in terms of your economic future but the high upfront costs and challenges of paying off student debt when you emerge from college is starting to make many question whether college tuition is too damned high.
There is also the commonality between Sanders and Trump that free trade has hurt Americans, primarily blue collar workers, which is a compelling narrative especially if you were a blue collar employee in the 70s and 80s when it was still possible to support a family with a middle class lifestyle with a factory job. Loss of these jobs overseas as the US transforms into a post-industrial service economy has eroded much of this source of opportunity in the past and inflationary pressures have pretty much erased the rest. So factory workers are being told they need to go back to school and get retrained but the outcomes for many non-traditional students getting degrees are still challenging especially if your work history is spotty and you went to a for profit school that basically failed to actually provide needed job skills.
Trump of course has added a huge helping of nativism on top of this underlying tension, basically going into full blame the brown person for your problems mode. Immigrants with the possible exception of honorary white people are completely villified. This ugly ugly racism is compounded by a huge helping of sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc often in the guise of "Why are we all being so PC" or "Tumblr SJW" type language as if the bigots are the only ones with the courage to say what we all obviously feel but we are held back by "liberals" and "feminazis" and "white guilt" from saying what we really feel.
In a perverse way I also see the other side of this sort of privilege in the Bernie Bro and Libertarian types who basically deny any sort of idea that Straight White Males are playing the game of life on easy mode and that it's all about corporations and government colluding to keep the obviously talented guys from rising to the top like Galtian superheroes. Any attempt at talking about structural impediments for other groups tends to be dismissed or discounted. Stuff like "I had to struggle to get to this level" and "you just need to try harder, or maybe if you weren't so angry things would be easier for you" seems to flow out of these guys at the drop of a hat.
This sort of entitlement basically that you are owed the level of success that you expect to achieve seems really deeply rooted in white male culture and when there are challenges there is this really dangerous tendency of blaming someone else like minorities or the government or whatever especially if other people who are obviously of lower status (because they are women, or minorities, or whatever) are succeeding in any way.
Add in all the constant lies and conspiracy theories like "Liberals are going to take your guns away" or "Clinton is a neoliberal shill for the banks that will sell us out" there is some really dark stuff out there operating in this weird little venn overlap between the Bernie Bros and the Alt-Right Libertarians.
I do think that much of what Sanders has been saying especially early on in the campaign has been correct and we need to do something about economic equality in this country because it's making for a very bad situation for lots of people but I also think we absolutely have to begin deconstructing the awful sense of entitlement that seems to be ever present in white male culture because taking away that base of simmering anger is the best way to eliminate the threat to our democracy that demogogues like Trump represent.
posted by vuron at 9:41 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
Trump's current ceiling of support seems to represent a large number of people that are deeply angry and the demographic that he seems to be doing best with are of course White Males.
Yes there is undeniably a current "Washington is corrupt" attitude that is strongly represented among Trump supporters and Sanders supporters and let's be honest Paul supporters in 2012.
Considering all 3 have radically different policies I'm wondering what are the underlying issues that seem to be driving both Paul in 2012 and Sanders and Trump in 2016 especially since there seems to be an overlap in support (at least on the internet) between what should be 3 mutually exclusive world views. The reality is that the support of Trump and support of Sanders appear to be overlapping venn diagram but it's really hard to tell exactly how big the overlap is. Is it as big as some Bernie bros have been threatening? Almost certainly not but it's definitely a non-zero factor.
Undeniably there is economic hardship in this country driving attraction to perceived "Washington outsiders" but I definitely think it's more complex than that because many of the economic issues that seem to be driving white male attraction to these candidates don't seem to be there to the same degree with many minority voter groups who typically have much higher unemployment than the national average (at least for Black and Latino voters). So while economic status is obviously a factor it doesn't appear to be telling the whole story as minority voters drove Clinton to victory over Sanders.
Age could be a big driver as well and at least on the Democratic side there seems to a definite generational divide between Bernie and Clinton. I'm not sure that we've seen evidence of there being as much of an generational divide regarding Trump supporters so like economic status I'm not sure that the generational gap is telling us the whole story.
One thing that seems to be a commonality among all three candidates is the high percentage of each candidate's support that seems to be young college age cisgender white males and older working-class cisgender white males.
It seems like some of the proposals that were extremely popular in regards to Sanders was his Free College campaign proposal. This obviously has a very specific target audience which seems to be the younger demographic (and probably their parents). It seems specifically related to the high cost of college education and the realization among many millenials that unlike what people have probably been telling them a college degree is not an instant ticket to prosperity. It still is much better than having only a High School diploma in terms of your economic future but the high upfront costs and challenges of paying off student debt when you emerge from college is starting to make many question whether college tuition is too damned high.
There is also the commonality between Sanders and Trump that free trade has hurt Americans, primarily blue collar workers, which is a compelling narrative especially if you were a blue collar employee in the 70s and 80s when it was still possible to support a family with a middle class lifestyle with a factory job. Loss of these jobs overseas as the US transforms into a post-industrial service economy has eroded much of this source of opportunity in the past and inflationary pressures have pretty much erased the rest. So factory workers are being told they need to go back to school and get retrained but the outcomes for many non-traditional students getting degrees are still challenging especially if your work history is spotty and you went to a for profit school that basically failed to actually provide needed job skills.
Trump of course has added a huge helping of nativism on top of this underlying tension, basically going into full blame the brown person for your problems mode. Immigrants with the possible exception of honorary white people are completely villified. This ugly ugly racism is compounded by a huge helping of sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc often in the guise of "Why are we all being so PC" or "Tumblr SJW" type language as if the bigots are the only ones with the courage to say what we all obviously feel but we are held back by "liberals" and "feminazis" and "white guilt" from saying what we really feel.
In a perverse way I also see the other side of this sort of privilege in the Bernie Bro and Libertarian types who basically deny any sort of idea that Straight White Males are playing the game of life on easy mode and that it's all about corporations and government colluding to keep the obviously talented guys from rising to the top like Galtian superheroes. Any attempt at talking about structural impediments for other groups tends to be dismissed or discounted. Stuff like "I had to struggle to get to this level" and "you just need to try harder, or maybe if you weren't so angry things would be easier for you" seems to flow out of these guys at the drop of a hat.
This sort of entitlement basically that you are owed the level of success that you expect to achieve seems really deeply rooted in white male culture and when there are challenges there is this really dangerous tendency of blaming someone else like minorities or the government or whatever especially if other people who are obviously of lower status (because they are women, or minorities, or whatever) are succeeding in any way.
Add in all the constant lies and conspiracy theories like "Liberals are going to take your guns away" or "Clinton is a neoliberal shill for the banks that will sell us out" there is some really dark stuff out there operating in this weird little venn overlap between the Bernie Bros and the Alt-Right Libertarians.
I do think that much of what Sanders has been saying especially early on in the campaign has been correct and we need to do something about economic equality in this country because it's making for a very bad situation for lots of people but I also think we absolutely have to begin deconstructing the awful sense of entitlement that seems to be ever present in white male culture because taking away that base of simmering anger is the best way to eliminate the threat to our democracy that demogogues like Trump represent.
posted by vuron at 9:41 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
a bit more nuanced than "misogyny lol". They literally think Clinton is bad and too competent.
You forgot the part where they think that because of misogyny.
As I said in a previous thread, and has been said by that super-long facebook thing that's going around, it is precisely because of Hillary's gender that people feel this way about her. For one thing, they over-scrutinize her and are hyper-critical in a way they don't do with male candidates. For another thing, yet again, what you're saying is that people assume that Hillary Clinton is actually Lady Macbeth. Which isn't the case, because as I'm sure you know, Lady Macbeth is a fictional character.
People going with their uninformed gut assuming that Hillary must be bad, like there just must be evidence out there that she's evil, somehow, boils down to misogyny. It's exactly as un-nuanced as "misogyny lol".
posted by Sara C. at 9:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [28 favorites]
You forgot the part where they think that because of misogyny.
As I said in a previous thread, and has been said by that super-long facebook thing that's going around, it is precisely because of Hillary's gender that people feel this way about her. For one thing, they over-scrutinize her and are hyper-critical in a way they don't do with male candidates. For another thing, yet again, what you're saying is that people assume that Hillary Clinton is actually Lady Macbeth. Which isn't the case, because as I'm sure you know, Lady Macbeth is a fictional character.
People going with their uninformed gut assuming that Hillary must be bad, like there just must be evidence out there that she's evil, somehow, boils down to misogyny. It's exactly as un-nuanced as "misogyny lol".
posted by Sara C. at 9:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [28 favorites]
They'd rather get 4 years of mired in nothing really getting done than more war in the middle east/whatever is their argument.
What a load of shit. The party of diplomacy with Iran and Cuba isn't going back into the Middle East without international consensus and a damn good reason.
posted by Talez at 9:50 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
What a load of shit. The party of diplomacy with Iran and Cuba isn't going back into the Middle East without international consensus and a damn good reason.
posted by Talez at 9:50 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Five People You Meet On Election-Year Social Media (at least MetaFilter saves me from two of them - and reduces the influence of a third)
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Arizona is weird
The 2nd Congressional District is extremely competitive probably because some of what should be in there is pushed into the safely D 3rd district.
The 7th of course is the safely D Phoenix district but it seems like the Arizona Republicans have largely pulled a trick out of the Texas Republicans playbook and diluted what would likely be a relatively strong position for Dems in the 9th.
I think there is no hope that the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th will become Democratic for the foreseeable future baring annexation of Arizona into Nuevo Aztlan by Mexico.
posted by vuron at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
The 2nd Congressional District is extremely competitive probably because some of what should be in there is pushed into the safely D 3rd district.
The 7th of course is the safely D Phoenix district but it seems like the Arizona Republicans have largely pulled a trick out of the Texas Republicans playbook and diluted what would likely be a relatively strong position for Dems in the 9th.
I think there is no hope that the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th will become Democratic for the foreseeable future baring annexation of Arizona into Nuevo Aztlan by Mexico.
posted by vuron at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dan Rather: I can see Trump winning, and Clinton backers should be really worried
posted by bukvich at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bukvich at 9:58 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
> 37-fucking-% of America might vote for a raving bigoted elitist imbecile. I don't care if the dems take it in a landslide. The fact that this loon can get anything over a tiny bigoted fraction of the vote is a full-on existential threat to the republic.
This is the most annoying thing about this election. Many people will think, "God, I can't vote for that Trump jackass, can I? Yet if I don't I'm handing the election to Hillary!" Hillary Clinton is probably the candidate least able to tug loyal GOP voters to the proper side of their cognitive dissonance.
You can see this whenever a prominent Republican announces they won't be voting for Trump. When Jeb made his announcement on Facebook, the replies were overwhelmingly — like 19 out of every 20 — people saying "shame on you, Jeb, for helping THAT WOMAN become president."
This is a litmus test. Any otherwise reasonable person who is more afraid of a Clinton presidency than a Trump presidency is delusional. Sadly, the right wing noise machine has had decades of practice taking each thing in Hillary's "negatives" column and inflating it to the point where it alone would disqualify her from the presidency. She's their Emmanuel Goldstein, even more so than Obama himself. *
In a typical election year, this would at least be ordinary behavior, in the same way that people took the narrow differences between Bernie and Hillary and made them out to be gigantic, crucial things. That's what you do during an election. But, then, in a typical election year, both candidates would be level-headed people, and the important distinction would be one of policy, not temperament. Right-wing media is not equipped to say, "well, policies are important, but it's even more important that the president not be a Greg Stillson type who gets us all killed," and even if they wanted to they wouldn't be able to pivot before November.
I hope exit pollsters are smart enough to ask people whether they were voting for Trump or against Hillary. I do think the distinction is important. The former group, the Trump die-hards, are the would-be authoritarians we need to be seriously worried about. The rest are still a problem, but at least they're a known quantity, and maybe this election will teach us something about how they can most effectively be deprogrammed.
* This is not Hillary's problem. Hillary has some baggage, like any candidate, but it's not her fault that some assholes somehow see her as more corrupt than Nixon.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:00 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is the most annoying thing about this election. Many people will think, "God, I can't vote for that Trump jackass, can I? Yet if I don't I'm handing the election to Hillary!" Hillary Clinton is probably the candidate least able to tug loyal GOP voters to the proper side of their cognitive dissonance.
You can see this whenever a prominent Republican announces they won't be voting for Trump. When Jeb made his announcement on Facebook, the replies were overwhelmingly — like 19 out of every 20 — people saying "shame on you, Jeb, for helping THAT WOMAN become president."
This is a litmus test. Any otherwise reasonable person who is more afraid of a Clinton presidency than a Trump presidency is delusional. Sadly, the right wing noise machine has had decades of practice taking each thing in Hillary's "negatives" column and inflating it to the point where it alone would disqualify her from the presidency. She's their Emmanuel Goldstein, even more so than Obama himself. *
In a typical election year, this would at least be ordinary behavior, in the same way that people took the narrow differences between Bernie and Hillary and made them out to be gigantic, crucial things. That's what you do during an election. But, then, in a typical election year, both candidates would be level-headed people, and the important distinction would be one of policy, not temperament. Right-wing media is not equipped to say, "well, policies are important, but it's even more important that the president not be a Greg Stillson type who gets us all killed," and even if they wanted to they wouldn't be able to pivot before November.
I hope exit pollsters are smart enough to ask people whether they were voting for Trump or against Hillary. I do think the distinction is important. The former group, the Trump die-hards, are the would-be authoritarians we need to be seriously worried about. The rest are still a problem, but at least they're a known quantity, and maybe this election will teach us something about how they can most effectively be deprogrammed.
* This is not Hillary's problem. Hillary has some baggage, like any candidate, but it's not her fault that some assholes somehow see her as more corrupt than Nixon.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:00 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
The party of diplomacy with Iran and Cuba isn't going back into the Middle East without international consensus and a damn good reason.
Yeah, I don't think any Democrat is particularly trustworthy on that front- Politico: Obama ruled out new calls for missile strikes in Syria (3/16)
Secretary of State John Kerry has, over the course of the past year, asked President Barack Obama to launch missiles at specific regime targets in Syria to “send a message” to Bashar Assad, according to an extensive interview with Obama published Thursday. Obama has not been moved, nor amused.
“Oh, another proposal?” Obama exclaimed to his secretary of state after Kerry presented him with a list of options to further pressure the Assad regime, according to a report by The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, indicating that the president had grown weary of the suggestions.
[...]
Vice President Joe Biden — who is said to be leery of deeper engagement in Syria — has told Kerry privately, according to the report, “John, remember Vietnam? Remember how that started?” Obama laid down the law during a National Security Council meeting at the Pentagon in December, declaring that only Secretary of Defense Ash Carter should bring him proposals for military action (i.e., not Kerry).
***
This is John Kerry, of all people. John antiwar Swiftboated-slandered Kerry.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:01 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I don't think any Democrat is particularly trustworthy on that front- Politico: Obama ruled out new calls for missile strikes in Syria (3/16)
Secretary of State John Kerry has, over the course of the past year, asked President Barack Obama to launch missiles at specific regime targets in Syria to “send a message” to Bashar Assad, according to an extensive interview with Obama published Thursday. Obama has not been moved, nor amused.
“Oh, another proposal?” Obama exclaimed to his secretary of state after Kerry presented him with a list of options to further pressure the Assad regime, according to a report by The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, indicating that the president had grown weary of the suggestions.
[...]
Vice President Joe Biden — who is said to be leery of deeper engagement in Syria — has told Kerry privately, according to the report, “John, remember Vietnam? Remember how that started?” Obama laid down the law during a National Security Council meeting at the Pentagon in December, declaring that only Secretary of Defense Ash Carter should bring him proposals for military action (i.e., not Kerry).
***
This is John Kerry, of all people. John antiwar Swiftboated-slandered Kerry.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:01 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think most of the "ugh Trump is obviously going to win, there's nothing anyone can do" folks in my social media are Sad, Sad Boys. The narrative seems to be that Hillary is unelectable for Reasons, and since Bernie failed to secure the nomination, Trump will win.
(Sometimes the Reasons are rooted in something akin to facts, like certain poll numbers interpreted in certain ways, but more often the assumption is that right-wing smears about the Clintons from the early 90s are true, or just a nebulous feeling of badness that is clearly sexism)
posted by Sara C. at 10:01 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
(Sometimes the Reasons are rooted in something akin to facts, like certain poll numbers interpreted in certain ways, but more often the assumption is that right-wing smears about the Clintons from the early 90s are true, or just a nebulous feeling of badness that is clearly sexism)
posted by Sara C. at 10:01 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Happy Birthday Donald Trump – Hindu Sena cuts cake for ‘messiah against Islamic terror’
posted by bardophile at 10:02 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by bardophile at 10:02 AM on June 15, 2016
This is John Kerry, of all people. John antiwar Swiftboated-slandered Kerry.
There's a big difference between launching a long range missile and putting American boots on the ground for a decade.
posted by Talez at 10:04 AM on June 15, 2016
There's a big difference between launching a long range missile and putting American boots on the ground for a decade.
posted by Talez at 10:04 AM on June 15, 2016
I don't ever watch news and I even try to avoid listening to NPR around my daughter but if she was a couple years older I would totally be a Woke Daughter Haver.
At least I keep almost all of my political on Metafilter instead of places like Twitter or Facebook because seriously who has time for that shit.
posted by vuron at 10:05 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
At least I keep almost all of my political on Metafilter instead of places like Twitter or Facebook because seriously who has time for that shit.
posted by vuron at 10:05 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Trump could win!"
Yes, as long as Trump is running for president, he has a non-zero chance of winning. He will most assuredly take a number of states and bank electoral votes. Hillary could stumble. The threats of Assange and whatever that oilprice.com thing is could come to pass with truly damaging info that somehow slipped passed the GOP investigators. The Bernie or Busters really could be a significant number and bollox the election. And, perhaps most improbably, Trump might finally get a clue about what being "presidential" looks like.
And that's why we must remain vigilant and not sleep on Trump and the GOP.
However... no one should panic. Sam Wang has Hillary at 65%, but he also has her at a +3.5 point swing (IOW, the total amount of vote Trump needs to take away from her). Those numbers, at this point, are good. She's in a good starting position.
Don't panic. Remain vigilant. But do not panic.
posted by dw at 10:06 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yes, as long as Trump is running for president, he has a non-zero chance of winning. He will most assuredly take a number of states and bank electoral votes. Hillary could stumble. The threats of Assange and whatever that oilprice.com thing is could come to pass with truly damaging info that somehow slipped passed the GOP investigators. The Bernie or Busters really could be a significant number and bollox the election. And, perhaps most improbably, Trump might finally get a clue about what being "presidential" looks like.
And that's why we must remain vigilant and not sleep on Trump and the GOP.
However... no one should panic. Sam Wang has Hillary at 65%, but he also has her at a +3.5 point swing (IOW, the total amount of vote Trump needs to take away from her). Those numbers, at this point, are good. She's in a good starting position.
Don't panic. Remain vigilant. But do not panic.
posted by dw at 10:06 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
There's a big difference between launching a long range missile and putting American boots on the ground for a decade.There's plenty of room for both of those things to be bad.
posted by schmod at 10:06 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't ever watch news and I even try to avoid listening to NPR around my daughter but if she was a couple years older I would totally be a Woke Daughter Haver.
The joke with the Woke Daughter Haver is that generally the tweets that came from those people tended to seem very made up and were attributed to increasingly young children, as parodied by Ezekiel Kweku (aka @theshrillest).
You should definitely have woke kids though.
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:12 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
The joke with the Woke Daughter Haver is that generally the tweets that came from those people tended to seem very made up and were attributed to increasingly young children, as parodied by Ezekiel Kweku (aka @theshrillest).
You should definitely have woke kids though.
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:12 AM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Trump had promised Putin, for example, that he would not honor the mutual defense clause of NATO in exchange for intelligence leaks that delivered him the presidency.
So, a western fascist making a secret deal with the leader of Russia to carve up Eastern Europe?
that would never happen
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:13 AM on June 15, 2016 [13 favorites]
So, a western fascist making a secret deal with the leader of Russia to carve up Eastern Europe?
that would never happen
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:13 AM on June 15, 2016 [13 favorites]
Dan Rather's career went National when he was accidentally the first on the scene at the JFK Assassination, so he is probably deeply committed to "anything can happen". And after the Right Wing Blogosphere got him discredited on his big Bush Jr. expose* (which is why he's now the anchor of a minor cable channel owned by Mark Cuban), he's more likely to overestimate than underestimate right-wing wackos.
*which I still insist was probably true but the "source" thought it was a good idea to reconstruct old documents he'd seen that have since been totally destroyed.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:16 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
*which I still insist was probably true but the "source" thought it was a good idea to reconstruct old documents he'd seen that have since been totally destroyed.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:16 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
In regards to Syria, it's hard to see any option that isn't bad.
Let Assad kill civilians, let ISIS kill civilians, kill people ourselves with drones and missiles, let Russia take the lead role, let Iran take the lead role, etc.
Tons of options all of them absolutely shit because we've been forced by decades of foreign policy to more or less maintain completely artificial boundaries in the Middle East and prop up a series of horrible dictators because it was in our economic and geo-political interests.
Clinton could be an absolute angel and she's still going to inherit a fucking mess in Syria because there are absolutely no good options short of inventing a time machine and going back and dope slapping a ton of people.
posted by vuron at 10:16 AM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
Let Assad kill civilians, let ISIS kill civilians, kill people ourselves with drones and missiles, let Russia take the lead role, let Iran take the lead role, etc.
Tons of options all of them absolutely shit because we've been forced by decades of foreign policy to more or less maintain completely artificial boundaries in the Middle East and prop up a series of horrible dictators because it was in our economic and geo-political interests.
Clinton could be an absolute angel and she's still going to inherit a fucking mess in Syria because there are absolutely no good options short of inventing a time machine and going back and dope slapping a ton of people.
posted by vuron at 10:16 AM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
Happy Birthday Donald Trump – Hindu Sena cuts cake for ‘messiah against Islamic terror’
Globalization is a helluva drug.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:19 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Globalization is a helluva drug.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:19 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
In regards to Syria, it's hard to see any option that isn't bad.
Let Assad kill civilians, let ISIS kill civilians, kill people ourselves with drones and missiles, let Russia take the lead role, let Iran take the lead role, etc.
Yes, that.
Bernie said he'd continue to use drones. Hillary will probably stay the course with the intervention they have been doing. Trump will just bomb every ISIS stronghold he can until he's out of bombers and Tomahawks, damn the civilians.
It seems the left's (and the libertarians') best answer to Syria and ISIS is to just let them kill each other, it's not our problem. We've tried that. Bosnia. Rwanda. Bosnia shambled into the slow-motion civil wars of the 1990s. Rwanda ended up being the trigger for a pan-African war that ultimately killed hundreds of thousands and exacerbated the spread of HIV across sub-Saharan Africa.
Sometimes, we will have to intervene. Sometimes, we will go to war. What we should push for is intervention that saves lives, not economic interests. Intervening in Syria, where the army and some rebel groups have indiscriminately targeted innocents and together have led to this mass flight of refugees into Europe, may be one. Invading Iraq, in retrospect, doesn't look like one.
But every American president has intervened militarily since William Henry Harrison. To expect that Bernie, or even Jill Stein, wouldn't do it is gainsaying American history and how our foreign policy works.
posted by dw at 10:27 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
Let Assad kill civilians, let ISIS kill civilians, kill people ourselves with drones and missiles, let Russia take the lead role, let Iran take the lead role, etc.
Yes, that.
Bernie said he'd continue to use drones. Hillary will probably stay the course with the intervention they have been doing. Trump will just bomb every ISIS stronghold he can until he's out of bombers and Tomahawks, damn the civilians.
It seems the left's (and the libertarians') best answer to Syria and ISIS is to just let them kill each other, it's not our problem. We've tried that. Bosnia. Rwanda. Bosnia shambled into the slow-motion civil wars of the 1990s. Rwanda ended up being the trigger for a pan-African war that ultimately killed hundreds of thousands and exacerbated the spread of HIV across sub-Saharan Africa.
Sometimes, we will have to intervene. Sometimes, we will go to war. What we should push for is intervention that saves lives, not economic interests. Intervening in Syria, where the army and some rebel groups have indiscriminately targeted innocents and together have led to this mass flight of refugees into Europe, may be one. Invading Iraq, in retrospect, doesn't look like one.
But every American president has intervened militarily since William Henry Harrison. To expect that Bernie, or even Jill Stein, wouldn't do it is gainsaying American history and how our foreign policy works.
posted by dw at 10:27 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
Sam Sanders' new article about the end of Bernie Sanders campaign.
Maybe there's nothing Sanders could have done to overcome the Clinton machine on the ground. But University of Vermont professor Huck Gutman, a close friend of Sanders and his former chief of staff, seemed to predict the problems Sanders would have with minority voters in an interview with NPR soon after Sanders launched his presidential campaign.
"One of the differences between Bernie and so many other people who are liberals," Gutman said, "is that Bernie's central concern has always been with the condition of what he calls working-class families. He is consumed by the need for economic justice."
Even as Gutman pointed out Sanders' track record of support for other progressive causes, he said of Sanders, "His central concerns have never been war or civil rights or gay rights or women's rights."
posted by SarahElizaP at 10:28 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe there's nothing Sanders could have done to overcome the Clinton machine on the ground. But University of Vermont professor Huck Gutman, a close friend of Sanders and his former chief of staff, seemed to predict the problems Sanders would have with minority voters in an interview with NPR soon after Sanders launched his presidential campaign.
"One of the differences between Bernie and so many other people who are liberals," Gutman said, "is that Bernie's central concern has always been with the condition of what he calls working-class families. He is consumed by the need for economic justice."
Even as Gutman pointed out Sanders' track record of support for other progressive causes, he said of Sanders, "His central concerns have never been war or civil rights or gay rights or women's rights."
posted by SarahElizaP at 10:28 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
ABC: Seven in 10 Americans have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump, according to the results of the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out Wednesday, which also finds Hillary Clinton's image slipping, albeit less severely. Overall, both candidates are the least popular presumptive nominees for a major party in the poll's history, dating back more than three decades, to 1984.
A full 70 percent said they hold an unfavorable opinion of the presumptive Republican nominee, an increase of 10 points since the May survey. A little less than one in three, 29 percent, said they have a favorable view of Trump, down from 37 percent who said the same last month.
Dump him, Republicans. He's only getting less popular. The only people who benefit from keeping him in this race is the Clinton campaign.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:28 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
A full 70 percent said they hold an unfavorable opinion of the presumptive Republican nominee, an increase of 10 points since the May survey. A little less than one in three, 29 percent, said they have a favorable view of Trump, down from 37 percent who said the same last month.
Dump him, Republicans. He's only getting less popular. The only people who benefit from keeping him in this race is the Clinton campaign.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:28 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
They're saving it for when Mitt Romney runs up on him with a steel chair at the convention.
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:33 AM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:33 AM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump goes from implying Obama's a treasonous ISIS agent to tweeting Breitbart conspiracy theories explicitly saying it.
posted by chris24 at 10:34 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by chris24 at 10:34 AM on June 15, 2016
Keep him, Republicans. He's only getting less popular. The only people who benefit from keeping him in this race is the Clinton campaign.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:34 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 10:34 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
I knew he was going to latch on to that Breitbart story as soon as I saw it. He probably had it before publication. It's BS of course put it plays into what a lot of Republicans want to believe. They aren't going to read it close enough to see it never says what Breitbart says it does.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:38 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 10:38 AM on June 15, 2016
Seems relevant to this thread and the election: Democrats have started a Senate filibuster over gun control.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:39 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:39 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
And here I was wondering why it's always Republicans who filibuster.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:40 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 10:40 AM on June 15, 2016
Democrats
Spines
Give Zero Fucks Obama
MSM people like Anderson Cooper calling out hypocrisy
Long form investigative journalism being hidden in a funny package
What is this strange universe I have found myself in
People have been assuring me that we are in the darkest timeline.
posted by vuron at 10:45 AM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Spines
Give Zero Fucks Obama
MSM people like Anderson Cooper calling out hypocrisy
Long form investigative journalism being hidden in a funny package
What is this strange universe I have found myself in
People have been assuring me that we are in the darkest timeline.
posted by vuron at 10:45 AM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
From scaryblackdeath's link:
Oh, also, the process described should be available to anyone who's been put on the watch list for any reason. It would be quite silly if you suspected you were wrongly on the watch list for some other reason but had to try to buy a gun just to receive due process of law.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:45 AM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
The NRA formally backed an approach favored by Senate Republicans that would allow a judge to arbitrate people who mistakenly end up on the terrorism watch list and want to buy guns, while Democrats prefer giving the Justice Department such authority. Both bills were voted down by the Senate last December.God help me for saying this, but as long as it's not a rubber-stamp judge like the FISA court, I prefer the Republicans' approach. If the executive branch puts people on the list, another branch of government should review its legitimacy.
Oh, also, the process described should be available to anyone who's been put on the watch list for any reason. It would be quite silly if you suspected you were wrongly on the watch list for some other reason but had to try to buy a gun just to receive due process of law.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:45 AM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
What happens to a candidate's business interests if they get elected President? Aren't they run at arms-length? If the Trump empire is a house of cards built on sand, what will happen to it if he's not there to spin the plates?
I can't find it, but I remember reading a piece which said there's actually no legal barrier to prevent a President from running their business themselves after they've been elected. Trump has said he's going to let his kids take over, but who knows if he'd stick to that.
posted by homunculus at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't find it, but I remember reading a piece which said there's actually no legal barrier to prevent a President from running their business themselves after they've been elected. Trump has said he's going to let his kids take over, but who knows if he'd stick to that.
posted by homunculus at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
And Breitbart is basically Pravda for Trump, with staffers saying Trump was paying for good coverage.
posted by chris24 at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Senate Democrats are doing something? This really is the weirdest election year.
posted by rorgy at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by rorgy at 10:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Matt Valentine at Politico: “The Most Political Gun in America”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:47 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 10:47 AM on June 15, 2016
I was ready to dismiss a talking filibuster as symbolic but it looks like they are putting on some actual pressure. A bill might be possible, though probably only for the watch list issue.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:48 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 10:48 AM on June 15, 2016
...I'm calling it: Trump will drop out of the race by July 5 at the latest. He will blame the unfair media and political correctness, allude to some wack-ass conspiracy involving Black Lives Matter and/or Hezbollah, and go to his grave telling everyone he knows that if he had stayed in the race, he would’ve beaten Clinton. Remember: It’s better to be a quitter than a loser, because a quitter can always say he would’ve been a winner. (NOTE: Do not share this fact with your children.)
Exactly what Perot did in similar circumstances -- the last non-politican candidate with a serious chance of winning, that later faded.
posted by msalt at 10:49 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Exactly what Perot did in similar circumstances -- the last non-politican candidate with a serious chance of winning, that later faded.
posted by msalt at 10:49 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Keep him, Republicans. He's only getting less popular. The only people who benefit from keeping him in this race is the Clinton campaign.
While the Clinton campaign may benefit, his continued candidacy only emboldens the racists, the fascists, the people filled with violent hatred. See the Storify that Atom Eyes posted. The more of the rallies that go on, the greater the likelihood of violence.
posted by Existential Dread at 10:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
While the Clinton campaign may benefit, his continued candidacy only emboldens the racists, the fascists, the people filled with violent hatred. See the Storify that Atom Eyes posted. The more of the rallies that go on, the greater the likelihood of violence.
posted by Existential Dread at 10:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
dw I think you're (possibly maliciously) distorting the position of the Left here.
I'm not an isolationist and I don't think many on the Left are. I think intervention can be a good thing, I think Bill Clinton made he right call in Bosnia for example.
Where I run into problems is that I can't support intervention for its own sake, or for the sake of salving our national conscience. Intervention needs to have a clear objective **AND** a clear means of achieving that objective.
In the case of the Islamic State the first is obvious, but the second seems just about completely unattainable.
Our options are limited to either bombing (via drones or airstrikes), or sending in the army. The latter is going to not just cost more, it'll cost lives and doing it right will require a fairly massive military presence.
And I'm not sure either one will accomplish much good.
The Syrian civil war is even worse than IS in terms of a morass wrapped in quicksand. Intervening in a civil war is always difficult, and the US has a terrible track record for successful (in terms of producing actual good results) interventions in the middle east.
Show me a path forward, a plan that looks like it might actually accomplish something, and I could support intervention in one or both situations (not that I think you can really address one, since the two issues are deeply intertwined). But right now it doesn't look like there's really a plan of any sort except for the failed send in drones and bomb semi-random people while hoping that somehow it all works out plan.
I think if we can't come up with better than that we'd accomplish more good by limiting ourselves to shipping in food and medical supplies.
posted by sotonohito at 10:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm not an isolationist and I don't think many on the Left are. I think intervention can be a good thing, I think Bill Clinton made he right call in Bosnia for example.
Where I run into problems is that I can't support intervention for its own sake, or for the sake of salving our national conscience. Intervention needs to have a clear objective **AND** a clear means of achieving that objective.
In the case of the Islamic State the first is obvious, but the second seems just about completely unattainable.
Our options are limited to either bombing (via drones or airstrikes), or sending in the army. The latter is going to not just cost more, it'll cost lives and doing it right will require a fairly massive military presence.
And I'm not sure either one will accomplish much good.
The Syrian civil war is even worse than IS in terms of a morass wrapped in quicksand. Intervening in a civil war is always difficult, and the US has a terrible track record for successful (in terms of producing actual good results) interventions in the middle east.
Show me a path forward, a plan that looks like it might actually accomplish something, and I could support intervention in one or both situations (not that I think you can really address one, since the two issues are deeply intertwined). But right now it doesn't look like there's really a plan of any sort except for the failed send in drones and bomb semi-random people while hoping that somehow it all works out plan.
I think if we can't come up with better than that we'd accomplish more good by limiting ourselves to shipping in food and medical supplies.
posted by sotonohito at 10:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
The more of the rallies that go on, the greater the likelihood of violence.
Likelihood, nothing - there has been violence.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:56 AM on June 15, 2016
Likelihood, nothing - there has been violence.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:56 AM on June 15, 2016
I do think that much of what Sanders has been saying especially early on in the campaign has been correct and we need to do something about economic equality in this country because it's making for a very bad situation for lots of people but I also think we absolutely have to begin deconstructing the awful sense of entitlement that seems to be ever present in white male culture because taking away that base of simmering anger is the best way to eliminate the threat to our democracy that demogogues like Trump represent.
This election is showing the slow fissures between economic and social privilege in this country, which are closely aligned, but used to be more closely aligned. And it’s making people angry. Not every candidates’s supporters are angry, but
--among angry Clinton supporters, I mostly see people whose social privilege is less than their economic privilege. They’re not rich or even well-off, but they social oppression as a bigger factor in their problems than economic oppression. They’re black voters who have been annoyed by Sanders’ dismissive attitude toward the south, women who see in the Sanders/Clinton race echoes of their working lives (woman works hard to carefully build something thoughtful and credible, man swoops in and gets showered with praise for presenting a similar plan in a totally half-assed and unworkable way).
--among angry Sanders supporters, I mostly see people whose social privilege is greater than their economic privilege. This is mostly younger people, mostly white, mostly male, but not entirely, who were born middle or working class but are currently broke, don’t think it will get any better, and are pissed about it. They’re not from families where nobody has ever been to college, high-school graduation is low, and drugs and violence are plagues. They’re people for whom it’s economically tough to go to college, but not socially/culturally expected. They expected to be doing better financially than they are.
--and among angry Trump supporters I mostly see people who are pissed to see their privilege (white, male, economic or all three) threatened in any way.
Naturally all three candidates have supporters — have a majority of supporters — who are not angry, or angry in a way that is appropriate and proportionate and shared among both injustices they face and injustices others face.
I really only see a kind of raaaage about a competing candidate from someone who feels they really deserve better than they're getting in this country. And many people do deserve better than they're getting. But it's not how every underprivileged person feels. Many people who are poor or discriminated against in this country have never expected the world to be any better for them than it is. They want it to be, they're working toward that, but they dont have this sense of entitlement about it. The anger comes from people who not only expected the world to be better for them than it is, but are angry about the ways the world is unjust to them and myopoic about how it's unjust to others.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:04 AM on June 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
This election is showing the slow fissures between economic and social privilege in this country, which are closely aligned, but used to be more closely aligned. And it’s making people angry. Not every candidates’s supporters are angry, but
--among angry Clinton supporters, I mostly see people whose social privilege is less than their economic privilege. They’re not rich or even well-off, but they social oppression as a bigger factor in their problems than economic oppression. They’re black voters who have been annoyed by Sanders’ dismissive attitude toward the south, women who see in the Sanders/Clinton race echoes of their working lives (woman works hard to carefully build something thoughtful and credible, man swoops in and gets showered with praise for presenting a similar plan in a totally half-assed and unworkable way).
--among angry Sanders supporters, I mostly see people whose social privilege is greater than their economic privilege. This is mostly younger people, mostly white, mostly male, but not entirely, who were born middle or working class but are currently broke, don’t think it will get any better, and are pissed about it. They’re not from families where nobody has ever been to college, high-school graduation is low, and drugs and violence are plagues. They’re people for whom it’s economically tough to go to college, but not socially/culturally expected. They expected to be doing better financially than they are.
--and among angry Trump supporters I mostly see people who are pissed to see their privilege (white, male, economic or all three) threatened in any way.
Naturally all three candidates have supporters — have a majority of supporters — who are not angry, or angry in a way that is appropriate and proportionate and shared among both injustices they face and injustices others face.
I really only see a kind of raaaage about a competing candidate from someone who feels they really deserve better than they're getting in this country. And many people do deserve better than they're getting. But it's not how every underprivileged person feels. Many people who are poor or discriminated against in this country have never expected the world to be any better for them than it is. They want it to be, they're working toward that, but they dont have this sense of entitlement about it. The anger comes from people who not only expected the world to be better for them than it is, but are angry about the ways the world is unjust to them and myopoic about how it's unjust to others.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:04 AM on June 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
woman works hard to carefully build something thoughtful and credible, man swoops in and gets showered with praise for presenting a similar plan in a totally half-assed and unworkable way.
This describes really well something that's been bugging me about the Dem race but hadn't been able to articulate. Thanks.
posted by une_heure_pleine at 11:13 AM on June 15, 2016 [23 favorites]
This describes really well something that's been bugging me about the Dem race but hadn't been able to articulate. Thanks.
posted by une_heure_pleine at 11:13 AM on June 15, 2016 [23 favorites]
Trump goes from implying Obama's a treasonous ISIS agent to tweeting Breitbart conspiracy theories explicitly saying it.
The hilarrible part is that reporting on the implication is the reason he threw a tantrum over the WaPo. Amazing.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:22 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
The hilarrible part is that reporting on the implication is the reason he threw a tantrum over the WaPo. Amazing.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:22 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
@reidepstein: Trump reiterates that he'll speak to Kim Jong-un. "Who the hell cares? I'll speak to anybody."
wut
posted by zombieflanders at 11:23 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
wut
posted by zombieflanders at 11:23 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Erik Loomis: Are Left-Populists Wrong About Political Campaigns?
So what are the lessons of a credible leftist campaign failing to win the primary? [...]posted by tonycpsu at 11:27 AM on June 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
1) No left-populist candidate can win the Democratic primary without African-American and Latino support. This is the biggest lesson and one that I found a lot of Bernie fans really defensive about. But it’s just the reality. No support in the black community, especially in the early states, no victory. It’s that simple. [...]
2) Campaigns can’t start in 2015. Hillary Clinton has basically been campaigning since 2005 and has fully been laying groundwork for this run since 2013. Whatever the next leftist primary candidate looks like, that person has to start a long time before the year before the election be make the inroads necessary to beat an entrenched candidate. [...]
3) People have to understand that just because all their friends support Bernie that means that really everyone supports Bernie except for sellouts and fools. We all talk to like-minded friends and family. It’s very easy to get in a bubble. The Democratic Party is a complex beast of a lot of different constituencies. The winner has to win most of those, not just me and my friends.
4) A better candidate. Let’s face it–Bernie Sanders wasn’t a great candidate in a lot of ways. [...]
5) Focus on the local and state level first. The worst part of the 2016 Democratic Primary was the intensive focus on personalities, how two politicians who have very similar positions on many issues are fundamentally different. Sanders’ “political revolution” was also pretty annoying because it assumed that the president could just change things and showed very little structural analysis. That’s a big problem. [...]
Telling someone "Fuck you!" is technically speaking to them I guess.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2016
all the smart people i know who flat out refuse to vote at all this time
This seems like a classic oxymoron. Smart people are going to make sure they vote in 2016, and that they turn out others to vote. Some elections matter hugely, and this is one of them.
posted by bearwife at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
This seems like a classic oxymoron. Smart people are going to make sure they vote in 2016, and that they turn out others to vote. Some elections matter hugely, and this is one of them.
posted by bearwife at 11:30 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
I missed the speech, but holy shit do the livetweets sound more insane than usual:
- Trump on Putin: "His nuclear is tippy-top from what I hear. you got to be careful, folks."
- Ominous Trump: "You see what's happening in Venezuela. We're getting very close to that"
- Trump complains that some state dinners are held in tents. "Looks like HELL," he says, and probably makes the tent-company owner rich.
- Trump: "The world is changing rapidly...and we’re going to stop it."
According to Daily Kos, former GOP Senator Larry Pressler is endorsing HRC and comparing Trump's rhetoric to Hitler's.
posted by bearwife at 11:33 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 11:33 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
People have been assuring me that we are in the darkest timeline.
Maybe it's the most darkly humorous timeline instead?
All I know is, my kid is at the age you start learning about government and this election is going to warp his perception of that into a shape soooo much different from what I learned.
posted by emjaybee at 11:34 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Maybe it's the most darkly humorous timeline instead?
All I know is, my kid is at the age you start learning about government and this election is going to warp his perception of that into a shape soooo much different from what I learned.
posted by emjaybee at 11:34 AM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh, wow. From tonycpsu's link I found this critique of Freddie deBoer, who's one of the popular intellectual sorts at the center of the "yay Bernie fuck Hillary" maelstrom. It articulates a lot about that movement which I've been increasingly feeling but haven't been able to put into words.
posted by rorgy at 11:36 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by rorgy at 11:36 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
This seems like a classic oxymoron. Smart people are going to make sure they vote in 2016, and that they turn out others to vote. Some elections matter hugely, and this is one of them.
At this point in my life, I've made peace with the fact that smart people make stupid decisions all the damn time.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:39 AM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
At this point in my life, I've made peace with the fact that smart people make stupid decisions all the damn time.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:39 AM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Refusing to support Hillary Clinton from any point on the democratic left and trying to persuade others not to do so, although this election presents one of the widest gaps between the parties of any presidential election in American history, can mean one of two things. One is that all of the horrors that would flow from at least four years of a President Trump almost certainly joined by 4 years of a Republican Congress are a price worth paying to “punish” the Democrats (note: it is not Democratic leaders who would actually bear the brunt of the punishment, but people of much less privilege). This is a monstrous position, in my view, given that the horrible things are certain and the speculation that the bad things would lead to better things implausible in the extreme, but if it’s your position at least own it. Conversely, you could privately believe that Sanders is right that President Clinton would be significantly better than President Trump, and you don’t actually want the latter to happen, but you feel comfortable publicly trying to persuade people not to support Clinton because you’re confident it will be ineffectual. In some ways, this is even worse. I mean, at least “heighten-the-contradictions” is an ethos. “I refuse to support Hillary Clinton as long as I’m sure I won’t matter” isn’t “principle”; it’s “utter wankdom.” If that’s your position, why bother writing about electoral politics at all? Just write in the only person who could ever be worthy of your vote — yourself — if you bother to vote at all, and be done with it.(from the aforementioned article)
posted by rorgy at 11:39 AM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
Is Libertarian Gary Johnson a factor in Clinton-Trump matchup?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:45 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:45 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bearwife, would you say that this election matters... bigly?
posted by Sara C. at 11:45 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 11:45 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
My vote is the most precious and pure thing that I possess, and that is why I'm saving it until marriage.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:46 AM on June 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
Trump: "The world is changing rapidly...and we’re going to stop it."
Why if that doesn't represent everything the Republican party has stood for in the past, let's say, 52 years, I don't know what does.
posted by zachlipton at 11:48 AM on June 15, 2016 [52 favorites]
Why if that doesn't represent everything the Republican party has stood for in the past, let's say, 52 years, I don't know what does.
posted by zachlipton at 11:48 AM on June 15, 2016 [52 favorites]
vuron: "People have been assuring me that we are in the darkest timeline."
It's not. Definitely, it is shitty in many ways. But I can think of a lot of ways it could get a lot worse.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's not. Definitely, it is shitty in many ways. But I can think of a lot of ways it could get a lot worse.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:51 AM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump: "The world is changing rapidly...and we’re going to stop it."
he sometimes does have a way of putting his finger right on what's on a lot of people's minds
but it's not possible - it never has been possible - maybe once in awhile someone might pull it off for a few years, but the consequences tend to be awful once the dam breaks
posted by pyramid termite at 11:52 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
he sometimes does have a way of putting his finger right on what's on a lot of people's minds
but it's not possible - it never has been possible - maybe once in awhile someone might pull it off for a few years, but the consequences tend to be awful once the dam breaks
posted by pyramid termite at 11:52 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson (R) has announced his support of HRC.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:53 AM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 11:53 AM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
I missed the speech, but holy shit do the livetweets sound more insane than usual
For what it's worth, Daniel Dale (Toronto Star) is saying the same thing.
"I'll run as a Republican," promises Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president.
posted by saturday_morning at 11:54 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
For what it's worth, Daniel Dale (Toronto Star) is saying the same thing.
"I'll run as a Republican," promises Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president.
posted by saturday_morning at 11:54 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Willam F. Buckley: "A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."
Trump: "The world is changing rapidly...and we’re going to stop it."
posted by paper chromatographologist at 11:56 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Trump: "The world is changing rapidly...and we’re going to stop it."
posted by paper chromatographologist at 11:56 AM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Dale survived years of Ford, but I think Trump has broken him: "How does the media even cover a speech like that? No 'Trump said X and Y' headline can do it justice. You need to show people like 12 Vines."
posted by maudlin at 11:58 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by maudlin at 11:58 AM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was just posting that Buckley quote before I saw you did.
posted by octothorpe at 11:59 AM on June 15, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 11:59 AM on June 15, 2016
Stephen Stills: "Stop, children, what's that sound?"
Diana Ross: "Stop! In the name of love."
Vanilla Ice: "Stop, collaborate, and listen."
posted by tonycpsu at 11:59 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Diana Ross: "Stop! In the name of love."
Vanilla Ice: "Stop, collaborate, and listen."
posted by tonycpsu at 11:59 AM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd say that Trump is a few tweets away from a full psychotic break, but he seems to have passed that point a long time back.
posted by sotonohito at 12:00 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sotonohito at 12:00 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder if Trump is still sleeping in his own bed every night, or if he's had to get used to strange new mattresses across the country. Sleep deprivation is torture, you know.
posted by maudlin at 12:02 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by maudlin at 12:02 PM on June 15, 2016
Here are Arne Carlson's comments on his Clinton endorsement.
posted by murphy slaw at 12:03 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by murphy slaw at 12:03 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Dale survived years of Ford, but I think Trump has broken him
It's true. The poor fellow. After this he deserves to cover the kittens-and-hot-chocolate beat for the rest of his days.
posted by saturday_morning at 12:07 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's true. The poor fellow. After this he deserves to cover the kittens-and-hot-chocolate beat for the rest of his days.
posted by saturday_morning at 12:07 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Willam F. Buckley: “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”
*Trump: “The world is changing rapidly...and we’re going to stop it.”
For maximum hilarity, it’s probably worth remembering that William F. Buckley described Trump as a demagogue and narcissist.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:09 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
*Trump: “The world is changing rapidly...and we’re going to stop it.”
For maximum hilarity, it’s probably worth remembering that William F. Buckley described Trump as a demagogue and narcissist.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:09 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's not. Definitely, it is shitty in many ways. But I can think of a lot of ways it could get a lot worse.
In the darkest timeline we never rejected Yahoo Serious and Bing Hitler never transmogrified back into Craig Ferguson.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:13 PM on June 15, 2016
In the darkest timeline we never rejected Yahoo Serious and Bing Hitler never transmogrified back into Craig Ferguson.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:13 PM on June 15, 2016
"Eventually, it's not going to survive, just so you understand," Trump says of the United States.
Which, as Jeet Heer notes, is not untrue, but it's a deeply weird thing to say.
posted by saturday_morning at 12:14 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Which, as Jeet Heer notes, is not untrue, but it's a deeply weird thing to say.
posted by saturday_morning at 12:14 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
On the lighter side: Donald Trump Has No Idea What Dogs Are
Bonus: Mitt Romney in a Nacho Libre costume beats up a luchador
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:14 PM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
As long as there’s somebody (or something) Trump doesn’t like, he can and will compare them to a dog. In particular, he has a strange fascination with people being “fired like a dog.” [several examples of Trump using "fired like a dog"]The article goes on to list tweets where Trump claim people "beg for money like dogs" and are "kicked out like dogs" as well as people who are dogs.
That’s not the end of Trump’s apparent confusion about our canine companions, either. He’s also fond of accusing former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney of “choking” like a dog in 2012, because dogs constantly crumble under pressure and have poor gag reflexes or something.
Bonus: Mitt Romney in a Nacho Libre costume beats up a luchador
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:14 PM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
it's hard to imagine one single thing that will stay the same in a universe where the trumpster becomes commander on cheif.
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:14 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:14 PM on June 15, 2016
Trump complains that some state dinners are held in tents. "Looks like HELL," he says, and probably makes the tent-company owner rich.
I'm now anxiously awaiting the announcement of Trump Tents.
posted by nubs at 12:15 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm now anxiously awaiting the announcement of Trump Tents.
posted by nubs at 12:15 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Honestly when I read live tweets of Trump speeches because I am not subjecting myself to actually watching them I begin to wonder if there is some sort of Organic Brain Disease going on with him because while he's always been prone to all sorts of weird verbal patterns the text of his speeches are just seeming more and more disjointed all the time.
He's still bulling his way through the speeches because this is still The Donald but it just seems like he's getting more and more disorganized in his speech patterns and while his arguments have never made logical sense they weren't as obviously confused and meandering.
The disorganized thoughts, the rambling, the clear lack of any sort of internal filter or impulse control despite the obvious negative consequences of following the course of action he's on just seem to suggest that there is something deeply off about him and many of them seem like their symptomatic about some sort of organic brain disease (which should be clear does not describe any sort of mental illness).
posted by vuron at 12:15 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
He's still bulling his way through the speeches because this is still The Donald but it just seems like he's getting more and more disorganized in his speech patterns and while his arguments have never made logical sense they weren't as obviously confused and meandering.
The disorganized thoughts, the rambling, the clear lack of any sort of internal filter or impulse control despite the obvious negative consequences of following the course of action he's on just seem to suggest that there is something deeply off about him and many of them seem like their symptomatic about some sort of organic brain disease (which should be clear does not describe any sort of mental illness).
posted by vuron at 12:15 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Dogs can't choke people because they have no opposable thumbs! Unless you are choking ON a dog?
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:15 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:15 PM on June 15, 2016
it's hard to imagine one single thing that will stay the same in a universe where the trumpster becomes commander on cheif
taco bowls?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2016
taco bowls?
posted by pyramid termite at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2016
"Eventually, it's not going to survive, just so you understand," Trump says of the United States.
Which, as Jeet Heer notes, is not untrue, but it's a deeply weird thing to say.
He's setting up his "fire sale of US assets" policy. "The country must go, folks! But we're going to get the best prices, absolutely the best. Yuge deals!"
posted by nubs at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Which, as Jeet Heer notes, is not untrue, but it's a deeply weird thing to say.
He's setting up his "fire sale of US assets" policy. "The country must go, folks! But we're going to get the best prices, absolutely the best. Yuge deals!"
posted by nubs at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Maybe he's more of a cat person
posted by saturday_morning at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by saturday_morning at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2016
Taco bowls would stay the best at trump plaza. Agreed.
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:19 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:19 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Holy fucking shit. I think he's losing what little it he had.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:19 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:19 PM on June 15, 2016
He’s still bulling his way through the speeches because this is still The Donald but it just seems like he’s getting more and more disorganized in his speech patterns and while his arguments have never made logical sense they weren't as obviously confused and meandering.
Perhaps realizing that being President might not be something Trump wants is finally forcing him to introspect. Perhaps what we are really seeing here is a human being beginning to develop a soul. He’s like Peter in The Fountainhead, discovering too late in life that he never wanted to be an architect but rather a painter, and now his effort has all been spent pursuing the wrong goal. (Clinton is Roark.)
posted by Going To Maine at 12:20 PM on June 15, 2016
Perhaps realizing that being President might not be something Trump wants is finally forcing him to introspect. Perhaps what we are really seeing here is a human being beginning to develop a soul. He’s like Peter in The Fountainhead, discovering too late in life that he never wanted to be an architect but rather a painter, and now his effort has all been spent pursuing the wrong goal. (Clinton is Roark.)
posted by Going To Maine at 12:20 PM on June 15, 2016
Just looking at the last few quotes, I got nothing, 'cept maybe the guy is just the GOP trying to move the Overton Window far enough into crazyland that they seem like straight arrows by comparison.
posted by Mooski at 12:20 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Mooski at 12:20 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Now I kinda want a web series where a dog wearing a bad suit and a bad orange toupee has lots of cute dogs dressed in various business outfits do all sorts of office work but inevitably one dog every week comes into the boardroom and looks sad as the Donald trump dog does the mocking "You're Fired!"
Now I feel kinda slimy
posted by vuron at 12:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Now I feel kinda slimy
posted by vuron at 12:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly when I read live tweets of Trump speeches because I am not subjecting myself to actually watching them I begin to wonder if there is some sort of Organic Brain Disease going on with him
i'm beginning to wonder if i can catch it by reading his tweets
posted by pyramid termite at 12:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
i'm beginning to wonder if i can catch it by reading his tweets
posted by pyramid termite at 12:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly when I read live tweets of Trump speeches because I am not subjecting myself to actually watching them I begin to wonder if there is some sort of Organic Brain Disease going on with him
Maybe he's more of a cat person
so, toxoplasmosis
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
Maybe he's more of a cat person
so, toxoplasmosis
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
no, trumplazamosis
posted by pyramid termite at 12:22 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 12:22 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
case closed, hit the showers
posted by saturday_morning at 12:22 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by saturday_morning at 12:22 PM on June 15, 2016
Going To Maine: "He’s like Peter in The Fountainhead"
More like Peter on Family Guy.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:23 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
More like Peter on Family Guy.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:23 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
The disorganized thoughts, the rambling, the clear lack of any sort of internal filter or impulse control despite the obvious negative consequences of following the course of action he's on just seem to suggest that there is something deeply off about him and many of them seem like their symptomatic about some sort of organic brain disease (which should be clear does not describe any sort of mental illness).
Trump's father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's 6 year before his death. I've seen speculation that Trump may be in the early stages of it himself, based on his mood, memory and syntax problems
posted by pocketfullofrye at 12:25 PM on June 15, 2016
Trump's father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's 6 year before his death. I've seen speculation that Trump may be in the early stages of it himself, based on his mood, memory and syntax problems
posted by pocketfullofrye at 12:25 PM on June 15, 2016
"Trump has finished his notably incoherent speech. It'll be deeply worrying to any Republican officials who watched."
"Deeply worrying." No shit! If they weren't collectively a morally-bankrupt set of power-mad cowards I'd almost feel sorry for them. Here's a pretty good photo of what I would imagine Paul Ryan feels like all the time these days.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:26 PM on June 15, 2016
"Deeply worrying." No shit! If they weren't collectively a morally-bankrupt set of power-mad cowards I'd almost feel sorry for them. Here's a pretty good photo of what I would imagine Paul Ryan feels like all the time these days.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:26 PM on June 15, 2016
If I was an operative in the RNC, I'd be doing everything I could to dig up some sort of medical disqualification for Trump's candidacy. It's one of the only options remaining for the Republican party to come out of this something close to intact. "What a shame, Trump is TOO ILL to continue on," they can say, as they shove Cruz or whoever into his slot instead. "He is NOT RIGHT IN THE HEAD and all the nonsense he has spoken has been literal crazy talk! hahaha don't pay attention to how he we endorsed and supported him anyway." The convention will probably still be a shitshow, but it won't be an existential threat to the party and the nation-level shitshow.
posted by yasaman at 12:29 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by yasaman at 12:29 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
It would be interesting for someone (not me, I haven't done a speech analysis in 20 years) to go back and compare a speech he made early on in his presidential run with one made within the last week.
I remember an article that I read months ago describing one of his earliest stump speeches. The observer wrote that Trump would bring on the applause with his line about building a wall and then his speech would veer into something less incendiary only to be met with silence which caused Trump to drop that topic immediately in order to hit on something that gained wild applause. He was never interested in running a standard informational campaign but only in garnering the most attention and praise. The crowds literally conditioned Trump to become the ass clown he is today.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:29 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
I remember an article that I read months ago describing one of his earliest stump speeches. The observer wrote that Trump would bring on the applause with his line about building a wall and then his speech would veer into something less incendiary only to be met with silence which caused Trump to drop that topic immediately in order to hit on something that gained wild applause. He was never interested in running a standard informational campaign but only in garnering the most attention and praise. The crowds literally conditioned Trump to become the ass clown he is today.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:29 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
i'm beginning to wonder if i can catch it by reading his tweets
Trumpypool
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:32 PM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
Trumpypool
posted by museum of fire ants at 12:32 PM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
Could it be that he's running out of things to say? He doesn't seem like one who'd like to go through rote recitations. Maybe he's passed the point where he's said all the things he knows well enough to sentence up.
posted by rorgy at 12:35 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rorgy at 12:35 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
He’s like Peter in The Fountainhead… (Clinton is Roark.)yes but WHO IS JOHN GALT?
okay I know that’s technically from Atlas Shrugged, but I say it’s spinach and I say the hell with it
posted by nicepersonality at 12:35 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump cat meet Trump Catapiller.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:35 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:35 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
A new Marquette Law School Poll in Wisconsin shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump among registered voters, 42% to 35%.
But among likely voters her lead grew to 46% to 37%, as just 78% of Republicans said they were absolutely certain they would vote in November, down from 87% in March and 90% in June 2012.
Wow, if those GOP voters really stay home, the impact on Congress could be, well, yuuuuge.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:37 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
But among likely voters her lead grew to 46% to 37%, as just 78% of Republicans said they were absolutely certain they would vote in November, down from 87% in March and 90% in June 2012.
Wow, if those GOP voters really stay home, the impact on Congress could be, well, yuuuuge.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:37 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Bearwife, would you say that this election matters... bigly?
Like Chrysostom, I'd say it matters yugely!
posted by bearwife at 12:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Like Chrysostom, I'd say it matters yugely!
posted by bearwife at 12:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
We've had something like 60+ meaningless votes to take away people's healthcare.
Let's get an actual constitutional amendment on the books that gives the government unambiguous authority to enact strict gun control (if not a full repeal of the 2nd)
The first draft probably won't pass. But let's start with that before claiming that the Democrats have a spine.
posted by schmod at 12:42 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Let's get an actual constitutional amendment on the books that gives the government unambiguous authority to enact strict gun control (if not a full repeal of the 2nd)
The first draft probably won't pass. But let's start with that before claiming that the Democrats have a spine.
posted by schmod at 12:42 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
So apparently at least one veteran is getting pretty pissed at Trump's implication of corruption by troops in Iraq.
Corbin Reiff's tweetstorm about Trump
I can only imagine how doing an ad or two with Trump sound bites about his disdain for the troops could make it's way into some TV markets with big armed forces communities nearby.
You know like Norfolk, Virginia and Fayetteville, NC you know areas where there are big US armed forces bases and also battleground states.
I would even say Colorado Springs but based upon how weirdly conservative the Air Force is it probably wouldn't be that great of an investment but you know she'll be blasting Denver's market no mater what.
posted by vuron at 12:43 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Corbin Reiff's tweetstorm about Trump
I can only imagine how doing an ad or two with Trump sound bites about his disdain for the troops could make it's way into some TV markets with big armed forces communities nearby.
You know like Norfolk, Virginia and Fayetteville, NC you know areas where there are big US armed forces bases and also battleground states.
I would even say Colorado Springs but based upon how weirdly conservative the Air Force is it probably wouldn't be that great of an investment but you know she'll be blasting Denver's market no mater what.
posted by vuron at 12:43 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Also, holy shit.
I'd considered it previously, but the idea that Trump might have a massive brain tumor and/or dementia is starting to seem awfully plausible. (Stranger still, what if he knows it, and is knowingly running an insincere campaign?)
posted by schmod at 12:49 PM on June 15, 2016
I'd considered it previously, but the idea that Trump might have a massive brain tumor and/or dementia is starting to seem awfully plausible. (Stranger still, what if he knows it, and is knowingly running an insincere campaign?)
posted by schmod at 12:49 PM on June 15, 2016
You realize that a constitutional amendment requires 2/3rd majorities in both the House and Senate or 2/3rds of the states calling for a constitutional convention right?
I want gun control as well but if the Republicans could even come close to getting their stupid flag burning amendment passed what are the chances we'd ever see a gun control amendment anytime soon?
Nope the reality is that the only likely way that gun control is anything other than a symbolic fight right now is if the balance in the SCOTUS shifts towards Liberals and that they'd be willing to overlook precedent established under a previous court. The originalists are sometimes willing to ignore precedent but many of the SCOTUS liberals have been pretty solid in terms of deferring to established court decisions even when it seems like they disagree with them.
posted by vuron at 12:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I want gun control as well but if the Republicans could even come close to getting their stupid flag burning amendment passed what are the chances we'd ever see a gun control amendment anytime soon?
Nope the reality is that the only likely way that gun control is anything other than a symbolic fight right now is if the balance in the SCOTUS shifts towards Liberals and that they'd be willing to overlook precedent established under a previous court. The originalists are sometimes willing to ignore precedent but many of the SCOTUS liberals have been pretty solid in terms of deferring to established court decisions even when it seems like they disagree with them.
posted by vuron at 12:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
But..but..but his doctor stated "unequivocally, [Trump] will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,”
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:54 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:54 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Norfolk is safely Democratic, and Virginia as a whole isn't far behind. Even among the conservatives there, Trump has little appeal.
posted by schmod at 12:54 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by schmod at 12:54 PM on June 15, 2016
I'm watching that weird-ass speech, and other than how chilling his use of the words "good" and "not good" are, what I can't get over is how much he sounds like the narrator in Wizard People, Dear Reader. I'm half-expecting him to start talking about a dream he had about cake.
posted by rorgy at 12:57 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rorgy at 12:57 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
My guess for Trump's increasingly incoherent speeches is that he's having to read speeches he didn't write from a teleprompter, which is an actual skill people have to develop.
That and I'm pretty sure that his campaign isn't exactly attracting the best and the brightest among speechwriters.
posted by Sara C. at 12:59 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
That and I'm pretty sure that his campaign isn't exactly attracting the best and the brightest among speechwriters.
posted by Sara C. at 12:59 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
pocketfullofrye Trump's father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's 6 year before his death. I've seen speculation that Trump may be in the early stages of it himself, based on his mood, memory and syntax problems
Didn't stop them from electing Reagan, who also was clearly in the early stages of Alzheimer's during the 1980 election.
Hell, if Trump really does have Alzheimer's the R's might see it as a sign that he's the anointed successor to St. Reagan.
Sara C. Most likely. You could literally watch him reading his lines off the teleprompter, while a skilled teleprompted person makes it look much more natural. He looked to me like he needed glasses or something, he was squinting at the teleprompter. And he sounded awful, I mean he always does, but that speech was much worse than usual, his rhythm was off. Maybe because the speechwriter didn't pay much attention to how Trump usually talks and so the speech just didn't work for him?
posted by sotonohito at 1:01 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Didn't stop them from electing Reagan, who also was clearly in the early stages of Alzheimer's during the 1980 election.
Hell, if Trump really does have Alzheimer's the R's might see it as a sign that he's the anointed successor to St. Reagan.
Sara C. Most likely. You could literally watch him reading his lines off the teleprompter, while a skilled teleprompted person makes it look much more natural. He looked to me like he needed glasses or something, he was squinting at the teleprompter. And he sounded awful, I mean he always does, but that speech was much worse than usual, his rhythm was off. Maybe because the speechwriter didn't pay much attention to how Trump usually talks and so the speech just didn't work for him?
posted by sotonohito at 1:01 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
The contrast between this and Hillary's most recent speeches is staggering. Skeptical as I am of liberals specifically and America in general, I would not be surprised if Clinton wound up with the mandatiest mandate that I've seen in my lifetime.
posted by rorgy at 1:03 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by rorgy at 1:03 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
his doctor stated "unequivocally, [Trump] will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,”
I would like to dispel the rumor that 'his doctor' is Dr. Demento. While appropriately named, I've met the man and he'd never do anything like that.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:06 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would like to dispel the rumor that 'his doctor' is Dr. Demento. While appropriately named, I've met the man and he'd never do anything like that.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:06 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Didn't stop them from electing Reagan, who also was clearly in the early stages of Alzheimer's during the 1980 election.
Was it all that clear in 1980, though? I could be wrong, but I thought his Alzheimer's didn't really manifest itself (publically, at least) until well into his presidency.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:08 PM on June 15, 2016
Was it all that clear in 1980, though? I could be wrong, but I thought his Alzheimer's didn't really manifest itself (publically, at least) until well into his presidency.
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:08 PM on June 15, 2016
That, and I think Alzheimer's was a less known and recognized thing at that time?
I'm pretty sure the RNC doesn't actively want Trump to have dementia, because that would be bad all around.
However, the example of Reagan (and probably of Dubya, who did not have dementia but seemed stupid in a tractable sort of way) probably leads them to believe that they can control Trump. Which is not the best assumption for them to make following this primary season.
posted by Sara C. at 1:10 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm pretty sure the RNC doesn't actively want Trump to have dementia, because that would be bad all around.
However, the example of Reagan (and probably of Dubya, who did not have dementia but seemed stupid in a tractable sort of way) probably leads them to believe that they can control Trump. Which is not the best assumption for them to make following this primary season.
posted by Sara C. at 1:10 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it's pretty much a given that Trump's doctor is none other than Dr. Leo Spaceman.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 1:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by a fiendish thingy at 1:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
Trump accusing American troops of theft and corruption is pretty freakin' hilarious when he's the guy promising to bring back waterboarding and "a whole lot worse," and then saying the military won't refuse him when he orders them to commit war crimes.
We keep talking about how he has thrown away the GOP's racial dogwhistles. But have we also finally found a Republican who will openly run against the troops rather than talking a good game on the campaign trail and then screwing them once in office?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:16 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
We keep talking about how he has thrown away the GOP's racial dogwhistles. But have we also finally found a Republican who will openly run against the troops rather than talking a good game on the campaign trail and then screwing them once in office?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:16 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
The only surprising part about Trump's doctor's note was that he didn't endorse the size of Trump's junk.
posted by AndrewInDC at 1:18 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by AndrewInDC at 1:18 PM on June 15, 2016
Hmmm, from a Times article titled Parsing Ronald Regan's Words for Early Signs of Alzheimers
"The researchers found no changes in the speaking patterns of Mr. Bush, who is not known to have developed Alzheimer’s. But in Mr. Reagan’s speech, two measures — use of repetitive words, and substituting nonspecific terms like “thing” for specific nouns — increased toward the end of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, compared with its start. A third measure, his use of unique words, declined."
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
"The researchers found no changes in the speaking patterns of Mr. Bush, who is not known to have developed Alzheimer’s. But in Mr. Reagan’s speech, two measures — use of repetitive words, and substituting nonspecific terms like “thing” for specific nouns — increased toward the end of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, compared with its start. A third measure, his use of unique words, declined."
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yesterday I watched Charles Manson Superstar which was done in 1989 and consists largely of takes from Charles Manson monologues after twenty years of being locked up as the most famous convicted felon of all time. They have an interviewer, but the questions are mostly pointless as the usual answer is almost always non sequitur. The resemblance of Trump's "logic" now to Manson's in 1989 seems quite close. They are utter sociopaths and it isn't everyday we give anybody like that a microphone and a videocamera. I would do a mashup if I had mad mash skills.
posted by bukvich at 1:20 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bukvich at 1:20 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
I would like to dispel the rumor that 'his doctor' is Dr. Demento. While appropriately named, I've met the man and he'd never do anything like that.
DR. SPACEMAN! DR. SPACEMAN!
posted by murphy slaw at 1:24 PM on June 15, 2016
DR. SPACEMAN! DR. SPACEMAN!
posted by murphy slaw at 1:24 PM on June 15, 2016
dw I think you're (possibly maliciously) distorting the position of the Left here.
I'm trying not to, but there's a strong anti-interventionist streak on the Left, and it's felt like those who support even measured intervention have come under heavy critique this cycle.
Where I run into problems is that I can't support intervention for its own sake, or for the sake of salving our national conscience. Intervention needs to have a clear objective **AND** a clear means of achieving that objective.
In the case of the Islamic State the first is obvious, but the second seems just about completely unattainable.
I would disagree here. For one, military intervention is one piece of the overall strategy to disrupt ISIL. Remember that we're also hitting their cash flow by shutting down their bank accounts, that we're bombing economic targets to starve them of cash, and we're supporting Iraq and Syrian rebels in their bids to retake territory. It has worked, given they're losing territory and capital pretty consistently while turning to terrorism to try and be relevant.
The intervention could be more "decisive," I guess, at least in the way Trump would want it -- nonstop carpet bombing and ground troops. But the goals are clear -- disrupt ISIL -- and the methods are clear. The problems have mostly been with an Assad government and a Russian military that have been obstinate about wanting a stable, bilateral solution through negotiations.
If we had done nothing, ISIL would still be consuming much of the Levant, and the refugee crisis would be just as bad as it is now. I think this is why Bernie hasn't been super-critical of the Syrian intervention and has been open about continuing drone strikes. (This even as he's been critical of the Libyan intervention.)
posted by dw at 1:24 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm trying not to, but there's a strong anti-interventionist streak on the Left, and it's felt like those who support even measured intervention have come under heavy critique this cycle.
Where I run into problems is that I can't support intervention for its own sake, or for the sake of salving our national conscience. Intervention needs to have a clear objective **AND** a clear means of achieving that objective.
In the case of the Islamic State the first is obvious, but the second seems just about completely unattainable.
I would disagree here. For one, military intervention is one piece of the overall strategy to disrupt ISIL. Remember that we're also hitting their cash flow by shutting down their bank accounts, that we're bombing economic targets to starve them of cash, and we're supporting Iraq and Syrian rebels in their bids to retake territory. It has worked, given they're losing territory and capital pretty consistently while turning to terrorism to try and be relevant.
The intervention could be more "decisive," I guess, at least in the way Trump would want it -- nonstop carpet bombing and ground troops. But the goals are clear -- disrupt ISIL -- and the methods are clear. The problems have mostly been with an Assad government and a Russian military that have been obstinate about wanting a stable, bilateral solution through negotiations.
If we had done nothing, ISIL would still be consuming much of the Levant, and the refugee crisis would be just as bad as it is now. I think this is why Bernie hasn't been super-critical of the Syrian intervention and has been open about continuing drone strikes. (This even as he's been critical of the Libyan intervention.)
posted by dw at 1:24 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
The resemblance of Trump's "logic" now to Manson's in 1989 seems quite close. They are utter sociopaths and it isn't everyday we give anybody like that a microphone and a videocamera. I would do a mashup if I had mad mash skills.
Welp, here's an oldie but a goodie: Trump/Manson gif
posted by Existential Dread at 1:26 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Welp, here's an oldie but a goodie: Trump/Manson gif
posted by Existential Dread at 1:26 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
It looks like Gawker has the oppo file now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:26 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:26 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is there a requirement for a presidential candidate to have a physical for the sake of the electorate? Or is it jus tradition for presidents to release their details?
One of those "optional" things, like releasing your tax returns?
posted by Theta States at 1:30 PM on June 15, 2016
One of those "optional" things, like releasing your tax returns?
posted by Theta States at 1:30 PM on June 15, 2016
Having read over the gawker report, but not the file itself, it seems theres nothing groundbreaking in it at all.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:31 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:31 PM on June 15, 2016
It looks like Gawker has the oppo file now.
It's pretty telling how absolutely nothing in that file seems to be new. The man is his own oppo report.
posted by saturday_morning at 1:32 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's pretty telling how absolutely nothing in that file seems to be new. The man is his own oppo report.
posted by saturday_morning at 1:32 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Reminds me of a bit on Paul F Tompkins' show No, You Shut Up! "Anonymous" claims to have dug up dirt on Trump and it's just stuff everyone knows already.
posted by Green With You at 1:34 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by Green With You at 1:34 PM on June 15, 2016
To use an old Howard Cosell quote, the report has "an uncanny grasp of the obvious". Of course, since it was compiled in December 2015, it could have helped source some of what we've heard since. Otherwise, not an efficient use of Russian espionage resources.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:35 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:35 PM on June 15, 2016
It's pretty telling how absolutely nothing in that file seems to be new. The man is his own oppo report.
True, but that information under a DNC letterhead might force them to distance themselves from the strategy outlined in the report (i.e., the only strategy).
I wonder to what extent Trump's team didn't engineer it themselves?
Damned tinfoil hat.
posted by Mooski at 1:36 PM on June 15, 2016
True, but that information under a DNC letterhead might force them to distance themselves from the strategy outlined in the report (i.e., the only strategy).
I wonder to what extent Trump's team didn't engineer it themselves?
Damned tinfoil hat.
posted by Mooski at 1:36 PM on June 15, 2016
"women are evil scheming manipulators" is not an especially nuanced form of misogyny
Getting that from "i don't like her policy stance and think she could actually execute it" is just about as sad as most of the bernie bro stuff this site has been roasting for at least a month now.
As i said, i don't agree with that position, but i haven't attacked anyone for it because i at least understand it.
But as far as i can tell, the general consensus on here seems to be that if you think Clinton would be bad at her job, then you're a misogynist because she's quite experienced. But if you think she'd be good at her job and don't agree with her, then you're a misogynist because you think she's an evil schemer.
So like... What? This has been confusing me for a while now. Is there no way to dislike her or not trust her that doesn't boil down to misogyny as far as most people here are concerned?
posted by emptythought at 1:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Getting that from "i don't like her policy stance and think she could actually execute it" is just about as sad as most of the bernie bro stuff this site has been roasting for at least a month now.
As i said, i don't agree with that position, but i haven't attacked anyone for it because i at least understand it.
But as far as i can tell, the general consensus on here seems to be that if you think Clinton would be bad at her job, then you're a misogynist because she's quite experienced. But if you think she'd be good at her job and don't agree with her, then you're a misogynist because you think she's an evil schemer.
So like... What? This has been confusing me for a while now. Is there no way to dislike her or not trust her that doesn't boil down to misogyny as far as most people here are concerned?
posted by emptythought at 1:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, it's a collection of publicly available information. I assume the DNC has more from their own direct investigations. But hell if I know how much of that they actually do. I also don't think you can read too much into strategy from it. They have the information about his marriages on there, but I doubt that's the kind of thing Clinton really would want to run with unless she had to as a response to Trump's dumbassery about her own marriage.
Also, what is up with the DNC IT staff? First the shit with Clinton information being shown to Bernie staff and now private documents being leaked by hackers? This is not a good look when Clinton is dealing with the email scandal. Shape up and look competent.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:38 PM on June 15, 2016
Also, what is up with the DNC IT staff? First the shit with Clinton information being shown to Bernie staff and now private documents being leaked by hackers? This is not a good look when Clinton is dealing with the email scandal. Shape up and look competent.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:38 PM on June 15, 2016
"Is there a requirement for a presidential candidate to have a physical for the sake of the electorate? Or is it jus tradition for presidents to release their details?"
Just traditional. They don't even have to get physicals, if they don't want to. In recent years sitting presidents have used their physicals not just to reassure the nation that they're healthy, but to push various public health announcements, like George W. Bush and colonoscopies. There was some discussion of requiring it by law for sitting presidents around the time of the passage of the 25th Amendment, and some discussion of requiring it for candidates after Paul Tsongas was revealed to have concealed his cancer recurrence during the entire 1992 primary. (Had he been elected, he would have been too sick to attend his own inauguration and would have died shortly thereafter in office.) But there's a lot of concerns about whether it would become politicized, and whether it's an invasion too far into presidents' and candidates' privacy. (The flip side is, people like pilots must undergo physicals, it's a little crazy that the guy with the nuclear button doesn't.)
Candidates with histories of health problems have often released copious medical records -- John McCain released many, many thousands of pages of mental health records, for example, to address concerns both about his post-POW mental health and concerns about age-related decline of mental fitness.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:39 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Just traditional. They don't even have to get physicals, if they don't want to. In recent years sitting presidents have used their physicals not just to reassure the nation that they're healthy, but to push various public health announcements, like George W. Bush and colonoscopies. There was some discussion of requiring it by law for sitting presidents around the time of the passage of the 25th Amendment, and some discussion of requiring it for candidates after Paul Tsongas was revealed to have concealed his cancer recurrence during the entire 1992 primary. (Had he been elected, he would have been too sick to attend his own inauguration and would have died shortly thereafter in office.) But there's a lot of concerns about whether it would become politicized, and whether it's an invasion too far into presidents' and candidates' privacy. (The flip side is, people like pilots must undergo physicals, it's a little crazy that the guy with the nuclear button doesn't.)
Candidates with histories of health problems have often released copious medical records -- John McCain released many, many thousands of pages of mental health records, for example, to address concerns both about his post-POW mental health and concerns about age-related decline of mental fitness.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:39 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can't believe there's nothing. I hope the Clinton campaign has their own oppo people and aren't sharing with DNC.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:43 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:43 PM on June 15, 2016
Presidential candidates should be required to release tax returns and a standard summary of their medical history and risk factors for heart disease, cancer and dementia.
posted by humanfont at 1:45 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 1:45 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
So like... What? This has been confusing me for a while now. Is there no way to dislike her or not trust her that doesn't boil down to misogyny as far as most people here are concerned?
Fearing Clinton executing her own policies makes very little sense unless you assume she's misrepresenting her own policies. She is not even a little bit diametrically opposed from Sanders if you take her at her word. Where she differs is mostly in degrees, in not going far enough for some people's preferences. "I want to sell us out to Wall Street and start more preemptive wars" is not actually a part of her platform.
I am sorry that so many garbage people have muddied the waters such that it's difficult to separate a clean, pure, and defensible mistrust and dislike of her from the horrifically prevalent misogynistic bullshit.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:47 PM on June 15, 2016 [27 favorites]
Fearing Clinton executing her own policies makes very little sense unless you assume she's misrepresenting her own policies. She is not even a little bit diametrically opposed from Sanders if you take her at her word. Where she differs is mostly in degrees, in not going far enough for some people's preferences. "I want to sell us out to Wall Street and start more preemptive wars" is not actually a part of her platform.
I am sorry that so many garbage people have muddied the waters such that it's difficult to separate a clean, pure, and defensible mistrust and dislike of her from the horrifically prevalent misogynistic bullshit.
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:47 PM on June 15, 2016 [27 favorites]
I can't believe there's nothing. I hope the Clinton campaign has their own oppo people and aren't sharing with DNC.
Also it's from December, when many still thought it was impossible that he'd be the actual nominee. I'm sure they've ramped up their research since then.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also it's from December, when many still thought it was impossible that he'd be the actual nominee. I'm sure they've ramped up their research since then.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Norfolk is safely Democratic, and Virginia as a whole isn't far behind. Even among the conservatives there, Trump has little appeal.
Jacksonville, Florida is completely Republican and we have 2 naval bases. I would totally LOVE to have ads with the Trump military quotes running here.
posted by hollygoheavy at 1:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Jacksonville, Florida is completely Republican and we have 2 naval bases. I would totally LOVE to have ads with the Trump military quotes running here.
posted by hollygoheavy at 1:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I feel like that oppo file is stuff any halfway dedicated researcher could pull together in a couple afternoons, at least in the broad outlines. Like, I feel like The Daily Show or similar have brought most of this up already for the purposes of jokes. It can't be that big a blow to the Clinton campaign.
posted by yasaman at 1:54 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by yasaman at 1:54 PM on June 15, 2016
Yeah, not gonna mourn the idea that the Dems have to come up with a better supposedly sick burn than "misogynist-in-chief."
posted by straight at 2:00 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by straight at 2:00 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
So like... What? This has been confusing me for a while now. Is there no way to dislike her or not trust her that doesn't boil down to misogyny as far as most people here are concerned?
The problem is that many -- or even most-- people who dislike and distrust her, do not dislike or distrust Democrats who are absolutely no better in terms of their relationships with Wall Street or Iraq or any of a number of other supposedly policy-based critiques that are made of her from the alt-left.
Among this poll of Sanders supporters who are #NeverHillary, Joe Biden has a 73% favorable rating! This is not among all Democrats, this is specifically among Sanders supporters who are #NeverHillary
That's not the view of someone dislikes Hillary because of her Iraq vote, or her position in The Establishment or the fact that her campaign is funded the way all campaigns are funded. It's someone who dislikes her and has found high-minded reasons to justify it.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:04 PM on June 15, 2016 [49 favorites]
The problem is that many -- or even most-- people who dislike and distrust her, do not dislike or distrust Democrats who are absolutely no better in terms of their relationships with Wall Street or Iraq or any of a number of other supposedly policy-based critiques that are made of her from the alt-left.
Among this poll of Sanders supporters who are #NeverHillary, Joe Biden has a 73% favorable rating! This is not among all Democrats, this is specifically among Sanders supporters who are #NeverHillary
That's not the view of someone dislikes Hillary because of her Iraq vote, or her position in The Establishment or the fact that her campaign is funded the way all campaigns are funded. It's someone who dislikes her and has found high-minded reasons to justify it.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:04 PM on June 15, 2016 [49 favorites]
How do you dislike/disagree with Clinton without being a misogynist: A Primer
1. Don't use sexist terms or gendered pejoratives like "bitch", "THAT WOMAN", "shrill", etc. to describe her.
2. Disagree with actual policies that she really has. I got no quarrel with people who think Hillary is too much of a hawk. They're right. I don't like that, either, and it's something I'm concerned about looking ahead at her presidential administration. You don't have to like Clinton or agree with her. But your thoughts on the matter should be rooted in fact.
3. Don't use meaningless platitudes like "liar", "criminal", "corrupt", "$hillary", "Killary", etc that are not rooted in fact, either. This tells me that you dislike the idea of a female POTUS/women in power generally, and not that you disagree with Hillary Clinton for specific reasons.
4. Check your sources and make sure you're not just repeating spurious attacks from the right wing during Bill's administration. If you do this and realize you agree with those assessments, you may want to reconsider whether you are, in fact, a progressive.
5. Make sure that you would hold male candidates to the same level of scrutiny. If you were previously a Sanders supporter (for example), how did you feel about his stance on gun control, or the fact that he once wrote publicly in support of pedophilia? Obviously it's possible to rationalize that stuff and still disagree with Clinton, but again weigh those comparisons next to each other and be honest with yourself about them.
Again, I have no quarrel with people disagreeing with Clinton, or even just straight up disliking her. Even for reasons that ultimately are misogyny-adjacent, like thinking she's uncool, matronly, nagging, etc. You don't have to like her. But you should make sure that your opinions about her are rooted in fact, at least.
posted by Sara C. at 2:08 PM on June 15, 2016 [66 favorites]
1. Don't use sexist terms or gendered pejoratives like "bitch", "THAT WOMAN", "shrill", etc. to describe her.
2. Disagree with actual policies that she really has. I got no quarrel with people who think Hillary is too much of a hawk. They're right. I don't like that, either, and it's something I'm concerned about looking ahead at her presidential administration. You don't have to like Clinton or agree with her. But your thoughts on the matter should be rooted in fact.
3. Don't use meaningless platitudes like "liar", "criminal", "corrupt", "$hillary", "Killary", etc that are not rooted in fact, either. This tells me that you dislike the idea of a female POTUS/women in power generally, and not that you disagree with Hillary Clinton for specific reasons.
4. Check your sources and make sure you're not just repeating spurious attacks from the right wing during Bill's administration. If you do this and realize you agree with those assessments, you may want to reconsider whether you are, in fact, a progressive.
5. Make sure that you would hold male candidates to the same level of scrutiny. If you were previously a Sanders supporter (for example), how did you feel about his stance on gun control, or the fact that he once wrote publicly in support of pedophilia? Obviously it's possible to rationalize that stuff and still disagree with Clinton, but again weigh those comparisons next to each other and be honest with yourself about them.
Again, I have no quarrel with people disagreeing with Clinton, or even just straight up disliking her. Even for reasons that ultimately are misogyny-adjacent, like thinking she's uncool, matronly, nagging, etc. You don't have to like her. But you should make sure that your opinions about her are rooted in fact, at least.
posted by Sara C. at 2:08 PM on June 15, 2016 [66 favorites]
I'd add that claiming "I'm not sexist! I'd vote for Liz Warren!" is really starting to come off like the new version of "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are [insert POC here]!"
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:19 PM on June 15, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:19 PM on June 15, 2016 [30 favorites]
Rawstory: ‘A flip flopping con man’: Conservatives freak after Trump hints he’ll support stronger gun control
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:19 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:19 PM on June 15, 2016
In response to Andrew Kaczynski (of Buzzfeed) asking 'There's no way this is the DNC's only oppo book right?', There is more. A lot more.
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:47 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:47 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
So during this Atlanta speech, Trump proclaimed "ask the gays." (more context: apparently it's Clinton's fault that Saudi Arabia mistreats women and LGBT people)
The Gays are now trending on Twitter and they have answers. It's a bit like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, except with worse hair.
posted by zachlipton at 2:49 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
The Gays are now trending on Twitter and they have answers. It's a bit like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, except with worse hair.
posted by zachlipton at 2:49 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Rawstory: ‘A flip flopping con man’: Conservatives freak after Trump hints he’ll support stronger gun control
Well. He's just not going to be happy until he's pissed everyone off.
posted by Anonymous at 2:50 PM on June 15, 2016
Well. He's just not going to be happy until he's pissed everyone off.
posted by Anonymous at 2:50 PM on June 15, 2016
Among this poll of Sanders supporters who are #NeverHillary, Joe Biden has a 73% favorable rating!
Yeah, this stuff drives me crazy. Its either misogyny or they've just bought into the Republican-originated lies about her (all the insane conspiracy theories), or both. I don't see any actual policy or voting record reason to support Biden over Clinton, they're near-identical. Especially on the two big issues for a lot of Berners, Iraq and the financial industry.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [18 favorites]
Yeah, this stuff drives me crazy. Its either misogyny or they've just bought into the Republican-originated lies about her (all the insane conspiracy theories), or both. I don't see any actual policy or voting record reason to support Biden over Clinton, they're near-identical. Especially on the two big issues for a lot of Berners, Iraq and the financial industry.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [18 favorites]
Can I say that while I'm totally up for more gun control, if I get a choice I'd prefer it not involve targeting people on an unaccountable, likely-racially-biased "watch list"? We already saw the problems that came out of the no-fly list.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:58 PM on June 15, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 2:58 PM on June 15, 2016 [16 favorites]
So basically what appears to be released is pretty much everything anyone with a search engine could easily find out. I mean there isn't even a lot of stuff from databases you'd normally have to pay for access too.
I assume for instance there is a massive dossier on all of his financial dealings and a ton of legal documents, etc.
I would honestly be pretty shocked if the Democrats don't know exactly what he's worth baring some sort of hidden Cayman Islands account.
I figure they are going "well we don't even have to start pushing our narrative" because the man is a menace to himself. That being said I could totally see all sorts of leaks coming out if Trump somehow starts to rally in the polls but it's probably too early to release anything really juicy. They will want to wait until after the convention for that (especially since a Super PAC could lead the charge).
posted by vuron at 2:59 PM on June 15, 2016
I assume for instance there is a massive dossier on all of his financial dealings and a ton of legal documents, etc.
I would honestly be pretty shocked if the Democrats don't know exactly what he's worth baring some sort of hidden Cayman Islands account.
I figure they are going "well we don't even have to start pushing our narrative" because the man is a menace to himself. That being said I could totally see all sorts of leaks coming out if Trump somehow starts to rally in the polls but it's probably too early to release anything really juicy. They will want to wait until after the convention for that (especially since a Super PAC could lead the charge).
posted by vuron at 2:59 PM on June 15, 2016
In response to Andrew Kaczynski (of Buzzfeed) asking 'There's no way this is the DNC's only oppo book right?', There is more. A lot more.
While I trust Guy Cecil on this, it’s worth remembering that his job depends on there being a lot more oppo research on Trump.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:00 PM on June 15, 2016
While I trust Guy Cecil on this, it’s worth remembering that his job depends on there being a lot more oppo research on Trump.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:00 PM on June 15, 2016
Rawstory: ‘A flip flopping con man’: Conservatives freak after Trump hints he’ll support stronger gun control
This is also a good reminder of why conservatives haven’t been able to just dump Trump: because they really will get into trouble with some folks if they do.
I will shed a single tear for their plight.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:01 PM on June 15, 2016
This is also a good reminder of why conservatives haven’t been able to just dump Trump: because they really will get into trouble with some folks if they do.
I will shed a single tear for their plight.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:01 PM on June 15, 2016
I kind of assumed Clinton's oppo research people spend about 60% of their time just taking audio/video recordings of Trump and organizing them according to what specific topic they're being inane on so as to be easy to share specific points to bolster, say, Clinton's foreign policy speech; 30% of their time clipping mainstream media reports of what he's done and what his own ostensible allies think of him; and maybe 10% of their time trying to find actual hidden dirt on him.
I mean, the most effective anti-Trump material hardly requires "research" to find. It gets vomited all over the news on a regular basis.
posted by jackbishop at 3:04 PM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
I mean, the most effective anti-Trump material hardly requires "research" to find. It gets vomited all over the news on a regular basis.
posted by jackbishop at 3:04 PM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
If you find yourselves freaking out over the present state of your politics consider that there was a naval battle between boggle eyed idiots on the Thames today.
posted by vbfg at 3:06 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by vbfg at 3:06 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
In my opinion the only reason professional Rs (i.e. Ryan et al) are scared/ambiguous/standoffish about Trump is the notion that he is political/career/GOP poison. If trumps approval ratings skyrocketed all of the sudden I bet all their noble misgivings would vanish.
posted by museum of fire ants at 3:06 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by museum of fire ants at 3:06 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
after Paul Tsongas was revealed to have concealed his cancer recurrence during the entire 1992 primary. (Had he been elected, he would have been too sick to attend his own inauguration and would have died shortly thereafter in office.)
He didn't die until January 18th, 1997 which was 2 days before Clinton's second Inauguration.
posted by soelo at 3:06 PM on June 15, 2016
He didn't die until January 18th, 1997 which was 2 days before Clinton's second Inauguration.
posted by soelo at 3:06 PM on June 15, 2016
Longly thereafter, then. :) He was quite ill the last few years, though, and probably would have been too sick to govern for very long at all. (We can also easily imagine the rigors of the office shortening a sick person's life.) I have no particular beef with him or his decisions and was too young to understand the nuances of the decision or feel personally betrayed as a voter; it's just of interest in discussing the issues around candidate physicals. (And, I suppose, of interest in watching the later West Wing plot!)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:10 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 3:10 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've seen speculation that Trump may be in the early stages of it himself, based on his mood, memory and syntax problems
Years from now, revisionist historians are going to be saying that Ivanka manipulated the demented and helpless Donald into running for president, just so she could be the power behind the throne. Because a white man couldn't possibly be responsible for his own failure.
Later a best selling fantasy novel series will come out of that idea, followed by plays, comics, a TV series....
posted by happyroach at 3:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Years from now, revisionist historians are going to be saying that Ivanka manipulated the demented and helpless Donald into running for president, just so she could be the power behind the throne. Because a white man couldn't possibly be responsible for his own failure.
Later a best selling fantasy novel series will come out of that idea, followed by plays, comics, a TV series....
posted by happyroach at 3:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Democratic proposal regarding the watch list created a consolidated watch list. Individuals denied a gun or flight will be informed of the reason, given an opportunity file a request for administrative review and if still denied they can sue in Federal court. This isn't the old No Fly List.
posted by humanfont at 3:19 PM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 3:19 PM on June 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
ok good because the old no fly list is really shitty
posted by ryanrs at 3:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ryanrs at 3:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would not be surprised if Clinton wound up with the mandatiest mandate that I've seen in my lifetime.
Mandate is a meaningless word. G.W. Bush literally lost the popular vote by half a million yet it didn't slow him at all in his terrible policies. In contrast, Obama won by the biggest margins in recent history and yet has received nothing for it but obstructionism.
posted by JackFlash at 3:29 PM on June 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
Mandate is a meaningless word. G.W. Bush literally lost the popular vote by half a million yet it didn't slow him at all in his terrible policies. In contrast, Obama won by the biggest margins in recent history and yet has received nothing for it but obstructionism.
posted by JackFlash at 3:29 PM on June 15, 2016 [21 favorites]
Comment from Rawstory: ‘A flip flopping con man’:
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:37 PM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Republicans start the week off by saying that President Obama is a terrorist sympathizer. By Wednesday they're defending the second amendment rights of people on the terror watch list.Meanwhile Trump is telling the GOP leaders to "be quiet" or he will lead alone
"You know, the Republicans, honestly folks, our leaders, our leaders have to get tougher. This is too tough to do it alone. But you know what, I think I’m going to be forced to. I think I am going to be forced to, our leaders have to get a lot tougher,” he began.He'll be the best leader cause no one can lead like he can! He will lead everyone right over a cliff but it will be the best cliff and he will do it bigly.
He added, icily, "And be quiet. Just please be quiet. Don't talk, please be quiet.”
“They have to get tougher. They have get sharper,” he said in Atlanta. "They have to get smarter. We have to have to -- our Republicans -- either stick together or let me just do it by myself. I'll do very well."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:37 PM on June 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
I am apparently perfectly ok with presidential candidates concealing significant information about their health as long as they eventually fess up while sticking their hands in their pockets, turning away, and smiling, and Dire Straits plays in the background.
posted by zachlipton at 3:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 3:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
(That's a reference to the end of West Wing's Two Cathedrals, since it was a bit cryptic.)
posted by zachlipton at 3:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 3:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
From Reuters - Sanders not ending campaign in Thursday's video speech: spokesman.
Every day Sanders does not suspend his campaign is a day he loses additional leverage. He's at Old Man Yells At Cloud levels now. Soon he'll be completely irrelevant. He should have made a deal the day after California.
posted by Justinian at 3:55 PM on June 15, 2016 [32 favorites]
Every day Sanders does not suspend his campaign is a day he loses additional leverage. He's at Old Man Yells At Cloud levels now. Soon he'll be completely irrelevant. He should have made a deal the day after California.
posted by Justinian at 3:55 PM on June 15, 2016 [32 favorites]
The Democratic proposal regarding the watch list created a consolidated watch list. Individuals denied a gun or flight will be informed of the reason, given an opportunity file a request for administrative review and if still denied they can sue in Federal court. This isn't the old No Fly List.
Let me channel Bruce Schneier for a moment here: "You're making a way for terrorists to tell which of their members are not under surveillance. This is a bad idea."
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:56 PM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
Let me channel Bruce Schneier for a moment here: "You're making a way for terrorists to tell which of their members are not under surveillance. This is a bad idea."
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:56 PM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
Spencer Cox [Lt. Gov of Utah] speaks up about regretting the way he once treated gay people:
I grew up in a small town and went to a small rural high school. There were some kids in my class that were different. Sometimes I wasn't kind to them. I didn't know it at the time, but I know now that they were gay. I will forever regret not treating them with the kindness, dignity and respect — the love — that they deserved. For that, I sincerely and humbly apologize.posted by zachlipton at 4:08 PM on June 15, 2016 [46 favorites]
...
I believe that we can all agree we have come a long way as a society when it comes to our acceptance and understanding of the LGBTQ community (did I get that right?). However, there has been something about this tragedy that has very much troubled me. I believe that there is a question, two questions actually, that each of us needs to ask ourselves in our heart of hearts. And I am speaking now to the straight community. How did you feel when you heard that 49 people had been gunned down by a self-proclaimed terrorist? That's the easy question. Here is the hard one: Did that feeling change when you found out the shooting was at a gay bar at 2 a.m. in the morning? If that feeling changed, then we are doing something wrong.
Let me channel Bruce Schneier for a moment here: "You're making a way for terrorists to tell which of their members are not under surveillance. This is a bad idea."
Well, whether it's a no-fly list or no-buy list or no-pie list or whatever, all you have to do is try flying, buying, pie-ing, or whatever and if you are refused you know you're on the list.
There is really no way to have a list that stops people from doing something without simultaneously creating a way for people to find out whether or not they are on the list--simply by attempting to do the thing the list bans.
posted by flug at 4:12 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well, whether it's a no-fly list or no-buy list or no-pie list or whatever, all you have to do is try flying, buying, pie-ing, or whatever and if you are refused you know you're on the list.
There is really no way to have a list that stops people from doing something without simultaneously creating a way for people to find out whether or not they are on the list--simply by attempting to do the thing the list bans.
posted by flug at 4:12 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Let me channel Bruce Schneier for a moment here: "You're making a way for terrorists to tell which of their members are not under surveillance. This is a bad idea."
Sure, but they can whether they're on the No Fly List now by trying to buy a plane ticket and seeing whether they're denied at the airport. This was dubbed the Carnival booth effect in a paper all the way back in 2002: terrorists can "Step Right Up! See if you’re a winner!" If we're going to have that system anyway for the No Fly List, adding some basic semblance due process to try to get off of it seems like an improvement, even if it's an improvement to a stupid system.
Of course, then we'll have the secret No Fly List Of People Who Can't Know They're On The No Fly List so they might be allowed to fly anyway. And then when one of them commits some sort of horrible act, we'll all ask why they were on this list and not the other list.
posted by zachlipton at 4:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sure, but they can whether they're on the No Fly List now by trying to buy a plane ticket and seeing whether they're denied at the airport. This was dubbed the Carnival booth effect in a paper all the way back in 2002: terrorists can "Step Right Up! See if you’re a winner!" If we're going to have that system anyway for the No Fly List, adding some basic semblance due process to try to get off of it seems like an improvement, even if it's an improvement to a stupid system.
Of course, then we'll have the secret No Fly List Of People Who Can't Know They're On The No Fly List so they might be allowed to fly anyway. And then when one of them commits some sort of horrible act, we'll all ask why they were on this list and not the other list.
posted by zachlipton at 4:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Joe in Austrailia: Wouldn't attempting to get on an airplane do the same thing? It's not much good to have a no fly list otherwise. (That said I think a no fly list is a seriously anti-american concept)
posted by aspo at 4:13 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by aspo at 4:13 PM on June 15, 2016
Let me channel Bruce Schneier for a moment here: "You're making a way for terrorists to tell which of their members are not under surveillance. This is a bad idea."
Yeah, that's another flaw in the plan. Even if you restrict it to people who have been actively questioned (and thus are aware that law enforcement has noticed them regardless of gun purchases) the appeals process means they get to examine the evidence that led DOJ to investigate them, potentially fouling an investigation in midstream. But if they can't due that, it's a Due Process nightmare.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:14 PM on June 15, 2016
Yeah, that's another flaw in the plan. Even if you restrict it to people who have been actively questioned (and thus are aware that law enforcement has noticed them regardless of gun purchases) the appeals process means they get to examine the evidence that led DOJ to investigate them, potentially fouling an investigation in midstream. But if they can't due that, it's a Due Process nightmare.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:14 PM on June 15, 2016
Trump Says He Will Delegate Judicial Selection To The Conservative Federalist Society
posted by homunculus at 4:19 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by homunculus at 4:19 PM on June 15, 2016
> Meanwhile Trump is telling the GOP leaders to "be quiet" or he will lead alone
This Really Is a Historic Game of Chicken: Trump can't survive without the Republican Party. They can't survive with Trump.
posted by homunculus at 4:20 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
This Really Is a Historic Game of Chicken: Trump can't survive without the Republican Party. They can't survive with Trump.
posted by homunculus at 4:20 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Did that feeling change when you found out the shooting was at a gay bar at 2 a.m. in the morning? If that feeling changed, then we are doing something wrong.
Christ, that's a powerful statement.
posted by Mooski at 4:26 PM on June 15, 2016 [19 favorites]
Christ, that's a powerful statement.
posted by Mooski at 4:26 PM on June 15, 2016 [19 favorites]
Trump Says He Will Delegate Judicial Selection To The Conservative Federalist Society
Why stop at judges? You could have foreign policy decided by Lonely Planet™ and economic policy decided by the knowledgeable folks at Quicken Loans™!
Holy fucking shit this election doesn't stop reaching new depths of stupid.
posted by Talez at 4:31 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Why stop at judges? You could have foreign policy decided by Lonely Planet™ and economic policy decided by the knowledgeable folks at Quicken Loans™!
Holy fucking shit this election doesn't stop reaching new depths of stupid.
posted by Talez at 4:31 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Among this poll of Sanders supporters who are #NeverHillary, Joe Biden has a 73% favorable rating!
Wait, the guy who wrote the crime bill they so despised? The man who voted for the Second Iraq War and DOMA? Who supports abstinence-only education? Who is a self-described Zionist?
They like him better than Hillary?
Wow.
posted by dw at 4:43 PM on June 15, 2016 [26 favorites]
Wait, the guy who wrote the crime bill they so despised? The man who voted for the Second Iraq War and DOMA? Who supports abstinence-only education? Who is a self-described Zionist?
They like him better than Hillary?
Wow.
posted by dw at 4:43 PM on June 15, 2016 [26 favorites]
He is old, white and male.
Don't get me wrong, I love Joe. But I still think there are some very strong biases operating here.
I'd add that I'm struck by how much people -- including me -- who actually have taken the time to watch Hillary speak, listen to her, and read what she is written, find they actually like her a ton.
posted by bearwife at 4:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [30 favorites]
Don't get me wrong, I love Joe. But I still think there are some very strong biases operating here.
I'd add that I'm struck by how much people -- including me -- who actually have taken the time to watch Hillary speak, listen to her, and read what she is written, find they actually like her a ton.
posted by bearwife at 4:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [30 favorites]
I guess, and i'll give it a goddamn rest after this because i've done it in probably three threads at this point(and those were good responses!), what really gets my goat is that this site has been shitting on the terrorist watch lists and no fly lists since the freaking PATRIOT act was dreamed up. Broadly, widely, and consistently. This was one of the very first places i saw a good explanation of why they were garbage when i was still a lurker and barely even understood why! But if she makes a broad pro-crappy-list statement suddenly the response is "well that's too vague of a politicy policy claim to really dig in to unless you want to see something specific" or whatever?
This is one of those things like fracking. It's crappy. There isn't really a good version of it. This was almost unilaterally agreed to be security theater BS. But suddenly it's not that bad, and we should wait to hear more?
I might seriously have to take a break from these threads, or the entire site at this point because i just don't understand and i feel like i'm going to become young man yells at cloud. I'm really, deeply disappointed in multiple things she's said since the shooting(and voiced my disappointment early on at the Islamic Radicalism comment) and it's stuff i usually feel like regular posters here would be pretty critical of and everyone is just like "idk, if you look at it like this it's not that bad..."
Like yea, i'll be down there in november voting for her. But i'm worried and disappointed... and it weirds me out that almost everyone here seems to be supportive and excited even when those are... crappy positions? And i was someone who was on the fence before the primary was decided because of the gun control positions between them.
posted by emptythought at 4:47 PM on June 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
This is one of those things like fracking. It's crappy. There isn't really a good version of it. This was almost unilaterally agreed to be security theater BS. But suddenly it's not that bad, and we should wait to hear more?
I might seriously have to take a break from these threads, or the entire site at this point because i just don't understand and i feel like i'm going to become young man yells at cloud. I'm really, deeply disappointed in multiple things she's said since the shooting(and voiced my disappointment early on at the Islamic Radicalism comment) and it's stuff i usually feel like regular posters here would be pretty critical of and everyone is just like "idk, if you look at it like this it's not that bad..."
Like yea, i'll be down there in november voting for her. But i'm worried and disappointed... and it weirds me out that almost everyone here seems to be supportive and excited even when those are... crappy positions? And i was someone who was on the fence before the primary was decided because of the gun control positions between them.
posted by emptythought at 4:47 PM on June 15, 2016 [17 favorites]
NYT: Hillary's Secret Facebook Groups
In the fucking Fashion and Style section. Are you kidding me?
posted by zachlipton at 4:50 PM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
In the fucking Fashion and Style section. Are you kidding me?
posted by zachlipton at 4:50 PM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
And from the actual article: "Others function like support groups: complete with finger snaps and Hillary cat memes and engulfing, bosom-like support."
Gross, NYT
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [22 favorites]
Gross, NYT
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [22 favorites]
Bosoms fucking golfing, golfing, golfing out the roof, out the fucking door, it was golfing. There was nothing I could do.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 4:53 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by J.K. Seazer at 4:53 PM on June 15, 2016
I'd add that I'm struck by how much people -- including me -- who actually have taken the time to watch Hillary speak, listen to her, and read what she is written, find they actually like her a ton.
Hear, hear. My reaction to Hillary's candidacy early on was, "Meh, a dull, timid, centrist, dynastic choice, hardly worth getting excited about." But damned if she hasn't risen to the occasion with passion and fiery rhetoric. She's not only incredibly competent (which we all already knew) but also has shown significant character.
posted by jackbishop at 4:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [20 favorites]
Hear, hear. My reaction to Hillary's candidacy early on was, "Meh, a dull, timid, centrist, dynastic choice, hardly worth getting excited about." But damned if she hasn't risen to the occasion with passion and fiery rhetoric. She's not only incredibly competent (which we all already knew) but also has shown significant character.
posted by jackbishop at 4:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [20 favorites]
emptythought, it is possible to like a pol and not agree with them 100%. I am really disappointed with Obama on almost all civil liberties issues (a key one area of concern for me) and am not enthused HE suggested tying gun ownership to the already awful No Fly list. But I am still overall a huge Obama fan. So I find it goes for me with HRC.
I also think it is fine to not support someone or dislike them because of disagreement on important issues. I just think lots of people dislike HRC who really have not taken any kind of close look at her. Not talking about you, as I believe you have.
posted by bearwife at 4:56 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
I also think it is fine to not support someone or dislike them because of disagreement on important issues. I just think lots of people dislike HRC who really have not taken any kind of close look at her. Not talking about you, as I believe you have.
posted by bearwife at 4:56 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
I haven't caught up with the whole thread yet but I want to heartily concur with emptythought—I would have no objections to completely eliminating the second amendment from the constitution and obliterating for everyone any notion that private ownership of weapons is a right, particularly ones that are more like an artillery piece from the 18th century when that amendment was written than a firearm of the era. But instead providing the government with a means to have an arbitrary list of individuals who don't get the same fundamental rights as everyone else seems absolutely insane to me.
Between the embedded systemic racism of our society and the fact that half of the political establishment appears to have openly given up on the fight against fascism, and was somehow able to field multiple presidential candidates who propose things like special police patrols of ethnic neighborhoods and registries of citizens by ethnicity, I'm hard put to imagine a worse time to put a tool like that in the government's hands.
posted by XMLicious at 5:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Between the embedded systemic racism of our society and the fact that half of the political establishment appears to have openly given up on the fight against fascism, and was somehow able to field multiple presidential candidates who propose things like special police patrols of ethnic neighborhoods and registries of citizens by ethnicity, I'm hard put to imagine a worse time to put a tool like that in the government's hands.
posted by XMLicious at 5:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think the reason we're talking about it/reacting to it in the way that we are is that we understand that Presidential candidates have to work with the system they're given. Nobody who says "well personally I don't think we should have terrorist watch lists" or "honestly guns should just be illegal, period" is going to get elected.
So it can be useful to look at the candidates we have, and the system we have, and evaluate what each is saying in that context. We have to fight fascism with the weapon we have right now, which is a centrist establishment politician running against a fascist for POTUS.
posted by Sara C. at 5:16 PM on June 15, 2016 [25 favorites]
So it can be useful to look at the candidates we have, and the system we have, and evaluate what each is saying in that context. We have to fight fascism with the weapon we have right now, which is a centrist establishment politician running against a fascist for POTUS.
posted by Sara C. at 5:16 PM on June 15, 2016 [25 favorites]
Part of the hope of the "no guns for people on the no-fly list" is that it will, by constitutional necessity, create a system by which people can get themselves removed from the no-fly list via some reasonably expedient legal process (assuming they're not actually terrorists).
Currently there are a lot of people on that list for no known reason, who can't get off the list despite trying to go to court, and who have to try to fly before being told they're still on the list. It's a nightmare.
posted by 0xFCAF at 5:17 PM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
Currently there are a lot of people on that list for no known reason, who can't get off the list despite trying to go to court, and who have to try to fly before being told they're still on the list. It's a nightmare.
posted by 0xFCAF at 5:17 PM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
Here's a pretty good photo of what I would imagine Paul Ryan feels like all the time these days.
Daniel Lin: Transcript of Paul Ryan’s life since endorsing Trump
posted by maudlin at 5:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [18 favorites]
Daniel Lin: Transcript of Paul Ryan’s life since endorsing Trump
posted by maudlin at 5:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [18 favorites]
"Trump: When Starbucks mispells your name that's legally your new name"
Ok I lost it.
posted by Talez at 5:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Ok I lost it.
posted by Talez at 5:21 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Mod note: If you want to get in the weeds on gun control, please take it to one of the two gun control threads. I can only track the argument across so many threads at once!
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 5:23 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 5:23 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee on May 4; Clinton became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 7. So Trump had a full month head start, a month when he had the chance to pivot to the center and define his opponent, an opportunity he's completely wasted. Instead it's a seemingly-endless series of own goals.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:31 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 5:31 PM on June 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
> Jeff Sessions, Trump's right-hand man in the Senate, claimed that Pulse was not an LGBT club. In response to a question about LGBT legislation, no less.
That was Pete Sessions, not Jeff: Lawmaker Blocks Nondiscrimination Bill After Claiming Gay People Weren’t Targets In Orlando Shooting
posted by homunculus at 5:43 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
That was Pete Sessions, not Jeff: Lawmaker Blocks Nondiscrimination Bill After Claiming Gay People Weren’t Targets In Orlando Shooting
posted by homunculus at 5:43 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
it's stuff i usually feel like regular posters here would be pretty critical of and everyone is just like "idk, if you look at it like this it's not that bad..."
1 - it's a cultural thing - just as some of her opponents wouldn't oppose someone else with her policies, some of her fans are willing to overlook things that they would condemn others for
2 - starting in january, there will be a certain amount of buyer's discomfort - ordinarily, it would be remorse, but no one's going to feel remorseful about donnie losing
no one sane, anyway
3 - as an extra note i watched the first 5 minutes of trump's speech - a segment of the american population have finally found their representative - fast to talk, slow to think, unable to focus on any subject for more than a minute, and willing to communicate by shibboleths and shared assumptions rather than actual thoughts and arguments
that we're faced with a choice between this idiocy and a centrist status quo candidate in perilous times is a sign of a declining country, with declining choices
posted by pyramid termite at 5:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
1 - it's a cultural thing - just as some of her opponents wouldn't oppose someone else with her policies, some of her fans are willing to overlook things that they would condemn others for
2 - starting in january, there will be a certain amount of buyer's discomfort - ordinarily, it would be remorse, but no one's going to feel remorseful about donnie losing
no one sane, anyway
3 - as an extra note i watched the first 5 minutes of trump's speech - a segment of the american population have finally found their representative - fast to talk, slow to think, unable to focus on any subject for more than a minute, and willing to communicate by shibboleths and shared assumptions rather than actual thoughts and arguments
that we're faced with a choice between this idiocy and a centrist status quo candidate in perilous times is a sign of a declining country, with declining choices
posted by pyramid termite at 5:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump says he was ‘right’ about Obama and terrorists, citing questionable 2012 intelligence cable
“The main worry by those folks that I talk to in the national security and foreign policy universe is that he’s just winging it. And winging it . . . at this period in time is clearly dangerous,” said Kevin Madden, a veteran GOP strategist and former adviser to 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.posted by zakur at 5:46 PM on June 15, 2016
“Some days I expect him to come out and say, ‘I’m not an expert on national security, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Let me tell you what I think,’ ” Madden said.
Gov. Larry Hogan (R - MD) said emphatically Wednesday that he does not plan to vote for Donald Trump, his party’s presumptive — and divisive — presidential nominee.
posted by Chrysostom at 5:54 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 5:54 PM on June 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
As predicted, Rachel Maddow is now saying that Rubio will break his promise not to and campaign for his senate seat after all.
posted by XMLicious at 6:07 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by XMLicious at 6:07 PM on June 15, 2016
New CBS News poll: With the presidential primary season now officially at a close, Hillary Clinton (43 percent) holds a six-point lead over Donald Trump (37 percent) - the same margin she led Trump by a month ago. When former New Mexico Governor and current Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson is added to the contest, he garners 11 percent of the vote, but the margin between Clinton and Trump changes little. With Johnson's name added, Clinton holds a seven-point lead nationally over Donald Trump, 39 percent to 32 percent.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:08 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 6:08 PM on June 15, 2016
“Some days I expect him to come out and say, ‘I’m not an expert on national security, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Let me tell you what I think,’ ” Madden said.
It'd be something more like "I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night and you know what? They give you these keycards! We could make all the Muslims give police these keycards to their homes and to the mosques!"
posted by Talez at 6:27 PM on June 15, 2016
It'd be something more like "I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night and you know what? They give you these keycards! We could make all the Muslims give police these keycards to their homes and to the mosques!"
posted by Talez at 6:27 PM on June 15, 2016
Is there a requirement for a presidential candidate to have a physical for the sake of the electorate? Or is it jus tradition for presidents to release their details?
Might this be a #NeverTrump strategy for the Republican convention -- requiring candidates to pass a health and mental facility test before the final vote, in the not unreasonable hope that Trump will fail it? Corb?
posted by msalt at 6:31 PM on June 15, 2016
Might this be a #NeverTrump strategy for the Republican convention -- requiring candidates to pass a health and mental facility test before the final vote, in the not unreasonable hope that Trump will fail it? Corb?
posted by msalt at 6:31 PM on June 15, 2016
(US) Army Sergeant Goes on Rant re: Trump
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:42 PM on June 15, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:42 PM on June 15, 2016 [13 favorites]
And from the actual article: "Others function like support groups: complete with finger snaps and Hillary cat memes and engulfing, bosom-like support." Gross, NYT
That line was weird and bad and unlike the rest of the article. I wonder if an editor added that, or a friend of the writer suggested it?
The rest of it seemed pretty good though, and I think that the secret Hillary groups are an important and undertold part of this election's story. It's smart response to the gendered online harassment, and an unpredicted twist on new media campaigning.
posted by msalt at 6:49 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
That line was weird and bad and unlike the rest of the article. I wonder if an editor added that, or a friend of the writer suggested it?
The rest of it seemed pretty good though, and I think that the secret Hillary groups are an important and undertold part of this election's story. It's smart response to the gendered online harassment, and an unpredicted twist on new media campaigning.
posted by msalt at 6:49 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
From Daniel Lin, who is great:
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:50 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Marco wishes to apologize to Donald Trump. Marco asks Donald Trump if there is a speaking slot at the convention."
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:50 PM on June 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also:
I do not approve of Sauron’s vow to cover all the lands in a second darkness, but he did promise to put conservatives on the Supreme Courtposted by murphy slaw at 7:02 PM on June 15, 2016 [25 favorites]
I pretty sure Trump's going to say something in a speech about the Secret Hillary Groups the New York Times reported, because he only reads headlines.
posted by bongo_x at 7:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bongo_x at 7:13 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Okay, if you're truly ready to stop taking Trump seriously: Japanese (style) Donald Trump Commercialトランプ２０１６
now we can stop the Hitler comparisons and focus on who he's really like: Emperor Hirohito
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:16 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
now we can stop the Hitler comparisons and focus on who he's really like: Emperor Hirohito
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:16 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
1. No-fly lists are still garbage
2. But they're not going anywhere, yet
3. There are too many guns
4. I am not above using one bad idea to try to mitigate the damage of another, in the absence of any better options.
Though I do understand the point that this will further entrench/legitimize no-fly lists. However, "no-fly lists should be abolished" is not anywhere on the political radar at the moment. They are about as legitimate as they can get at this point. To change that, you have to challenge the power of the anti-terror/Homeland Security hardliners, which is a massive fight that will probably have to be fought piecemeal/sideways/over time.
If on the other hand we could force the NRA to fight some of that fight for us (because they will want to make it easier to challenge no-fly lists because it affects gun buyers) that would be an excellent bit of political jiujitsu. And have the short-term effect of there being fewer guns out there.
It's not that Mefi's gone all Yay No-Fly Lists, it's that we're looking at the best strategies for the opportunities available right now.
Politics is like that.
posted by emjaybee at 7:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [25 favorites]
2. But they're not going anywhere, yet
3. There are too many guns
4. I am not above using one bad idea to try to mitigate the damage of another, in the absence of any better options.
Though I do understand the point that this will further entrench/legitimize no-fly lists. However, "no-fly lists should be abolished" is not anywhere on the political radar at the moment. They are about as legitimate as they can get at this point. To change that, you have to challenge the power of the anti-terror/Homeland Security hardliners, which is a massive fight that will probably have to be fought piecemeal/sideways/over time.
If on the other hand we could force the NRA to fight some of that fight for us (because they will want to make it easier to challenge no-fly lists because it affects gun buyers) that would be an excellent bit of political jiujitsu. And have the short-term effect of there being fewer guns out there.
It's not that Mefi's gone all Yay No-Fly Lists, it's that we're looking at the best strategies for the opportunities available right now.
Politics is like that.
posted by emjaybee at 7:18 PM on June 15, 2016 [25 favorites]
bongo_x: "I pretty sure Trump's going to say something in a speech about the Secret Hillary Groups the New York Times reported, because he only reads headlines."
MSNBC's Chris Hayes has speculated that Trump doesn't even read newspapers but only gets his news from cable TV. I could have sworn that I read somewhere about how Trump once insulted (?) someone based on the fact that they didn't watch CNN or something but I can't find it any more.
posted by mhum at 7:23 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
MSNBC's Chris Hayes has speculated that Trump doesn't even read newspapers but only gets his news from cable TV. I could have sworn that I read somewhere about how Trump once insulted (?) someone based on the fact that they didn't watch CNN or something but I can't find it any more.
posted by mhum at 7:23 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
now we can stop the Hitler comparisons and focus on who he's really like: Emperor Hirohito
I dunno, do you think Trump would ever explicitly say he isn't a god?
posted by J.K. Seazer at 7:28 PM on June 15, 2016
I dunno, do you think Trump would ever explicitly say he isn't a god?
posted by J.K. Seazer at 7:28 PM on June 15, 2016
From Daniel Lin, who is great:
"Marco wishes to apologize to Donald Trump. Marco asks Donald Trump if there is a speaking slot at the convention."
I just discovered him today. He hits my type of humor button dead center.
Not sure why but I was reading through them all and this one just made laugh so hard.
[Debate]
CLINTON: (wearing Heelys and vaping on Snapchat) On fleek. Emojis. YAAAS.
TRUMP: At my inauguration, I promise to kill a gorilla
posted by Jalliah at 7:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
"Marco wishes to apologize to Donald Trump. Marco asks Donald Trump if there is a speaking slot at the convention."
I just discovered him today. He hits my type of humor button dead center.
Not sure why but I was reading through them all and this one just made laugh so hard.
[Debate]
CLINTON: (wearing Heelys and vaping on Snapchat) On fleek. Emojis. YAAAS.
TRUMP: At my inauguration, I promise to kill a gorilla
posted by Jalliah at 7:38 PM on June 15, 2016 [11 favorites]
If Trump were to deny his divinity then it would undermine all the Trump is the God Emperor of Humanity memes.
Next you are going to suggest that Trump will deny that he plans on making anime real.
posted by vuron at 7:41 PM on June 15, 2016
Next you are going to suggest that Trump will deny that he plans on making anime real.
posted by vuron at 7:41 PM on June 15, 2016
Be fair - we have no evidence Trump has taken on the skin of a sandtrout.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 7:46 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mod note: There are ongoing conversations about the no-fly and no-buy lists in the other threads.]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 8:00 PM on June 15, 2016
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 8:00 PM on June 15, 2016
I don't spend a whole lot of time on Facebook, but I'm kinda sad that I never knew about any of these awesome secret Hillary groups. :(
posted by Salieri at 8:25 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Salieri at 8:25 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eyebrows didn't put a closed bracket at the end, which means that all further comments in the thread are technically mod statements.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:33 PM on June 15, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 8:33 PM on June 15, 2016 [20 favorites]
MeFi is officially endorsing Trump
posted by zachlipton at 8:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 8:51 PM on June 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
All right, ya knuckleheads, I closed my bracket and made it bold so it's extra, extra strong. :P
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:52 PM on June 15, 2016 [33 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:52 PM on June 15, 2016 [33 favorites]
I pretty sure Trump's going to say something in a speech about the Secret Hillary Groups the New York Times reported, because he only reads headlines.
I was wondering today when Trump last read a book. I'd wager in college.
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:59 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was wondering today when Trump last read a book. I'd wager in college.
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:59 PM on June 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bold fringe brackets are the brackets of an Admiralty Mod, and I do not recognize their authority.
posted by bongo_x at 9:07 PM on June 15, 2016 [65 favorites]
posted by bongo_x at 9:07 PM on June 15, 2016 [65 favorites]
All right, ya knuckleheads, I closed my bracket and made it bold so it's extra, extra strong. :P
And Eyebrow's gonna make US pay for it!
posted by happyroach at 9:52 PM on June 15, 2016 [18 favorites]
And Eyebrow's gonna make US pay for it!
posted by happyroach at 9:52 PM on June 15, 2016 [18 favorites]
That bracket just got two pixels higher!
posted by mazola at 9:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by mazola at 9:53 PM on June 15, 2016 [15 favorites]
Bold fringe brackets are the same as CAPITALIZING NAMES! THIS IS A SOVEREIGN MEFI THREAD!
posted by dw at 10:08 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dw at 10:08 PM on June 15, 2016 [7 favorites]
Very glad my blue liberty tarp gets to come out of retirement. Thought I'd never get to use it again after Fry yelled "hallelujah". SOVEREIGN MEFITES ONLY RECOGNIZE GOD'S LAW NOT MOD'S LAW.
I was wondering today when Trump last read a book. I'd wager in college.
Strongly disagree. He re-reads Art of the Deal every year. Sheds a single solitary tear at the pure genius of it.
posted by honestcoyote at 10:39 PM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
I was wondering today when Trump last read a book. I'd wager in college.
Strongly disagree. He re-reads Art of the Deal every year. Sheds a single solitary tear at the pure genius of it.
posted by honestcoyote at 10:39 PM on June 15, 2016 [12 favorites]
...From money flows power and influence, and from there the perception and, in many instances, reality that the governing class has become servant to the interests of the wealthy. A crucial turning point was the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent Great Recession, which was visited upon a still-suffering public by unrepentant bankers—fantastically wealthy gamblers who talk a good free-market game but were only too happy to be shielded from harm by massive government bailouts.Trump and the End of Everything
For the record, there was no alternative to saving the financial system; without those emergency measures, we would have had another Great Depression. The mistake was letting the bankers off un-chastened and releasing them back into the wild, a failure for which Democratic and Republican political elites share responsibility. It is likely this episode catalyzed an anything-is-better-than-this backlash against the comfortable guardians of the status quo, a sentiment ripe for exploitation by a power-hungry demagogue with a gift for public theater.
But anything, if it takes the form of Donald Trump, is not better than this. It is worse. Much, much worse. It is also profoundly dangerous and would visit potentially irreversible damage upon a great and exceptional nation (and it is high time that Bernie Sanders’s supporters come to recognize this). If Internet culture threatens to turn us into a fragile, violent fiefdom, egregious concentrations of wealth and a philosophy of no-holds-barred capitalism present the danger of turning us into the world’s most advanced banana republic. These are traps from which it is not easy to escape. We must do everything we can to avoid falling into them in the first place.
posted by y2karl at 11:27 PM on June 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Does the bold end bracket mean that everything before it is a mod statement?
posted by Etrigan at 3:54 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 3:54 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
. I'd wager in college.
I have to confess I was like "Trump....college?" But yes.
Yes, Donald Trump Really Went to an Ivy League School
Trump Flaunts Wharton Degree, But His College Years Remain a Mystery
Wharton Students Distance Themselves From A Famous Alum
Fordham Students Would Like to Forget Trump Went There
posted by Miko at 4:26 AM on June 16, 2016
I have to confess I was like "Trump....college?" But yes.
Yes, Donald Trump Really Went to an Ivy League School
Trump Flaunts Wharton Degree, But His College Years Remain a Mystery
Wharton Students Distance Themselves From A Famous Alum
Fordham Students Would Like to Forget Trump Went There
posted by Miko at 4:26 AM on June 16, 2016
Storified series of tweets from Republican strategist Rick Wilson as an open letter to the GOP:
posted by octothorpe at 4:49 AM on June 16, 2016 [33 favorites]
2/ You can't elide over his utter dipshittery. No matter how much you try to act surprised, you own this. You're covered in his stench.All ten are in the link.
5/ You won't escape the stain. It's like a big, visible "No Ragrets" chest tat that will mark your careers forever.
8/ This weekend, people were lined up hundreds deep to give blood to the victims of Orlando. Your Cheeto Jesus was praising himself.
posted by octothorpe at 4:49 AM on June 16, 2016 [33 favorites]
While as far as I can tell Trump wasn't admitted via Legacy preferences back in the day as his father was not old money at all the continued existence and preferences given to legacies at most elite private schools really has me doubtful about the actual quality of lots of famous people that get into and then brag about Ivy school educations especially when it's clear that just having a big donor vouch for you can basically result in admission.
Legacy preferences clearly diminish the quality of the incoming students and elite schools game the hell out of them with stuff like the z list at Harvard but to the average American Ivy is Ivy so keeping them are a great way to keep Ivies white i mean great
posted by vuron at 4:51 AM on June 16, 2016
Legacy preferences clearly diminish the quality of the incoming students and elite schools game the hell out of them with stuff like the z list at Harvard but to the average American Ivy is Ivy so keeping them are a great way to keep Ivies white i mean great
posted by vuron at 4:51 AM on June 16, 2016
Storified series of tweets from Republican strategist Rick Wilson as an open letter to the GOP:
And "Cheeto Jesus" was born. Damn that's good.
posted by Sreiny at 4:55 AM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
And "Cheeto Jesus" was born. Damn that's good.
posted by Sreiny at 4:55 AM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
10/ Your resumes will always read "Worked for a batshit crazy crypto-fascist who destroyed the GOP".
From his fingertips to God's eyes.
posted by y2karl at 5:01 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
From his fingertips to God's eyes.
posted by y2karl at 5:01 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton Is Actively Vetting Elizabeth Warren As Potential Running Mate: Other possible choices include Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, among others.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:11 AM on June 16, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:11 AM on June 16, 2016
Elite schools were flatly much less academically competitive in the 60s than they are today. They also drew from much more regional recruitment pools and much more traditional socio-cultural groups. An East Coast rich dude's son who went to an Ivy in the 60s is like, "Well, sure, that's what they were for." If Trump came from a disadvantaged group and managed to go to an Ivy before admissions shifted away from the gentlemanly class, that's impressive, especially in the quota era. But a rich white East Coast dude going to an Ivy in the 60s? That's just what Ivies were for.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:15 AM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:15 AM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
It seems quite unlikely that Trump could win an election. My prediction: Trump will do whatever it takes to have the Republicans choose a different candidate – somehow. The alternative is losing (which he hates) or "winning" a hard, stressful job. But being the spoiler, someone who can snipe and snipe and screw people around? He's been training for that all his life.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:21 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:21 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
If he were, somehow, to win I picture the immediate aftermath as kind of like the last scene of The Candidate...except instead of asking "What do we do now?" he'd be all like "Well, I'll be on the golf course if you need me. Don't call before 3:00!"
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:59 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:59 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
State of the Union address would be via Twitter
posted by museum of fire ants at 6:04 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by museum of fire ants at 6:04 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Actually comparing Trump to a Cheetoh is a really good comparison even beyond the "Orange" bits
1)Orange
2)Made of hot air and extruded product
3)Utterly devoid of substance or nutritional content
4)Leaves your hands dirty after handling
5)Enjoyed only by children (in this case manchilds)
6)Makes you feel disgusted by yourself after consuming
Cheetoh lovers are free to hate now
posted by vuron at 6:06 AM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
1)Orange
2)Made of hot air and extruded product
3)Utterly devoid of substance or nutritional content
4)Leaves your hands dirty after handling
5)Enjoyed only by children (in this case manchilds)
6)Makes you feel disgusted by yourself after consuming
Cheetoh lovers are free to hate now
posted by vuron at 6:06 AM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
Legacy admissions are useful because getting to network with the scions of the rich an powerful is an intangible benefit of Ivy League education.
posted by humanfont at 6:07 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 6:07 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would agree that having someone's rich dad or uncle be a venture capitalist is super useful if you want to start a tech company but is it really worth holding aside 10-20% of the seats for the incoming class?
Why not just allow anyone who went to Phillips Exeter to automatically enter.
I totally understand why some of the elite universities do this because it's a great way to increase your endowment (and presumably not have to deal with giving financial aid) and for the most part undergrads don't really contribute that much to the research efforts of elite institutions but let's not pretend that there aren't plenty of negative consequences as well.
posted by vuron at 6:21 AM on June 16, 2016
Why not just allow anyone who went to Phillips Exeter to automatically enter.
I totally understand why some of the elite universities do this because it's a great way to increase your endowment (and presumably not have to deal with giving financial aid) and for the most part undergrads don't really contribute that much to the research efforts of elite institutions but let's not pretend that there aren't plenty of negative consequences as well.
posted by vuron at 6:21 AM on June 16, 2016
George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump, billionaire, are basically Flounder from Animal House.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:31 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by kirkaracha at 7:31 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump supporters get into Twitterfights with Markov-fueled [maybe?] Twitter bot @assbott
posted by dersins at 7:50 AM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by dersins at 7:50 AM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
octothorpe: All ten are in the link.
Here's an illustrated director's cut of those tweets, because we all needed a Cheeto Jesus picture to brighten our day.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:54 AM on June 16, 2016
Here's an illustrated director's cut of those tweets, because we all needed a Cheeto Jesus picture to brighten our day.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:54 AM on June 16, 2016
So, if I donate to Clinton now, she can use the money for general election funds, right? I'm confused by the whole primary/general legality.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:58 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chrysostom at 7:58 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
As much as I think the world would be better off if Trump simply walked away in shame from his campaign today, another part of me wants him not to completely implode until after the R convention. They've been making this bed for 15 to 45 years, and now it's time for them to lie in it.
posted by chimaera at 8:10 AM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by chimaera at 8:10 AM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
State of the Union address would be via Twitter
The State of our Union is: Great Again
posted by saturday_morning at 8:15 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
The State of our Union is: Great Again
posted by saturday_morning at 8:15 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
So, if I donate to Clinton now, she can use the money for general election funds, right? I'm confused by the whole primary/general legality.
Money contributed right now goes into the primary fund until the convention although you can specify on the check it should go to the general election fund. Once the convention has happened the person donating can choose whether to send money towards retiring debts or for the general. Also, campaigns can roll over any left over primary money into their general election fund. In a practical sense it all amounts to donating $5400 directly to a candidate over the course of an election campaign.
posted by Talez at 8:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Money contributed right now goes into the primary fund until the convention although you can specify on the check it should go to the general election fund. Once the convention has happened the person donating can choose whether to send money towards retiring debts or for the general. Also, campaigns can roll over any left over primary money into their general election fund. In a practical sense it all amounts to donating $5400 directly to a candidate over the course of an election campaign.
posted by Talez at 8:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
AFL-CIO -- which has $12.5m members -- endorses Clinton
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:32 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:32 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Donald Trump Apparently Has A Serious Fundraising Problem
This is pretty big for the downticket races. The Presidential campaigns usually have long coattails, every other candidate counts on using some of the national structure to get out the vote and advertise for their own race. If Trump is way behind on fundraising and ground game, it's doing to trickle down (ha!) to the lower races.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:47 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is pretty big for the downticket races. The Presidential campaigns usually have long coattails, every other candidate counts on using some of the national structure to get out the vote and advertise for their own race. If Trump is way behind on fundraising and ground game, it's doing to trickle down (ha!) to the lower races.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:47 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump supporters get into Twitterfights with Markov-fueled [maybe?] Twitter bot @assbott
In their defense, @assbott's tweets are no less coherent than those of their evil, orange puppet-master.
posted by sour cream at 8:51 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
In their defense, @assbott's tweets are no less coherent than those of their evil, orange puppet-master.
posted by sour cream at 8:51 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is pretty big for the downticket races.
But alternately, maybe it's people taking the money they would have given to for the presidential campaign, and then they turn around and give it to Congressional races?
posted by Chrysostom at 8:52 AM on June 16, 2016
But alternately, maybe it's people taking the money they would have given to for the presidential campaign, and then they turn around and give it to Congressional races?
posted by Chrysostom at 8:52 AM on June 16, 2016
Donald Trump Accused of Using His Charity as a Political Slush Fund
When the story first came out about Bondi, the part that stood out to me wasn't the possibility of bribery, which is very difficult to prove, but the fact that the donation to Bondi came from the Trump Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charity.
There is no ambiguity about that. A charity donating to a political campaign is a clear cut, very serious IRS violation. It means that the charity's tax exemption is revoked, which means that everyone who donated to the charity and claimed a tax deduction needs to amend their returns and remove the tax deduction.
Further, the law states that an organization that loses 501(c)(3) status, which is a charity, is also ineligible to be a 501(c)(4) civic non-profit. This means that the organization becomes a for-profit company and all of the millions received by the charity must be refiled as taxable income.
There is also the issue of filing a fraudulent tax return. This is all serious, bright-line stuff for the IRS and it will be interesting to see if Trump will get away with arguing that this was just a silly mistake.
posted by JackFlash at 8:53 AM on June 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
When the story first came out about Bondi, the part that stood out to me wasn't the possibility of bribery, which is very difficult to prove, but the fact that the donation to Bondi came from the Trump Foundation, a 501(c)(3) charity.
There is no ambiguity about that. A charity donating to a political campaign is a clear cut, very serious IRS violation. It means that the charity's tax exemption is revoked, which means that everyone who donated to the charity and claimed a tax deduction needs to amend their returns and remove the tax deduction.
Further, the law states that an organization that loses 501(c)(3) status, which is a charity, is also ineligible to be a 501(c)(4) civic non-profit. This means that the organization becomes a for-profit company and all of the millions received by the charity must be refiled as taxable income.
There is also the issue of filing a fraudulent tax return. This is all serious, bright-line stuff for the IRS and it will be interesting to see if Trump will get away with arguing that this was just a silly mistake.
posted by JackFlash at 8:53 AM on June 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
This is all serious, bright-line stuff for the IRS and it will be interesting to see if Trump will get away with arguing that this was just a silly mistake.
I foresee President Clinton pulling the leash back on her DoJ/IRS/etc. to keep it from looking like she's going after her fallen foe, regardless of how much criminality (advertent or in-) there actually was.
posted by Etrigan at 8:55 AM on June 16, 2016
I foresee President Clinton pulling the leash back on her DoJ/IRS/etc. to keep it from looking like she's going after her fallen foe, regardless of how much criminality (advertent or in-) there actually was.
posted by Etrigan at 8:55 AM on June 16, 2016
Sanders endorses Rep Marcy Kaptur, candidate with 30% rating from NARAL. 30% is considered a pro-life voting record. She has repeatedly voted to ban dilation and extraction.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 8:57 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by a fiendish thingy at 8:57 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is all serious, bright-line stuff for the IRS and it will be interesting to see if Trump will get away with arguing that this was just a silly mistake.
[Insert conservative platitude about the IRS being used for political purposes here]
posted by Talez at 8:58 AM on June 16, 2016
[Insert conservative platitude about the IRS being used for political purposes here]
posted by Talez at 8:58 AM on June 16, 2016
Yes people like the Kochs are definitely going to put money into down ballot races but it's still a negative for Republicans overall.
There are many reasons for this but essentially it comes down to it's less effective to give the same amount of money to 50 candidates than give it to one big organization like a presidential campaign.
The reality is that a lot of the infrastructure that many campaigns need is extremely expensive. Analytics tools necessary for micro-targeting voters, grassroots with lots of door-to-door and phonebankers, big ad-buys on national programming, etc these are generally handled by the RNC and the Presidential campaign and they tend to be shared (like common goods) down ballot so that a rural Representative still has access to tools that a national campaign might have. Plus because they are often priced out of doing big media buys in some markets many suburban Republicans representatives depend on the Presidential Campaign to introduce a lot of positive impacts for down ballot races.
So if Trump is doing his campaign on the cheap because this is just one big grift (and it is) it means that the RNC will have to prop him up (because some things absolutely still need to be purchased) and that means less resources the RNC can devote to down-ballot causes. Yes big republican donors might give to a lot of downballot candidates separately but it's not a guarantee and it's costly because now even smaller campaigns are going to have to be more aggressive about soliciting from big donor lists and a lot of those types don't want to hear from every little campaign.
This is kind of the reason why I disliked all the progressive chatter about how much money Hillary was siphoning off when she was doing big joint fundraisers like it was just one big slushfund. Nope it might look like the bulk of the funding is going to the national campaign but in reality most of it's going to buy a shared infrastructure.
posted by vuron at 9:06 AM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
There are many reasons for this but essentially it comes down to it's less effective to give the same amount of money to 50 candidates than give it to one big organization like a presidential campaign.
The reality is that a lot of the infrastructure that many campaigns need is extremely expensive. Analytics tools necessary for micro-targeting voters, grassroots with lots of door-to-door and phonebankers, big ad-buys on national programming, etc these are generally handled by the RNC and the Presidential campaign and they tend to be shared (like common goods) down ballot so that a rural Representative still has access to tools that a national campaign might have. Plus because they are often priced out of doing big media buys in some markets many suburban Republicans representatives depend on the Presidential Campaign to introduce a lot of positive impacts for down ballot races.
So if Trump is doing his campaign on the cheap because this is just one big grift (and it is) it means that the RNC will have to prop him up (because some things absolutely still need to be purchased) and that means less resources the RNC can devote to down-ballot causes. Yes big republican donors might give to a lot of downballot candidates separately but it's not a guarantee and it's costly because now even smaller campaigns are going to have to be more aggressive about soliciting from big donor lists and a lot of those types don't want to hear from every little campaign.
This is kind of the reason why I disliked all the progressive chatter about how much money Hillary was siphoning off when she was doing big joint fundraisers like it was just one big slushfund. Nope it might look like the bulk of the funding is going to the national campaign but in reality most of it's going to buy a shared infrastructure.
posted by vuron at 9:06 AM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
I foresee President Clinton pulling the leash back on her DoJ/IRS/etc. to keep it from looking like she's going after her fallen foe
I'd prefer for her to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war; to crush her enemy and see him driven before her; and savor the lamentations of his Twitter goons.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:11 AM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
I'd prefer for her to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war; to crush her enemy and see him driven before her; and savor the lamentations of his Twitter goons.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:11 AM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
Speaking of the campaign as one big grift: Is Trump’s ‘Campaign’ Just a Scheme to Launch Trump TV?
Sarah Ellison reports that Trump is exploring the possibility of a television or other media venture that would cater to his loyalists. “According to several people briefed on the discussions, the presumptive Republican nominee is examining the opportunity presented by the ‘audience’ currently supporting him,” she writes. “He has also discussed the possibility of launching a 'mini-media conglomerate' outside of his existing TV-production business, Trump Productions LLC.” According to Ellison, Trump chafes at the way media have been able to make money off his antics without him getting a cut — a piece of reporting that happens to comport with Trump’s frequent public boasts about the ratings he commands and the money others are making off him.posted by zombieflanders at 9:15 AM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
And if this is Trump’s plan, it makes sense. Perhaps he grasps a truth the official Republican Party has refused to acknowledge: The conservative base is a subculture. It is a numerically large subculture, but a subculture nonetheless. It rejects the moral values of the larger society and wallows within its own imaginary world, in which Barack Obama is a foreign-born agent of anti-American interests, global warming is a lie concocted by greedy scientists or perhaps the Chinese, and hordes of foreigners are rendering the United States unrecognizable. The greater the gulf between the reality perceived by Trump’s supporters and the reality experienced by the rest of the world, the worse for the Republican Party, but all the more profitable for the media that can cater to their delusions.
Should be "AFL-CIO -- which has 12.5m members -- endorses Clinton" with no dollar sign. Unless that's just a corruption marker. {/}
posted by defenestration at 9:15 AM on June 16, 2016
posted by defenestration at 9:15 AM on June 16, 2016
Unless that's just a corruption marker.
Maybe just a typo.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:16 AM on June 16, 2016
Maybe just a typo.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:16 AM on June 16, 2016
Sanders endorses Rep Marcy Kaptur, candidate with 30% rating from NARAL. 30% is considered a pro-life voting record. She has repeatedly voted to ban dilation and extracti
And she's had ample opportunity, having served in Congress since 1982 and never winning with less than 55% of the vote.
posted by one_bean at 9:17 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
And she's had ample opportunity, having served in Congress since 1982 and never winning with less than 55% of the vote.
posted by one_bean at 9:17 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unless that's just a corruption marker.
Maybe just a typo.
I was just joking around. But that is a big endorsement for sure.
posted by defenestration at 9:18 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe just a typo.
I was just joking around. But that is a big endorsement for sure.
posted by defenestration at 9:18 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Re Trump's education, my understanding is that he went to Fordham (not an Ivy, and I hate to rag on it because it's more name-prestigious than my alma mater, but it's not actually that competitive to get into) and then Wharton School Of Business for an MBA.
I don't think you get into Wharton as a legacy. And, I mean, MBA degrees, sneer sneer sneer how hard can they be to get really
What I'm saying is that while I guess it's impressive that he bothered to go to college at all, and Wharton is kind of a big deal in MBA-worshipping circles, he's not nearly as well educated (or as old-money) as he'd like to let on. He's typically educated for NYC Wall Street high finance circles. He's mediocrally* educated compared to the Obamas or the Clintons. The only real difference his education holds over a particularly ambitious car dealership owner from Tampa is that his undergrad diploma doesn't have any direction words on it.
*If bigly can be a word, surely this...
posted by Sara C. at 9:23 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
I don't think you get into Wharton as a legacy. And, I mean, MBA degrees, sneer sneer sneer how hard can they be to get really
What I'm saying is that while I guess it's impressive that he bothered to go to college at all, and Wharton is kind of a big deal in MBA-worshipping circles, he's not nearly as well educated (or as old-money) as he'd like to let on. He's typically educated for NYC Wall Street high finance circles. He's mediocrally* educated compared to the Obamas or the Clintons. The only real difference his education holds over a particularly ambitious car dealership owner from Tampa is that his undergrad diploma doesn't have any direction words on it.
*If bigly can be a word, surely this...
posted by Sara C. at 9:23 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Is Trump’s ‘Campaign’ Just a Scheme to Launch Trump TV?
I keep saying, the person most vulnerable to Trump isn't Hillary, it's Rush Limbaugh. Are there any 'dittoheads' to who aren't massive Trumpsters?
I've always thought that was the real aim of Trump's run -- before it seemed like he might actually win. Now that he's the apparent actual candidate, he might lose the general so badly that he can no longer go the right-wing talking head route. At least, not with the kind of prominence and profitability he probably imagined.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I keep saying, the person most vulnerable to Trump isn't Hillary, it's Rush Limbaugh. Are there any 'dittoheads' to who aren't massive Trumpsters?
I've always thought that was the real aim of Trump's run -- before it seemed like he might actually win. Now that he's the apparent actual candidate, he might lose the general so badly that he can no longer go the right-wing talking head route. At least, not with the kind of prominence and profitability he probably imagined.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump’s relationship with RNC sours. Among other things, he promised to call two dozen top GOP donors, then quit after making just three calls.
Trump, in a rally yesterday:
Trump, in a rally yesterday:
You know, the Republicans, honestly, folks, our leaders — our leaders have to get tougher. This is too tough to do it alone. But you know what? I think I’m gonna be forced to. I think I’m going to be forced to.posted by zakur at 9:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Our leaders have to get a lot tougher, and be quiet. Just please be quiet. Don’t talk. Please, be quiet. Just be quiet, to the leaders, because they have to get tougher, they have to get sharper, they have to get smarter, and we have to have our Republicans either stick together or let me just do it by myself.
A lot of people thought I should do that anyway. But I’ll just do it very nicely by myself. I think you’re gonna have a very good result. I think we’ll be very happy. I’ll run as a Republican.
then Wharton School Of Business for an MBA.
No, Trump did not get a Wharton MBA. He spent two undergraduate years at Fordham and then two undergraduate years at U Penn. He got an undergraduate degree in business. He tries to fool people into thinking he got a Wharton MBA, but he just got a bog standard undergraduate business degree, which includes some classes at Wharton.
posted by JackFlash at 9:30 AM on June 16, 2016 [24 favorites]
No, Trump did not get a Wharton MBA. He spent two undergraduate years at Fordham and then two undergraduate years at U Penn. He got an undergraduate degree in business. He tries to fool people into thinking he got a Wharton MBA, but he just got a bog standard undergraduate business degree, which includes some classes at Wharton.
posted by JackFlash at 9:30 AM on June 16, 2016 [24 favorites]
mediocrally
I think the standard "productive suffix" there would be "-ly" and therefore produce "mediocrely"
let the prescriptivist/descriptivist derail begin!
posted by aspersioncast at 9:30 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the standard "productive suffix" there would be "-ly" and therefore produce "mediocrely"
let the prescriptivist/descriptivist derail begin!
posted by aspersioncast at 9:30 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders endorses Rep Marcy Kaptur, candidate with 30% rating from NARAL. 30% is considered a pro-life voting record. She has repeatedly voted to ban dilation and extraction.
Oh, it's worse than that. She voted to ban federal health coverage that includes abortions. She threatened to kill the ACA until President Obama agreed to release an executive order backing up the existing ban on taxpayer funding for abortion. She's also the only member of the Progressive Caucus to vote against embryonic stem cell research and against expanding current research initiatives to include additional embryonic stem cell lines.
But hey, she's against NAFTA. Isn't that great? I guess Sanders thinks that makes up for Kaptur spending 30 years trying to fuck over millions of women.
posted by zarq at 9:32 AM on June 16, 2016 [52 favorites]
Oh, it's worse than that. She voted to ban federal health coverage that includes abortions. She threatened to kill the ACA until President Obama agreed to release an executive order backing up the existing ban on taxpayer funding for abortion. She's also the only member of the Progressive Caucus to vote against embryonic stem cell research and against expanding current research initiatives to include additional embryonic stem cell lines.
But hey, she's against NAFTA. Isn't that great? I guess Sanders thinks that makes up for Kaptur spending 30 years trying to fuck over millions of women.
posted by zarq at 9:32 AM on June 16, 2016 [52 favorites]
Pobody's nerfect, zarq.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:34 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:34 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is it funnier that this inheritor-class dudebro who has almost certainly never had a callous, gone without a meal nor been punched in the face self-identifies as 'tough,' or that his fans actually eat this up?
I mean, tough how? Like an overcooked Trumpsteak?
posted by aspersioncast at 9:35 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
I mean, tough how? Like an overcooked Trumpsteak?
posted by aspersioncast at 9:35 AM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Oh, so he has the education of an unambitious Tampa car dealership owner, then.
posted by Sara C. at 9:38 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 9:38 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump is "tough" in the way that Joe Apario is tough, or a Fortune 500 CEO is tough; willing and able to abuse his authority.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:41 AM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:41 AM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
In the spirit of juvenile vulgarity i present: RUMP 2016 (NSFW, NSFL [hello.jpg mashup])
posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 9:44 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Trinity-Gehenna at 9:44 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is it funnier that this inheritor-class dudebro who has almost certainly never had a callous, gone without a meal nor been punched in the face self-identifies as 'tough,' or that his fans actually eat this up?
Far be it from me to defend Trump, but he went to military school, where he played several sports. I am willing to bet he's had callouses and been punched.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:47 AM on June 16, 2016
Far be it from me to defend Trump, but he went to military school, where he played several sports. I am willing to bet he's had callouses and been punched.
posted by Chrysostom at 9:47 AM on June 16, 2016
Tough (adj.): "Bellicose; cavalier with respect to the lives and resources of others"
posted by aspersioncast at 9:47 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by aspersioncast at 9:47 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
In Kaptur's defense, she's in Ohio, and that state is always going to require reps that walk an odd line. If the choice is Kaptur or an R, I'd take Kaptur. But yeah, those optics are hella bad.
What's surprising to me is that Kaptur's been in the house for aaaages. Sanders supporting her is surely payback for her endorsing him, but it doesn't seem critical.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:50 AM on June 16, 2016
What's surprising to me is that Kaptur's been in the house for aaaages. Sanders supporting her is surely payback for her endorsing him, but it doesn't seem critical.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:50 AM on June 16, 2016
Trump even tried to class up his diploma by slapping a more prestigious name on it, I'll hand it to him for consistency.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:51 AM on June 16, 2016
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:51 AM on June 16, 2016
played several sports
Fair enough.
Unless all these pictures were staged! Let's see his birth certificate! :p
had callouses and been punched.
Those were the days . . .
posted by aspersioncast at 9:51 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fair enough.
Unless all these pictures were staged! Let's see his birth certificate! :p
had callouses and been punched.
Those were the days . . .
posted by aspersioncast at 9:51 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ohh so Trump is actually someone like Sterling Archer just affecting a middle class everyman guise.
1)Tough as nails
2)Stylish - well at least in his mind
3)Misogynistic
4)Witty for some values of witty
5)Definite parental issues
6)Completely abusive to the help
7)Loathed by coworkers
8)Supposedly not an alcoholic
I need to see him in a tactical turtleneck to confirm. Or maybe we can have a Trump cartoon after the end of Archer with the Trump character voiced by H Jon Benjamin.
posted by vuron at 9:58 AM on June 16, 2016
1)Tough as nails
2)Stylish - well at least in his mind
3)Misogynistic
4)Witty for some values of witty
5)Definite parental issues
6)Completely abusive to the help
7)Loathed by coworkers
8)Supposedly not an alcoholic
I need to see him in a tactical turtleneck to confirm. Or maybe we can have a Trump cartoon after the end of Archer with the Trump character voiced by H Jon Benjamin.
posted by vuron at 9:58 AM on June 16, 2016
Trump is "tough" in the way that Bernie Madoff was tough, and I remain certain that a major motivation for his political misadventure is the mistaken belief that being President can grant him immunity from prosecution for several things that'd cause him to spend his declining years in a Federal Prison. (Fortunately for him, he'll obviously qualify for a 'Country Club' prison where you don't need to be tough at all).
But if President Hillary's DOJ were to throw the book ("Art of the Deal") at the poster boy for crony capitalism, the only Republicans who could possibly object would be those who he had specifically made pastbribes campaign contributions to. Wait... didn't he contribute to Hillary Clinton's first Senate Run before he went Full-GOP? (Wasn't that why Hill & Bill attended his 3rd wedding?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:01 AM on June 16, 2016
But if President Hillary's DOJ were to throw the book ("Art of the Deal") at the poster boy for crony capitalism, the only Republicans who could possibly object would be those who he had specifically made past
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:01 AM on June 16, 2016
But if President Hillary's DOJ were to throw the book ("Art of the Deal") at the poster boy for crony capitalism, the only Republicans who could possibly object would be those who...
...want to score political points against a Democratic president.
posted by Etrigan at 10:05 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
...want to score political points against a Democratic president.
posted by Etrigan at 10:05 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh god, Etrigan, now you've made me imagine a future where Hillary is president and all those Republicans who opposed him for being a fascist moron now wistfully imagine out loud how great a Trump presidency would have been. Mark my words; I'm linking back to this comment if and when that happens.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 10:10 AM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by J.K. Seazer at 10:10 AM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
Former GWB Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage endorses Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.
posted by stolyarova at 10:18 AM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 10:18 AM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
I've seen every episode of Archer at least once, many twice, so I'm aware of all the many ways Sterling Archer is an absolutely horrible human being. I'm still very offended on his behalf.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:24 AM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:24 AM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
I know! Comparing someone to Trump is about the vilest insult there is.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:26 AM on June 16, 2016
posted by Chrysostom at 10:26 AM on June 16, 2016
Charles Pierce asks whether Trump wants to even really be President:
Ever since the rise of He, Trump, I have resolutely resisted the arguments of people who told me that he didn't really want the job of being president, that he was only in it to build his brand, that he was simply ego-surfing on the waves of affection produced by simpletons. I thought he actually believed he could do the job of being president better than all those other pathetic, low-energy losers who lined up against him. I thought that, the more he won, the more he validated himself in the echoing canyons of his mind. Now, though, I'm not sure. Maybe the whole thing was pure grift from the start.posted by palindromic at 10:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
(If you’d like to be angry) Jenna Johnson at The Washington Post: “Donald Trump calls her ‘Crooked Hillary,’ but his fans just say ‘[bitch]’”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:27 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Wait, Trump supporters are unapologetic misogynistic assholes? Who'd have guessed?
posted by octothorpe at 10:36 AM on June 16, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 10:36 AM on June 16, 2016
Mason Adams at Politico: “How the Rebel Flag Rose Again—and Is Helping Trump”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:36 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:36 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jordan Klepper and Desi Lydic: The year of the white voters.
posted by numaner at 10:39 AM on June 16, 2016
posted by numaner at 10:39 AM on June 16, 2016
(If you’d like to be angry) Jenna Johnson at The Washington Post: “Donald Trump calls her ‘Crooked Hillary,’ but his fans just say ‘[bitch]’”
posted by Talez at 10:41 AM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
“Everybody’s just so sensitive now. Trump supporters just go out and they just say how they feel. . . . I’m not offended by it. I mean, it just is what it is. It’s just a feel-good American-type thing. We are not over-analyzing every little thing that we say or do.”Yeah! Fucking liberals and their unreasonable demands of treating people with a modicum of respect by default!
posted by Talez at 10:41 AM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
I wonder if Trump will back off on using "America First!" as it looks like the white nationalist who just murdered Labour MP Jo Cox (RIP) shouted "Britain First!" as he shot her.
posted by stolyarova at 10:46 AM on June 16, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 10:46 AM on June 16, 2016
I have a grandfather who's in some ways a legit badass himself (he grew up with parents who spent their lives in countries trying to resist the Bolshevik/Communist revolution, which I guess explains his kneejerk dislike of the Left?), and he is nutso gaga about Trump. I bet he'd describe Trump as "tough", and most of the Trump supporters I hear about remind me of how my grandfather thinks and acts. Which is kind of a relief to me, and one of the things keeping me sane—not because I don't think those followers are insanely dangerous, but because I think there are limits to their fucked-up fascist fanaticism that will keep our nation from dissolving or going to the dogs, unless things are a lot uglier and worse than they appear to be even now.
Trump supporters aren't simpleminded. They're operating off a set of facts so divorced from reality that they're literally psychotic and insane, but there _is_ logic and thought going on there, albeit uselessly. That logic can be simplified to "afraid of loss of privilege", and don't get me wrong I'm 100% okay with that simplification, but I do think there're some knots and brambles in how they think which are smoothed out by that simplification which interest me.
For one thing, I think they mistrust corporations more than they're given credit for. Their mistrust of the government extends to their mistrust of how much power lobbyists wield (which Trump has taken advantage of rhetorically—that's not a new insight). Their fear of socialism partly manifests itself as a fear that government will hurt small businesses to support the vast, tyrannical corporations that control them. I suspect that a part of Trump's appeal lies in his solipsistic habit of naming everything after himself: yes, his empire is vast and corrupt, but it's certainly not faceless, and it lets Trump present himself as a kind of "indie" corporation, which for all its failings still belongs to a single American man. I think there's also an assumption that small businesses necessarily contribute to a sense of community, which is a fallacy in many ways. (The technocracy thinks of itself as a collection of small, personal enterprises, but as somebody who's been personally exploited by a start-up, I know how easy it is for a cool, young CEO to look you in the face and think of you as an exploitable asset. Corporate exploitation starts small: Steve Jobs stole thousands of dollars from Steve Wozniak before employee #3 joined Apple.)
The social conservatism that seems to genuinely drive the movement is rooted in a more definite ignorance, but it's an ignorance borne of information overload—one of the fundamental diseases of our age, and something that manifests itself in MetaFilter threads as readily as it does on Fox News. Was it here that somebody mentioned an asshole on Facebook linking to Wikipedia's list of Islamic terrorist attacks? Of course there isn't a similar Wikipedia list of Christian terrorist attacks, because we don't define Christian terrorist attacks as terrorism—and in a time of Too Many Details, omissions like that tend to compound exponentially. If you don't know much about Islam, your ignorances explode in short time (and when I was younger, learning about the world primarily from Reddit threads, the ease with which user logic shifted from genuine liberalism to libertarian nuttery to scary Trumploving across a decade felt completely reasonable and at no times worth serious doubt). The same goes for feminism, for QUILTBAG rights, for sexual promiscuity (I've written about this before), and for basically any kind of deviation-from-social-norms-as-defined-by-old-people (even when young people buy into that shit). You can consider yourself well-read on a subject and remain entirely ignorant on it, because the assumptions by which you derive your reading list will distort your field of knowledge to grotesque extents. That's not a They Do It, either: we enlightened MeFites have similar distortions, some of which are more insidious and destructive than I think we're usually comfortable with or than I have the energy to get into right now. (JUST TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR: the ones I'm talking about aren't ones we'd usually call political, and I'm not trying to suggest that there's some dark secret that renders all of our tolerance and love invalid. Because, eww.)
The slippery slope works both ways. Just as a member of the Westboro Baptist Church might be convinced to escape her life just because somebody was friends with her on Twitter, shattering her worldview in the tiniest of ways, so too does somebody who sets out along a certain path of logic find themselves susceptible to a perverse and growing set of beliefs, until they seem terrifying to those of us who see the world a different way. Because of this, what we usually think of as "logical" approaches to discussion—things involving, y'know, facts, and abstractions, and what-have-you—are actually deeply irrational and virtually useless. It's like trying to demolish a house by replacing its furniture piece-by-piece. None of you here are gonna be convinced to suddenly hate Islam because of something your nutty relative tells you; the same is mostly true in reverse. It would take a shock as vast as the sort that would make you suddenly wonder if, hey, maybe we should ban all Muslims after all, before your nutty relative is gonna start changing their mind.
I don't think that "tough" has the direct masculine connotations we're assuming here. Which isn't to say masculinity isn't significant here—it's to say that the masculine bullshittery is stranger and more pervasive than just "hey you, look at my muscles". Donald Trump's toughness, to my mind, has been fairly earned by him. He earned it by saying the things that his followers believed, by sticking to it all, by making it clear that he's not dogwhistling or manipulating them. He's speaking the truth as he knows it. Maybe even courageously. (Certainly his Republican counterparts are too frightened to be as honest as he's being. Is that because they don't believe what they say, or simply because they know the shit they'll receive for speaking their mind? And at what point is the distinction meaningless?)
Where the toughness rings false, and where the true patriarchal wretchedness seeps in, is that I think the Trump worldview, more than the Clinton or Sanders worldviews (though there're light shades of grey here), requires you to think of Truth and Facts as perfectly understandable, inviolable, and insusceptible to personal bias. Once you know the Truth, you insist upon it, fierily and full of conviction; you see any deviation from the Truth as a grotesque thing, essentially Satan's mark itself. (My old favorite author, Orson Scott Card, moved from a pretty generous stance on homosexuality, to an awful and batshit one, to raving bigotry, as the world refused to acknowledge his initial interpretation and he grew convinced that only a Conspiracy could explain it all.) At some point, you begin to relinquish common decency, morality, and ethics as you attempt to brace yourself against the seemingly repugnant violation that the changing world represents.
The various social justice movements, meanwhile, ranging from #BlackLivesMatter to intersectional feminism to, hell, take your pick, request the exact opposite. They ask that you see yourself, your life, your experience, as part of a vastly more pointillist society, and to find a genuine curiosity in the parts of society that you will never know firsthand. In these movements, some voices matter more than others, because they have been more silenced; some grievances are more significant than others, because they are borne of deeper harms and injustices. As a cissexual straight white man, I can ponder all the ways in which I've been wronged by society, but I'll spend far more time shutting up and listening than anything, and I'll hope for society to change in ways that reflect the people I'm listening to more than it reflects me. My assertiveness consists of a comfort with knowing that I'm not who matters here, that my version of the Truth might be interrupted at any point by somebody who says "Fuck off for a minute—you don't know what the hell you're talking about."
My grandfather is a very smart and admirable man, and I love him without reservation. But his masculinity, his toughness, while more authentic than Trump's in many ways, all derive from that same insistence that his understanding of the world, and his force of will, reflect some Platonic truth that can only be deviated from if you're willing to upend reality itself. He calls Trump tough because Trump insists upon that reality himself. Trump's cowardice, his incompetence, his clearly disintegrating mind, don't matter; his heraldry of the Truth is what makes him strong, and Rubio weak. In a lot of ways, Trump is a glorious manifestation of this particular aspect of human nature, just as much as Hillary Clinton is a glorious manifestation of the kind of person you become when you spend your entire life learning to work within an unfair society, but insist upon your capacity to do something good regardless. (It's hard for me to think of this year in anything less than Biblical terms.)
Yet I think Trump, and the revolution his ilk have been building towards since at least the 80s, arrived too late. America's moved past them. Too many people have too much of an inkling of the world as the complex and beautiful place that it is. Too many people know how to doubt their own opinions. Too many people have suffered at the hands of doubtless monsters not to recognize the pattern. The reactionaries are intensifying their madness, but the more they do, the more they're recognized for what they are. They could only command the mainstream by sublimating their vision—and that sublimation gave their opponents room to organize, to gather and grow, and that growth is what's caused them to intensify now. It's a self-defeating cycle. I don't think it could have gone any way.
Information overload is an insidious form of ignorance, but it's not the only consequence of our relentless information age. A lot of communication that never could've occurred in past decades has happened this decade. There's no going back.
Rebecca Traister's piece, linked a day or two ago, about this election being a civil war, resonated with me. I think we're seeing one emerge. I think it'll be violent. I fear it'll be violent in a more potent and genuinely revolutionary sense, if Trump loses (and Trump will lose). I suspect it will last Clinton's presidency, and probably beyond. That it'll almost certainly be less atrocious than the last civil war, that its body count will number "merely" in the thousands or tens of thousands, is not at all a relief. I do think the right side will win, and that historians will look back upon this as a significant moment in human history for lovely reasons as well as ugly ones. I also don't think my privilege entitles me to hold any more of an opinion than just that.
posted by rorgy at 10:47 AM on June 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
Trump supporters aren't simpleminded. They're operating off a set of facts so divorced from reality that they're literally psychotic and insane, but there _is_ logic and thought going on there, albeit uselessly. That logic can be simplified to "afraid of loss of privilege", and don't get me wrong I'm 100% okay with that simplification, but I do think there're some knots and brambles in how they think which are smoothed out by that simplification which interest me.
For one thing, I think they mistrust corporations more than they're given credit for. Their mistrust of the government extends to their mistrust of how much power lobbyists wield (which Trump has taken advantage of rhetorically—that's not a new insight). Their fear of socialism partly manifests itself as a fear that government will hurt small businesses to support the vast, tyrannical corporations that control them. I suspect that a part of Trump's appeal lies in his solipsistic habit of naming everything after himself: yes, his empire is vast and corrupt, but it's certainly not faceless, and it lets Trump present himself as a kind of "indie" corporation, which for all its failings still belongs to a single American man. I think there's also an assumption that small businesses necessarily contribute to a sense of community, which is a fallacy in many ways. (The technocracy thinks of itself as a collection of small, personal enterprises, but as somebody who's been personally exploited by a start-up, I know how easy it is for a cool, young CEO to look you in the face and think of you as an exploitable asset. Corporate exploitation starts small: Steve Jobs stole thousands of dollars from Steve Wozniak before employee #3 joined Apple.)
The social conservatism that seems to genuinely drive the movement is rooted in a more definite ignorance, but it's an ignorance borne of information overload—one of the fundamental diseases of our age, and something that manifests itself in MetaFilter threads as readily as it does on Fox News. Was it here that somebody mentioned an asshole on Facebook linking to Wikipedia's list of Islamic terrorist attacks? Of course there isn't a similar Wikipedia list of Christian terrorist attacks, because we don't define Christian terrorist attacks as terrorism—and in a time of Too Many Details, omissions like that tend to compound exponentially. If you don't know much about Islam, your ignorances explode in short time (and when I was younger, learning about the world primarily from Reddit threads, the ease with which user logic shifted from genuine liberalism to libertarian nuttery to scary Trumploving across a decade felt completely reasonable and at no times worth serious doubt). The same goes for feminism, for QUILTBAG rights, for sexual promiscuity (I've written about this before), and for basically any kind of deviation-from-social-norms-as-defined-by-old-people (even when young people buy into that shit). You can consider yourself well-read on a subject and remain entirely ignorant on it, because the assumptions by which you derive your reading list will distort your field of knowledge to grotesque extents. That's not a They Do It, either: we enlightened MeFites have similar distortions, some of which are more insidious and destructive than I think we're usually comfortable with or than I have the energy to get into right now. (JUST TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR: the ones I'm talking about aren't ones we'd usually call political, and I'm not trying to suggest that there's some dark secret that renders all of our tolerance and love invalid. Because, eww.)
The slippery slope works both ways. Just as a member of the Westboro Baptist Church might be convinced to escape her life just because somebody was friends with her on Twitter, shattering her worldview in the tiniest of ways, so too does somebody who sets out along a certain path of logic find themselves susceptible to a perverse and growing set of beliefs, until they seem terrifying to those of us who see the world a different way. Because of this, what we usually think of as "logical" approaches to discussion—things involving, y'know, facts, and abstractions, and what-have-you—are actually deeply irrational and virtually useless. It's like trying to demolish a house by replacing its furniture piece-by-piece. None of you here are gonna be convinced to suddenly hate Islam because of something your nutty relative tells you; the same is mostly true in reverse. It would take a shock as vast as the sort that would make you suddenly wonder if, hey, maybe we should ban all Muslims after all, before your nutty relative is gonna start changing their mind.
I don't think that "tough" has the direct masculine connotations we're assuming here. Which isn't to say masculinity isn't significant here—it's to say that the masculine bullshittery is stranger and more pervasive than just "hey you, look at my muscles". Donald Trump's toughness, to my mind, has been fairly earned by him. He earned it by saying the things that his followers believed, by sticking to it all, by making it clear that he's not dogwhistling or manipulating them. He's speaking the truth as he knows it. Maybe even courageously. (Certainly his Republican counterparts are too frightened to be as honest as he's being. Is that because they don't believe what they say, or simply because they know the shit they'll receive for speaking their mind? And at what point is the distinction meaningless?)
Where the toughness rings false, and where the true patriarchal wretchedness seeps in, is that I think the Trump worldview, more than the Clinton or Sanders worldviews (though there're light shades of grey here), requires you to think of Truth and Facts as perfectly understandable, inviolable, and insusceptible to personal bias. Once you know the Truth, you insist upon it, fierily and full of conviction; you see any deviation from the Truth as a grotesque thing, essentially Satan's mark itself. (My old favorite author, Orson Scott Card, moved from a pretty generous stance on homosexuality, to an awful and batshit one, to raving bigotry, as the world refused to acknowledge his initial interpretation and he grew convinced that only a Conspiracy could explain it all.) At some point, you begin to relinquish common decency, morality, and ethics as you attempt to brace yourself against the seemingly repugnant violation that the changing world represents.
The various social justice movements, meanwhile, ranging from #BlackLivesMatter to intersectional feminism to, hell, take your pick, request the exact opposite. They ask that you see yourself, your life, your experience, as part of a vastly more pointillist society, and to find a genuine curiosity in the parts of society that you will never know firsthand. In these movements, some voices matter more than others, because they have been more silenced; some grievances are more significant than others, because they are borne of deeper harms and injustices. As a cissexual straight white man, I can ponder all the ways in which I've been wronged by society, but I'll spend far more time shutting up and listening than anything, and I'll hope for society to change in ways that reflect the people I'm listening to more than it reflects me. My assertiveness consists of a comfort with knowing that I'm not who matters here, that my version of the Truth might be interrupted at any point by somebody who says "Fuck off for a minute—you don't know what the hell you're talking about."
My grandfather is a very smart and admirable man, and I love him without reservation. But his masculinity, his toughness, while more authentic than Trump's in many ways, all derive from that same insistence that his understanding of the world, and his force of will, reflect some Platonic truth that can only be deviated from if you're willing to upend reality itself. He calls Trump tough because Trump insists upon that reality himself. Trump's cowardice, his incompetence, his clearly disintegrating mind, don't matter; his heraldry of the Truth is what makes him strong, and Rubio weak. In a lot of ways, Trump is a glorious manifestation of this particular aspect of human nature, just as much as Hillary Clinton is a glorious manifestation of the kind of person you become when you spend your entire life learning to work within an unfair society, but insist upon your capacity to do something good regardless. (It's hard for me to think of this year in anything less than Biblical terms.)
Yet I think Trump, and the revolution his ilk have been building towards since at least the 80s, arrived too late. America's moved past them. Too many people have too much of an inkling of the world as the complex and beautiful place that it is. Too many people know how to doubt their own opinions. Too many people have suffered at the hands of doubtless monsters not to recognize the pattern. The reactionaries are intensifying their madness, but the more they do, the more they're recognized for what they are. They could only command the mainstream by sublimating their vision—and that sublimation gave their opponents room to organize, to gather and grow, and that growth is what's caused them to intensify now. It's a self-defeating cycle. I don't think it could have gone any way.
Information overload is an insidious form of ignorance, but it's not the only consequence of our relentless information age. A lot of communication that never could've occurred in past decades has happened this decade. There's no going back.
Rebecca Traister's piece, linked a day or two ago, about this election being a civil war, resonated with me. I think we're seeing one emerge. I think it'll be violent. I fear it'll be violent in a more potent and genuinely revolutionary sense, if Trump loses (and Trump will lose). I suspect it will last Clinton's presidency, and probably beyond. That it'll almost certainly be less atrocious than the last civil war, that its body count will number "merely" in the thousands or tens of thousands, is not at all a relief. I do think the right side will win, and that historians will look back upon this as a significant moment in human history for lovely reasons as well as ugly ones. I also don't think my privilege entitles me to hold any more of an opinion than just that.
posted by rorgy at 10:47 AM on June 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
I wonder if Trump will back off on using "America First!" as it looks like the white nationalist who just murdered Labour MP Jo Cox (RIP) shouted "Britain First!" as he shot her.
I am sorry to say I think there is about a snowball's chance in hell Trump would do anything so respectful or sensitive.
posted by bearwife at 10:48 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am sorry to say I think there is about a snowball's chance in hell Trump would do anything so respectful or sensitive.
posted by bearwife at 10:48 AM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I expect a tripling down on "America First!" tbh
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:49 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:49 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
I hope he doesn't stop using it. The association exists - nationalistic Trump supporters and the Britain First assholes have the same motivations, after all.
posted by stolyarova at 10:51 AM on June 16, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 10:51 AM on June 16, 2016
I wouldn't be surprised to find Trump defending the MP's murder. "Some people are wondering why we're not murdering people here! We're so weak! China's laughing at us!" And Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will look down and mutter something about defeating Clinton.
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:52 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 10:52 AM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
SEIU national political director Brandon Davis takes the helm of the Democratic election campaign:
Brandon Davis, national political director for the Service Employees International Union, will become the general election chief of staff for the Democratic Party. His selection formalizes the coordination of the Clinton campaign and the committee, a stark contrast to Donald Trump who is currently at odds with his party.
Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager, arrived Thursday morning at Democratic headquarters on Capitol Hill to introduce Davis to the party's staff.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:58 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Brandon Davis, national political director for the Service Employees International Union, will become the general election chief of staff for the Democratic Party. His selection formalizes the coordination of the Clinton campaign and the committee, a stark contrast to Donald Trump who is currently at odds with his party.
Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager, arrived Thursday morning at Democratic headquarters on Capitol Hill to introduce Davis to the party's staff.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:58 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan continues to distance himself from Trump but won't rescind his endorsement:
In Georgia Wednesday, Trump's message to leaders was simple.posted by murphy slaw at 11:34 AM on June 16, 2016
"Be quiet. Just please be quiet. Don't talk, please be quiet," Trump said.
Ryan didn't seem interested in heeding that advice from a nominee he endorsed just two weeks ago.
“You know. You can’t make this up sometimes," Ryan said when asked to respond to the comment.
I wonder if Trump will back off on using "America First!" as it looks like the white nationalist who just murdered Labour MP Jo Cox (RIP) shouted "Britain First!" as he shot her.
I expect a tripling down on "America First!" tbh
Either of these implies a degree of caring about anything* that happens outside US borders.
*Anything that isn't Scary Muslims, Scary Mexicans or the putative birth of a future president
posted by saturday_morning at 11:34 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I expect a tripling down on "America First!" tbh
Either of these implies a degree of caring about anything* that happens outside US borders.
*Anything that isn't Scary Muslims, Scary Mexicans or the putative birth of a future president
posted by saturday_morning at 11:34 AM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
How the Rebel Flag Rose Again—and Is Helping Trump
"It's like they say: Take one flag down and 1,000 go up," says Tim Boone, who as founder of Rebel-lution, one of the many pro-flag activist groups that formed last summer and handed out "No votes for turncoats" stickers targeting the newly unpopular Haley and anyone else who might vote to take down a flag.Uh, no, people backing a bunch of traitors do not get to call other people turncoats.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:38 AM on June 16, 2016 [25 favorites]
My irony detector just exploded and then whimpered and then waved a tiny cartoon white glag.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:42 AM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:42 AM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
But you have to admit, the Rebels of the American Civil War were more true to the Founding Fathers' Original Intent than the Unionists.
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:42 AM on June 16, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:42 AM on June 16, 2016
Depends on which Founder. Jefferson and the Anti-Feds would definitely align with the Rebels. I think Adams, Hamilton, and maybe Franklin would be closer to the Unionists.
Washington was maybe in the middle.
posted by FJT at 11:48 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Washington was maybe in the middle.
posted by FJT at 11:48 AM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
ROU_Xenophobe: "My irony detector just exploded and then whimpered and then waved a tiny cartoon white flag."
Literally yesterday I saw a man on the street in a Trump 2016 T-shirt with the slogan "We Shall Overcome".
posted by mhum at 11:51 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Literally yesterday I saw a man on the street in a Trump 2016 T-shirt with the slogan "We Shall Overcome".
posted by mhum at 11:51 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
"We Shall Overcome".
Yeah, Trump actually said that on a strategy conference call. I think that's when my irony meter exploded.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:56 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, Trump actually said that on a strategy conference call. I think that's when my irony meter exploded.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:56 AM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Of course he'll overcome. It's the triumph of the will, that's all.
posted by stolyarova at 11:59 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 11:59 AM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
McCain: Obama 'directly responsible' for Orlando shooting
posted by zombieflanders at 12:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [46 favorites]
Republican Sen. John McCain says President Barack Obama is "directly responsible" for the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, because Obama has allowed the growth of the Islamic State group on his watch.This is pathetic, vile cowardice and crass opportunism that should not only result in him losing his election (and hopefully retiring from politics); it should also forever remain a stain on his record.
McCain — who lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential election — made the comment to reporters Thursday while Obama was in Orlando visiting with the families of those killed in Sunday's attack and some of the survivors.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [46 favorites]
It always surprises me how lacking in integrity and honor McCain is. But even for him, this is a new nadir.
posted by bearwife at 12:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 12:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
Because of this, what we usually think of as "logical" approaches to discussion—things involving, y'know, facts, and abstractions, and what-have-you—are actually deeply irrational and virtually useless.
You might like George Lakoff's book, Thinking Points, particularly the first two chapters about how our emotional and moral frameworks of issues are pretty much impervious to facts. It also suggests that there are no moderates, just "biconceptuals".
posted by puddledork at 12:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
You might like George Lakoff's book, Thinking Points, particularly the first two chapters about how our emotional and moral frameworks of issues are pretty much impervious to facts. It also suggests that there are no moderates, just "biconceptuals".
posted by puddledork at 12:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
There is no ambiguity about that. A charity donating to a political campaign is a clear cut, very serious IRS violation. It means that the charity's tax exemption is revoked, which means that everyone who donated to the charity and claimed a tax deduction needs to amend their returns and remove the tax deduction.
Well, maybe. Remember how the Republicans freaked out when the IRS even attempted to look into whether the various Tea Party groups -- among others, let's not forget! -- were really charities and not political organizations? Surely no one mistook all that outrage for being in good faith, as opposed to being intended to discredit any findings of wholesale cheating? One could easily imagine the howls of outrage about "using the IRS to punish political enemies" for even such an obvious instance of cheating -- and it is -- and scarcely imagine the media to report the objective facts, as opposed to the "balanced" claims of both sides -- of such a move.
posted by Gelatin at 12:09 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, maybe. Remember how the Republicans freaked out when the IRS even attempted to look into whether the various Tea Party groups -- among others, let's not forget! -- were really charities and not political organizations? Surely no one mistook all that outrage for being in good faith, as opposed to being intended to discredit any findings of wholesale cheating? One could easily imagine the howls of outrage about "using the IRS to punish political enemies" for even such an obvious instance of cheating -- and it is -- and scarcely imagine the media to report the objective facts, as opposed to the "balanced" claims of both sides -- of such a move.
posted by Gelatin at 12:09 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Literally yesterday I saw a man on the street in a Trump 2016 T-shirt with the slogan "We Shall Overcome".
Are you sure it didn't say "We shall overcomb"? Because i've seen that one out and around, and i'm not sure if i could handle the alternative.
posted by emptythought at 12:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Are you sure it didn't say "We shall overcomb"? Because i've seen that one out and around, and i'm not sure if i could handle the alternative.
posted by emptythought at 12:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is winning yet another election at the age of 79 really so important to John McCain that he is willing to throw what remained of his integrity in the trash by first endorsing a crapstorm of a man who openly mocked him for being captured and tortured as a POW, and now by spewing this racist chain-email horseshit? Surely he can't be hurting for money. Does he think that the moment he stops being a U.S. Senator he'll crumble into dust? They say power is a hell of a drug, but how much power can you consider yourself to have if you need to debase yourself like this to keep it?
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
McCain should have to watch this whole video.
posted by J.K. Seazer at 12:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by J.K. Seazer at 12:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
In this miserable election season (really, 37% of Americans are willing to co-sign this bullshit?) it's news coverage like this that keeps me going:
NYT: While Mr. Trump lent his campaign more than $43 million in the primaries, he has shown little inclination to self-finance his general election campaign in a large-scale way. Yet many Republican fund-raisers have openly questioned why they would donate their money to a candidate who has claimed a net worth of $10 billion.
Hope Hicks, Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, called his fund-raising operation “a tremendous success,” adding that “the money is pouring in for the party.” She declined to answer specific questions.
Pouring in, I say! It's tremendous!
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
NYT: While Mr. Trump lent his campaign more than $43 million in the primaries, he has shown little inclination to self-finance his general election campaign in a large-scale way. Yet many Republican fund-raisers have openly questioned why they would donate their money to a candidate who has claimed a net worth of $10 billion.
Hope Hicks, Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, called his fund-raising operation “a tremendous success,” adding that “the money is pouring in for the party.” She declined to answer specific questions.
Pouring in, I say! It's tremendous!
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
new Donald Trump email to supporters: "My campaign has been one of honesty and substance."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:19 PM on June 16, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:19 PM on June 16, 2016
Is winning yet another election at the age of 79 really so important to John McCain that he is willing to throw what remained of his integrity in the trash
Yes. Two words: Sarah Palin
posted by zachlipton at 12:20 PM on June 16, 2016
Yes. Two words: Sarah Palin
posted by zachlipton at 12:20 PM on June 16, 2016
Honesty I'll grant him
posted by saturday_morning at 12:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by saturday_morning at 12:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Surely no one mistook all that outrage for being in good faith, as opposed to being intended to discredit any findings of wholesale cheating?
ALL the outrage? Perhaps not. But most of the outrage? Sure. When you’ve got a bunch of people who are terrified of the government suddenly finding that the government is taking an interest in them, it’s not hard to lose it; the same thing can happen on the Left.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:22 PM on June 16, 2016
ALL the outrage? Perhaps not. But most of the outrage? Sure. When you’ve got a bunch of people who are terrified of the government suddenly finding that the government is taking an interest in them, it’s not hard to lose it; the same thing can happen on the Left.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:22 PM on June 16, 2016
horseshit is, in fact, a substance. PolitiFact rates this "partly true"
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
Yeah, but with the Palin thing he was swinging for the fences. Now he's back to his day job, and what does he have to prove?
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is winning yet another election at the age of 79 really so important to John McCain...
He's had two jobs in his life: Navy officer, member of Congress (he worked for his father-in-law's beer distributor as VP of PR, but everyone involved knew he was only doing it to make contacts for his House run). He doesn't want to retire, because then what the hell is he? Some old guy who used to be somebody.
posted by Etrigan at 12:27 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's had two jobs in his life: Navy officer, member of Congress (he worked for his father-in-law's beer distributor as VP of PR, but everyone involved knew he was only doing it to make contacts for his House run). He doesn't want to retire, because then what the hell is he? Some old guy who used to be somebody.
posted by Etrigan at 12:27 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, his re-election race is pretty close, so he needs some red meat.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 12:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
The 2000 primary broke McCain. 9/11 broke Cheney. Look closely at either of their records beforehand and you can find generally principled politicians (whether you agree with those principles or not). There's some strange crucible that, on the other side, lies a weird madness and obsession with retribution.
What strange twisting does it take to make a man who was tortured for years on end come out in favor of torture? I have no idea, and I really don't want to personally find out.
posted by chimaera at 12:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
What strange twisting does it take to make a man who was tortured for years on end come out in favor of torture? I have no idea, and I really don't want to personally find out.
posted by chimaera at 12:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
When you’ve got a bunch of people who are terrified of the government suddenly finding that the government is taking an interest in them, it’s not hard to lose it
But much of whatever honest rank-and-file Republican outrage that may have existed had to have been driven by the usual puke funnel of right-wing blogs and Fox News, and I doubt any of them presented the story in good faith (indeed, the entire myth that it was a crackdown just on Tea Party groups -- when the office was looking, naturally enough, at the explosion of so-called charities on both sides -- proves it).
posted by Gelatin at 12:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
But much of whatever honest rank-and-file Republican outrage that may have existed had to have been driven by the usual puke funnel of right-wing blogs and Fox News, and I doubt any of them presented the story in good faith (indeed, the entire myth that it was a crackdown just on Tea Party groups -- when the office was looking, naturally enough, at the explosion of so-called charities on both sides -- proves it).
posted by Gelatin at 12:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Like George W. Bush, I suspect McCain has major daddy issues. (Both his father and grandfather were 4-star admirals in the Navy, whereas McCain's military career, though he displayed bravery and perseverance, was well short of glorious.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:33 PM on June 16, 2016
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:33 PM on June 16, 2016
emptythought: "Are you sure it didn't say "We shall overcomb"?"
I'm pretty sure, though I've been googling unsuccessfully for an image of the shirt I saw. My main feeling for why it wasn't an ironic t-shirt is that it wasn't at all cartoony or winking. I'd describe its primary aesthetic as, for lack of a better term, American Badass -- prominent red-white-and-blue flag motif, overwrought typeface, ostentatious machismo.
posted by mhum at 12:34 PM on June 16, 2016
I'm pretty sure, though I've been googling unsuccessfully for an image of the shirt I saw. My main feeling for why it wasn't an ironic t-shirt is that it wasn't at all cartoony or winking. I'd describe its primary aesthetic as, for lack of a better term, American Badass -- prominent red-white-and-blue flag motif, overwrought typeface, ostentatious machismo.
posted by mhum at 12:34 PM on June 16, 2016
9/11 broke Cheney
To the contrary: it made him very rich.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:34 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
To the contrary: it made him very rich.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:34 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
@igorvolsky: I'll just note that McCain is the top recipient of @NRA cash, taking in $7.4 million.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 12:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
Sarah Ellison reports that Trump is exploring the possibility of a television or other media venture that would cater to his loyalists.
He might find it is not as easy as it looks. Sarah Palin set up her own TV Channel which was to showcase her, her family, and the wonders of Alaska. She shut it down one year later. If there had been any money in it that channel would still be going but either it was too much work or it wasn't bringing in the bucket loads of cash she was hoping for.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:45 PM on June 16, 2016
He might find it is not as easy as it looks. Sarah Palin set up her own TV Channel which was to showcase her, her family, and the wonders of Alaska. She shut it down one year later. If there had been any money in it that channel would still be going but either it was too much work or it wasn't bringing in the bucket loads of cash she was hoping for.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:45 PM on June 16, 2016
The difference being that Palin just quits. Trump starts businesses, gets what he can from them, and then if they don't work out, BAM bankruptcy.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
The 2000 primary broke McCain.
No, McCain is and has always been a garbage human. Nobody deserves what he went through in Vietnam but there's good reason to believe that he crashed and was captured because he was an incompetent pilot who had that gig only because of his family connections which were used to keep him from less pleasant compulsory service. He'd crashed another multi-million dollar piece of aircraft before that one and reports seem clear that he didn't pull his weight or do what he needed to do to be competent at the yoke.
I don't know whether he was legitimately changed in some way by that experience or was just good at spinning it to improve his lot in life, but every indication is that he still came back a jerk. Stories of his long standing grudges and using his Senate power to harass people are legion and predate 2000. He is a power-hungry jerk who wants power to be jerky with. He'll leave the Senate only when forced to by voters or the reaper, no sooner.
posted by phearlez at 12:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
No, McCain is and has always been a garbage human. Nobody deserves what he went through in Vietnam but there's good reason to believe that he crashed and was captured because he was an incompetent pilot who had that gig only because of his family connections which were used to keep him from less pleasant compulsory service. He'd crashed another multi-million dollar piece of aircraft before that one and reports seem clear that he didn't pull his weight or do what he needed to do to be competent at the yoke.
I don't know whether he was legitimately changed in some way by that experience or was just good at spinning it to improve his lot in life, but every indication is that he still came back a jerk. Stories of his long standing grudges and using his Senate power to harass people are legion and predate 2000. He is a power-hungry jerk who wants power to be jerky with. He'll leave the Senate only when forced to by voters or the reaper, no sooner.
posted by phearlez at 12:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Back to the Trump campaign. I watched about 10 minutes of his rally in Georgia. He was patting himself on the back for only having 80 on his campaign staff compared to the 800 on Clinton's staff. He told the crowd that this was proof he was better than her because what they needed in Washington was someone who could get more done with fewer people. He got a lot of applause for that which I guess makes sense if your viewpoint is most government workers are time wasters. Yet I couldn't help but think that in this case that Clinton was the job creator-- he was not. Also if you told that crowd that you were going to fire nine tenths of them and make one person do the work of 10 they would not take kindly to that suggestion.
Of course it is all nonsense that he can make do with one tenth of the manpower that Clinton has but I'm not sure if he doesn't know yet or he doesn't care.
The same thing with funding. He was boasting how little money he had spent versus how much his fellow Republicans had spent. Fair enough, he didn't need to spend much to win against that pathetic field of candidates but he seems to assume that everything is going to continue on in the same pattern in the general election-- that he will get plenty of media coverage which will substitute for political ads. I have to guess that people are telling him things ("you need to fundraise and reach this goal in order to have a chance") and he is just ignoring them. He, Trump, has the best brains. The best.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Of course it is all nonsense that he can make do with one tenth of the manpower that Clinton has but I'm not sure if he doesn't know yet or he doesn't care.
The same thing with funding. He was boasting how little money he had spent versus how much his fellow Republicans had spent. Fair enough, he didn't need to spend much to win against that pathetic field of candidates but he seems to assume that everything is going to continue on in the same pattern in the general election-- that he will get plenty of media coverage which will substitute for political ads. I have to guess that people are telling him things ("you need to fundraise and reach this goal in order to have a chance") and he is just ignoring them. He, Trump, has the best brains. The best.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Right, McCain has always been awful. Terrible things (and what happened to him was indeed terrible) happen to garbage people as well as good people. Being tortured does not make you a good person, it just makes you a tortured person.
posted by Justinian at 1:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I watched or listened to most of Senator Murphy's filibuster yesterday. Senator after senator took the podium to talk about the effects of gun violence on their constituents, and their arguments were full of compassion and facts, eloquent and frequently full of what seemed like a genuine grief for the lives lost, mindful of intersectionality and considerate of all of their constituents. 15 hours of that. I went to sleep last night so damn proud of Democrats for carrying the banner for that kind of compassion and public service, even as I boggled that all this effort was being expended just for a vote on the bare minimum of gun control measures. And then to see senators like McCain, literally enriched by NRA money, blood money, callously hold to inaction, and just every single thing Trump says entirely lacking in empathy.... I don't know. It's obscene. I don't know what to do with that.
On the bright side, I am very, very encouraged that Democrats and Hillary's campaign are placing so much emphasis on the necessity of empathy and coming together.
posted by yasaman at 1:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [38 favorites]
On the bright side, I am very, very encouraged that Democrats and Hillary's campaign are placing so much emphasis on the necessity of empathy and coming together.
posted by yasaman at 1:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [38 favorites]
McCAIN: 'I misspoke'
He seems to do that a lot when it comes Iraq. In 2008, he said that Obama “would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.” Then, in 2009, he told Obama that he "thought the withdrawal plan was thoughtful and well prepared." And in 2010, he seemed happy that the last American troops were leaving Iraq, but that "President George W. Bush deserves some credit for victory." Because of course he does.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
He seems to do that a lot when it comes Iraq. In 2008, he said that Obama “would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.” Then, in 2009, he told Obama that he "thought the withdrawal plan was thoughtful and well prepared." And in 2010, he seemed happy that the last American troops were leaving Iraq, but that "President George W. Bush deserves some credit for victory." Because of course he does.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Donald Trump fundraiser to be held at Barry Goldwater's old home in Paradise Valley
I'm hoping he finds this very hard, distasteful and humiliating, and then discovers he has to do it over and over and over again.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
Roughly 75 donors and supporters are expected.$12,700 times 75 is less than a million...a drop in the bucket and that is if everyone wants to pay for a picture, people could pay the $2,700 per person ticket and decline the photo...to raise $200 thousand which has to be split 3 ways. Even if everyone donated the $25,000 And wanted a picture taken that would still be less than $3 million.
The invitation to the fundraiser says the address will only be provided “upon RSVP.”
The fundraiser will command a $25,000 per-couple donation to be recognized as a member of the host committee. A photo with the reality-TV star will cost a cool $10,000, according to an invitation. Individual tickets cost $2,700.
Proceeds will benefit "Trump Victory," a joint fundraising committee of the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and the GOP parties of 11 states.
I'm hoping he finds this very hard, distasteful and humiliating, and then discovers he has to do it over and over and over again.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
Knowing Trump, if he doesn't enjoy it he just won't do it again. And maybe leave while the fundraiser is still going on. Leaving the RNC and state parties looking like fools. Haven't they learned by now that he doesn't care about their races? Only his. If helping their downballot candidates means doing something Trump doesn't like, he won't help.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
> Speaking of the campaign as one big grift: Is Trump’s ‘Campaign’ Just a Scheme to Launch Trump TV?
> Charles Pierce asks whether Trump wants to even really be President
He may want both: to be president and to have a his own media mouthpiece where President Trump can say whatever he wants without being questioned.
posted by homunculus at 1:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
> Charles Pierce asks whether Trump wants to even really be President
He may want both: to be president and to have a his own media mouthpiece where President Trump can say whatever he wants without being questioned.
posted by homunculus at 1:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Fuck McCain, I respect what he went through in Vietnam but he's never been someone with even the vaguest degree of courage when it seems like doing the right thing morally would potentially cost him politically.
He's no doubt looking at polling for his Senate race and going "Oh shit I guess I need to double down on douchebaggery" because you know playing to the racist and xenophobic base is safer than actually trying to be a centrist Republican.
I'm kind of glad that's he's being revealed for being a craven self-aggrandizing opportunist. He should've had the grace to retire after getting his ass kicked in 2008 but no 8 years later and he's trying to hold onto office. Some people might be willing to say that he's being self sacrificing rather than going into lobbying or getting a cushy series of corporate board positions but I think he's been addicted to being able to go onto Meet the Press on a more or less weekly basis and can't give it up despite sounding tired and shrill and useless.
posted by vuron at 1:42 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
He's no doubt looking at polling for his Senate race and going "Oh shit I guess I need to double down on douchebaggery" because you know playing to the racist and xenophobic base is safer than actually trying to be a centrist Republican.
I'm kind of glad that's he's being revealed for being a craven self-aggrandizing opportunist. He should've had the grace to retire after getting his ass kicked in 2008 but no 8 years later and he's trying to hold onto office. Some people might be willing to say that he's being self sacrificing rather than going into lobbying or getting a cushy series of corporate board positions but I think he's been addicted to being able to go onto Meet the Press on a more or less weekly basis and can't give it up despite sounding tired and shrill and useless.
posted by vuron at 1:42 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie’s Foreign Policy Failure
But let’s just take this from a strategic perspective. What if Bernie Sanders had even the slightest interest in foreign policy and went after Clinton from the left? No, he wouldn’t have won the primary this way either. But he would have opened up a whole new line of critique at her greatest vulnerability. Yet Bernie was either unwilling or (likely) unable to do so. His ridiculous response when asked about Latin America showed just how utterly incapable he is on foreign issues, which in a globalized world, are deeply connected to his beloved issue of inequality in the United States. Of course, Sanders’ most vocal supporters loathe Clinton for her foreign policy, but they were doing the heavy lifting for him on these issues.posted by tonycpsu at 1:45 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Again, would it have mattered in the end? Probably not, but it would have at least meant that the Democratic nominee was going to feel real pressure from the left on foreign policy as she has on domestic and labor policy. But really, what did Bernie do to make her moderate her foreign policy stances? Not much and that’s a missed opportunity.
there's a fact check report on mccain. it seems he caused one early crash, but there's no evidence capture was his fault. do you have support for the claims above?
posted by andrewcooke at 1:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by andrewcooke at 1:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don’t know whether he was legitimately changed in some way by that experience or was just good at spinning it to improve his lot in life, but every indication is that he still came back a jerk.
Michael Lewis in The New York Times (May 25, 1997): “The Subversive”
posted by Going To Maine at 1:48 PM on June 16, 2016
Michael Lewis in The New York Times (May 25, 1997): “The Subversive”
posted by Going To Maine at 1:48 PM on June 16, 2016
In politician-speak, "I misspoke" means "Subsequent events have made me realize that my offensive public statement has backfired on me. Please accept this milquetoast statement in lieu of an apology and pretend it never happened."
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [30 favorites]
Three more prominent Republicans say they cannot endorse Donald Trump.
posted by bearwife at 1:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bearwife at 1:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
The snarky part of me would argue that Bernie is so myopically focused on economic issues in the US he simply doesn't care about foreign policy issues just like he seems to be more or less unconcerned with social justice issues other than economic justice but I'm not sure that I'm being charitable enough.
I think the reality is probably that honestly most Americans, even most liberals, barely give a shit about foreign policy unless it's somehow involving military action and even then it seems to really be around boots on the ground situations.
Add that there isn't really a good deal of consensus about intervention even on the left. Some on the left are no intervention at any time (kinda like a first directive) but others particularly those that have come from environments or cultures that have seen first hand the horrors of war and genocide tend to be a little less against interventions or even feel like there is a moral imperative to intervene even if there aren't compelling strategic objectives.
I don't honestly know, I definitely don't like use of interventions at the drop of a hat but on the other hand I feel like the promise we collectively made in the wake of the Holocaust was never again and it keeps fucking happening.
posted by vuron at 1:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think the reality is probably that honestly most Americans, even most liberals, barely give a shit about foreign policy unless it's somehow involving military action and even then it seems to really be around boots on the ground situations.
Add that there isn't really a good deal of consensus about intervention even on the left. Some on the left are no intervention at any time (kinda like a first directive) but others particularly those that have come from environments or cultures that have seen first hand the horrors of war and genocide tend to be a little less against interventions or even feel like there is a moral imperative to intervene even if there aren't compelling strategic objectives.
I don't honestly know, I definitely don't like use of interventions at the drop of a hat but on the other hand I feel like the promise we collectively made in the wake of the Holocaust was never again and it keeps fucking happening.
posted by vuron at 1:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Not that it matters, but I think honestly right now I'm against interventionism as a component of American foreign policy not out of any sort of Star Trekian Prime Directive against interference in the affairs of others, but more out of a simple sense that the United States right now, and specifically the United States military right now, is not competent to make anything better, and is moreover very good at making everything worse.
That said, I have trouble thinking about foreign policy at all without succumbing to my desire to climb under the bed and suck my thumb and mutter "the horror.... the horror..." I'd be glad to hear - legit glad to hear - about successful US interventions and why and how they went well.
also, this is sort of off-topic, but: I go away for, what, two months, and then I come back to see everyone's using "liberal" and "left" as synonyms? sheesh. I thought all the ISOers here, if no one else, would keep people from falling back into that trap...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:09 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
That said, I have trouble thinking about foreign policy at all without succumbing to my desire to climb under the bed and suck my thumb and mutter "the horror.... the horror..." I'd be glad to hear - legit glad to hear - about successful US interventions and why and how they went well.
also, this is sort of off-topic, but: I go away for, what, two months, and then I come back to see everyone's using "liberal" and "left" as synonyms? sheesh. I thought all the ISOers here, if no one else, would keep people from falling back into that trap...
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 2:09 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
Is there a good list somewhere of republicans who are either refusing to support The Hair That Came From Below or actively voting for/endorsing HRC?
(Also this horrifyingly long reddit post is a convenient repository of Trump Insanity).
posted by Skorgu at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
(Also this horrifyingly long reddit post is a convenient repository of Trump Insanity).
posted by Skorgu at 2:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Is there a good list somewhere of republicans who are either refusing to support The Hair That Came From Below or actively voting for/endorsing HRC?
TPM's got you covered with their Trump Endorsement Scorecard. It doesn't differentiate between #NeverTrump vs. #ImWithHer GOPers, but it provides all the info you'd need.
posted by saturday_morning at 2:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
TPM's got you covered with their Trump Endorsement Scorecard. It doesn't differentiate between #NeverTrump vs. #ImWithHer GOPers, but it provides all the info you'd need.
posted by saturday_morning at 2:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
The 2000 primary broke McCain.
No, McCain is and has always been a garbage human.
After McCain dies, Longform or somebody will do a very good retrospective. In addition to the David Foster Wallace one, it will also include this.
posted by box at 2:45 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, McCain is and has always been a garbage human.
After McCain dies, Longform or somebody will do a very good retrospective. In addition to the David Foster Wallace one, it will also include this.
posted by box at 2:45 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm so sad about that Sanders' endorsement of Kaptur. I hoped he would be a real progressive ally, even though I thought Clinton would be the better President. It's not possible, is it, that he doesn't know about her anti choice record? That would still be sloppy but I think not quite as horrifying.
posted by Salamandrous at 2:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Salamandrous at 2:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's not possible, is it, that he doesn't know about her anti choice record? That would still be sloppy but I think not quite as horrifying.
Well, now that he definitely knows, I guess we'll find out by way of whether he rescinds his endorsement.
posted by saturday_morning at 2:51 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, now that he definitely knows, I guess we'll find out by way of whether he rescinds his endorsement.
posted by saturday_morning at 2:51 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
New Evidence Donald Trump Didn’t Pay Taxes. If the presumptive GOP nominee keeps hiding his returns, Congress could force him to show his hand with a one-line amendment to the tax code.
David Cay Johnston: There is "Incredibly Strong Evidence" Donald Trump Has Committed Tax Fraud
posted by homunculus at 2:53 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
David Cay Johnston: There is "Incredibly Strong Evidence" Donald Trump Has Committed Tax Fraud
posted by homunculus at 2:53 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
playing to the racist and xenophobic base is safer than actually trying to be a centrist Republican.
In Arizona, that's probably true. Nation-wide, we'll find out how well as we get closer to November.
posted by chimaera at 3:01 PM on June 16, 2016
In Arizona, that's probably true. Nation-wide, we'll find out how well as we get closer to November.
posted by chimaera at 3:01 PM on June 16, 2016
According to experts interviewed in The Guardian starting a cable network is a "frighteningly costly affair":
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:06 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
“I understand that he says he’s a great businessman but smart money isn’t going into linear cable anymore,” said Tuchman, calling the idea “very amusing to say the least”.Is he a master at twitter? I find him neither informative nor amusing-- except inadvertently when I have to laugh at his cluelessness.
Tuchman has worked for cable television networks and conglomerates in many capacities across the world over three decades, at companies from Viacom to MGM to AMC Global, where he was president.
“For a guy who’s a master at Twitter, I’m kind of astonished that he’s not at the level of understanding that capital in media today is running toward digital and apps,” he said.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:06 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I believe that the bar to "twitter-mastery" is set pretty low...
posted by Golem XIV at 3:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Golem XIV at 3:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Anyone who tweets regularly is a master of Twitter to some old business people. It's like your Grandmother calling you a "Computer Whiz" because you restarted her PC and maybe ran a virus scan.
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:15 PM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 3:15 PM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
Remember how the Republicans freaked out when the IRS even attempted to look into whether the various Tea Party groups -- among others, let's not forget! -- were really charities and not political organizations?
That was quite different from the Trump case. The Trump Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charity. Charities are absolutely forbidden from making political donations. There is no ambiguity about the law. Charities permit donors to take tax deductions for their donations.
The Tea Party entities were 501(c)(4) organizations, which are for social welfare, clubs, education and civic leagues. They are not charities. Donors cannot take tax deductions for contributions. The law is ambiguous in that they cannot be "primarily" for political purposes. Defining "primarily" is difficult which is why the IRS was scrutinizing these organizations with obvious political names. The IRS is required to do this by law.
So while the Tea Party cases involved actual debatable ambiguity about political involvement, the Trump Foundation, which is a charity, is not ambiguous at all. They are entirely different types of organizations under the law.
posted by JackFlash at 3:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
That was quite different from the Trump case. The Trump Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charity. Charities are absolutely forbidden from making political donations. There is no ambiguity about the law. Charities permit donors to take tax deductions for their donations.
The Tea Party entities were 501(c)(4) organizations, which are for social welfare, clubs, education and civic leagues. They are not charities. Donors cannot take tax deductions for contributions. The law is ambiguous in that they cannot be "primarily" for political purposes. Defining "primarily" is difficult which is why the IRS was scrutinizing these organizations with obvious political names. The IRS is required to do this by law.
So while the Tea Party cases involved actual debatable ambiguity about political involvement, the Trump Foundation, which is a charity, is not ambiguous at all. They are entirely different types of organizations under the law.
posted by JackFlash at 3:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
It's not possible, is it, that he doesn't know about her anti choice record? That would still be sloppy but I think not quite as horrifying.
Well, now that he definitely knows, I guess we'll find out by way of whether he rescinds his endorsement.
Well, now that he definitely knows, I guess we'll find out by way of whether he rescinds his endorsement.
- Kaptur endorsed Sanders. This is the game.
- Richard May, her opponent, is a Tea Party Activist and kind of a garbage fire. The linked article makes him sound like a long shot, but I’m not certain if that’s the case.
A bit of fluff from The Motley Fool: Which Businesses Are Most Popular With Clinton and Trump Supporters?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:24 PM on June 16, 2016
To find these results, the company "measured the offline behaviors of nearly 2 million double opt-in users to connect voting patterns to store visitsTop two businesses favored the Republican Supporters are both convenience (i.e. gas station) stores. #1 Sheetz, #2 Kangaroo Express with 2 other convenience stores showing up in the top 10. The top two for the Clinton Supporters are #1 Citibank and #2 ShopRite with Dunkin Donuts coming in at #10. Cracker Barrel shows up on the Trump list and Whole Foods on the Clinton list.
"To map store visits to votes, Placed determined if its audience lived in a county that voted Republican or Democrat, and assigned that party's primary winner to the users. Once assigned a candidate, Placed directly measured the business associated with the voter to identify businesses they were more or less likely to visit (compared to the US population)
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:24 PM on June 16, 2016
Wow I keep getting surprised with the increasingly pointless observations generated by big data analytics tools and the breathless way in which journalists report them
posted by vuron at 3:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by vuron at 3:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
In the grim future of 2016, there is only Thomas Friedman.
posted by The Gaffer at 3:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by The Gaffer at 3:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
But where do they buy their taco bowls?
posted by nubs at 3:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nubs at 3:35 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah I don't know you could possibly do with this information. Stock Mountain Dew Cans with Trumps goofy face in Sheetz stores? Make Dunkin Donuts in Donkey shapes?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2016
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2016
I think maybe that's partly regional? I don't think we have either Sheetz or Kangaroo Express around here, and the closest Whole Foods is a two-hour drive from me. I don't think there's ShopRite around here, either.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm more concerned about the assertion that nearly 2 million people knowingly and truly double opted-into having all their store visit data sent to someone who would use it to do largely meaningless analytics, among who knows what else? I bet they opted in the same way millions of people opted into the Ask.com toolbar.
posted by zachlipton at 3:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 3:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
From the article:
They were probably offered $5.00 off their next grocery store visit or a free magazine subscription or something. I used to follow a few of those uber housewife coupon clipping sites and often coupons and freebies were tied into filling out a survey or using a tracker. People are desperate to make a buck stretch and data often seems like a meaningless trade-off.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:44 PM on June 16, 2016
It's worth noting that in some cases, the results break down a logical, geographic line. Clinton supporters, for example, have Dunkin' Donuts (NASDAQ:DNKN) and Stop and Shop on their list, which both operate most strongly in the Northeast. The Trump list, on the other hand, shows Publix, a grocery chain which operates in the Southeast, and Waffle House, a primarily Southern chain.I'm more concerned about the assertion that nearly 2 million people knowingly and truly double opted-into having all their store visit data sent to someone who would use it to do largely meaningless analytics, among who knows what else?
Still, these are not lists that break down on obvious economic or ideological lines. As you can see on the Clinton list below, her likely voters patronize the upscale Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ:WFM) while also regularly visiting the less high-falutin' White Castle.
They were probably offered $5.00 off their next grocery store visit or a free magazine subscription or something. I used to follow a few of those uber housewife coupon clipping sites and often coupons and freebies were tied into filling out a survey or using a tracker. People are desperate to make a buck stretch and data often seems like a meaningless trade-off.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:44 PM on June 16, 2016
Wait, Trump supporters frequent BOTH Cracker Barrel AND Waffle House?
And you're telling me he can't bring America together?
posted by dw at 3:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
And you're telling me he can't bring America together?
posted by dw at 3:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I didn't know there was a Cracker Barrel/Waffle House divide. Here in my part of the South you can go to both-- Waffle House for breakfast and Cracker Barrel for lunch. Then stop in at Kangaroo Express to get your Dew for the ride home.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:49 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:49 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
What strange twisting does it take to make a man who was tortured for years on end come out in favor of torture? I have no idea, and I really don't want to personally find out.
This 100x. Watching him do that was probably the most heartbreaking thing I've seen in politics.
posted by msalt at 3:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
This 100x. Watching him do that was probably the most heartbreaking thing I've seen in politics.
posted by msalt at 3:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Good data journalism might try to control for regional effects…
posted by Going To Maine at 3:53 PM on June 16, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 3:53 PM on June 16, 2016
Does this mean I have to give up the Western Bacon Burgers at Hardee's west coast partner, Carl's Jr.? Carl has forced me into some moral compromises before, but this may be the last straw. Also, Carl's subchain The Green Burrito has taco bowls.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:53 PM on June 16, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:53 PM on June 16, 2016
Harper Neidig: Sanders camp no longer lobbying superdelegates
Bernie Sanders's campaign manager said Thursday night that the campaign is not actively lobbying for the support of superdelegates.posted by zombieflanders at 4:20 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
"We are not currently lobbying superdelegates," Jeff Weaver said during an interview with Bloomberg Politics' ”With All Due Respect" that aired on MSNBC. "I don’t anticipate that’ll start anytime soon."
The admission may indicate that the Vermont senator intends to drop out of the Democratic race for president. Sanders is slated to give a live video address to his supporters at 8:30 p.m. Thursday.
The Telegraph: Donald Trump Mocked Online after saying 'Ask the gays' to find out if he is LGBT friendly.
And #Askthegays was born.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:38 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
And #Askthegays was born.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:38 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I guess I'm being a precious blown-glass liberal, but I was thoroughly creeped out to visit Alvin's Island, a fun ridiculous nonsense beach store chain on the Redneck Riviera, after 20 years, and see that they stocked Trump shirts next to the rebel flag wifebeaters. Either Alvin's Island has changed, or I have.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Countess Elena at 4:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm going to guess Alvin's Island has, because while I remember plenty of rednecky junk, and Blue Angels military masturbation paraphernalia, I don't remember it being THAT bad.
My guess is that they fell down a slippery slope of Duck Dynasty merch and never bothered to claw their way out.
(On the other hand, it's totally possible that they've always carried Rebel Flag stuff. It's always been fairly ubiquitous in the South and people have to be getting it somewhere.)
posted by Sara C. at 4:56 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
My guess is that they fell down a slippery slope of Duck Dynasty merch and never bothered to claw their way out.
(On the other hand, it's totally possible that they've always carried Rebel Flag stuff. It's always been fairly ubiquitous in the South and people have to be getting it somewhere.)
posted by Sara C. at 4:56 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Telegraph: Donald Trump Mocked Online after saying 'Ask the gays' to find out if he is LGBT friendly.
Any queer wit with a friend who ever wanted to start an advice column, now is your moment.
posted by msalt at 5:02 PM on June 16, 2016
Any queer wit with a friend who ever wanted to start an advice column, now is your moment.
posted by msalt at 5:02 PM on June 16, 2016
As you can see on the Clinton list below, her likely voters patronize the upscale Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ:WFM) while also regularly visiting the less high-falutin' White Castle.
i'd have to drive at least 90 miles to get to a white castle - who makes this crap up?
in fact, i'm more likely to visit a tim horton's* than a white castle - does that make me a tory?
*i live within 3 miles of one - they're all over the place in michigan
posted by pyramid termite at 5:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
i'd have to drive at least 90 miles to get to a white castle - who makes this crap up?
in fact, i'm more likely to visit a tim horton's* than a white castle - does that make me a tory?
*i live within 3 miles of one - they're all over the place in michigan
posted by pyramid termite at 5:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
My guess is that all this data analysis shows what any good electoral map would.
People shop at regional chains a lot.
Red states and Blue states exist.
posted by Sara C. at 5:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
People shop at regional chains a lot.
Red states and Blue states exist.
posted by Sara C. at 5:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
AP BREAKING: Sanders tells supporters he'll work with Clinton to transform Democratic Party, says they must "make certain" Trump is defeated.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:36 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:36 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Watch Live: The political revolution continues.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, that appears to be that.
posted by Artw at 5:41 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 5:41 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
oh Bernie. Sweet Bernie. I'm so glad to have you back.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I... don't think he's conceding, though?
posted by tonycpsu at 5:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 5:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
So...is he actually conceding? Because a clear statement of "Hillary Clinton won fairly and I accept that and will stand behind her blah blah blah," would go a long way toward making me feel better about some of the fuckery of this primary.
posted by Salieri at 5:45 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Salieri at 5:45 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
I tuned in late, so just checking -- has he actually said "vote for Clinton"? Or anything like it? Cause right now it still sounds like he's campaigning.
posted by saturday_morning at 5:45 PM on June 16, 2016
posted by saturday_morning at 5:45 PM on June 16, 2016
At this rate, he'll never admit he lost. It'll be Hillary's inauguration and he still won't give a clear statement about whether his campaign is over or not.
Also, where the hell were you yesterday during the filibuster, Bernie?
posted by yasaman at 5:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
Also, where the hell were you yesterday during the filibuster, Bernie?
posted by yasaman at 5:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
> So...is he actually conceding?
he can do that at the convention. this is fine.
no assault rifles, no gunshow loophole, close the pay gap between men and women, no tpp, free college, healthcare for all, 50 state strategy. that's a platform for a decent party, is what that is.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
he can do that at the convention. this is fine.
no assault rifles, no gunshow loophole, close the pay gap between men and women, no tpp, free college, healthcare for all, 50 state strategy. that's a platform for a decent party, is what that is.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
“We are going to take our campaign to the convention with the full understanding that we’re very good in arithmetic and we know who has received the most votes up to now,” Sanders said Sunday evening after meeting with his advisers.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:49 PM on June 16, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 5:49 PM on June 16, 2016
50 state strategy
Well, at least he admits Southern Democrats matter.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:50 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, at least he admits Southern Democrats matter.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:50 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also, state and local elections. Good. Now, let's see if he can actually turn enthusiasm into electoral wins.
posted by mhum at 5:50 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mhum at 5:50 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, didn't Clinton suspend her campaign (rather than "conceding") in 2008 and then at the convention was the one who formally nominated Obama?
There are a lot of way to do these things and a lot of language to do it in, and a lot of political theater that can come out of it. I'm not picky about which language Sanders chooses.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:54 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
There are a lot of way to do these things and a lot of language to do it in, and a lot of political theater that can come out of it. I'm not picky about which language Sanders chooses.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:54 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
what he is saying right now is several orders of magnitude more important than "blah blah blah vote for Clinton." we had the WTO protests. we had the antiwar movement. We had Occupy. we had the Sanders campaign. let's get ready for the next version of this big weird protean thing we've been building for decades. let's make it bigger next time.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:55 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:55 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Winning congress is where change will happen if it's going to happen. Without it the presidency ia vastly less effective.
posted by Artw at 5:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 5:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
what he is saying right now is several orders of magnitude more important than "blah blah blah vote for Clinton."
Sure, but, he could have said both.
posted by saturday_morning at 5:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
Sure, but, he could have said both.
posted by saturday_morning at 5:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
A blue congress comprised of a few hundred old rich white guys isn't going to serve us much better than a red one. We need real grass roots change ("A new generation of people actively engaged in public service" as he said just now.)
"Ok everyone time to vote for Clinton" is very "Because I Said So" and it's not how you win the hearts and minds of young people. You get their vote by giving them a purpose, and he's doing that in spades.
posted by an animate objects at 6:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Ok everyone time to vote for Clinton" is very "Because I Said So" and it's not how you win the hearts and minds of young people. You get their vote by giving them a purpose, and he's doing that in spades.
posted by an animate objects at 6:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
what he is saying right now is several orders of magnitude more important than "blah blah blah vote for Clinton.
I disagree. Or at the very least, "vote for Clinton" can very easily be said right along with what he's already saying!
There's been a lot of weirdness during the primary, and part of it has been the conspiracy theories circulating on the left recently about how Clinton "stole" the nomination. This goes back to what I was saying after Nevada - he had the opportunity then to push back strongly against the violence and misogyny coming from certain quarters, and he didn't. He has the opportunity now to push back against the idea that losing a primary = disenfranchisement, and so far he hasn't.
The idea that his "message" is so overwhelmingly important - more than anything else - is what has given rise to so much of the nastiness I've seen recently. Also, you can't get away from the gender lens of this primary, any more than you could have ignored the racial aspects of the previous one. The optics of seeing a man refuse to step down and support a women who beat him fairly makes me think less of him.
posted by Salieri at 6:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [33 favorites]
I disagree. Or at the very least, "vote for Clinton" can very easily be said right along with what he's already saying!
There's been a lot of weirdness during the primary, and part of it has been the conspiracy theories circulating on the left recently about how Clinton "stole" the nomination. This goes back to what I was saying after Nevada - he had the opportunity then to push back strongly against the violence and misogyny coming from certain quarters, and he didn't. He has the opportunity now to push back against the idea that losing a primary = disenfranchisement, and so far he hasn't.
The idea that his "message" is so overwhelmingly important - more than anything else - is what has given rise to so much of the nastiness I've seen recently. Also, you can't get away from the gender lens of this primary, any more than you could have ignored the racial aspects of the previous one. The optics of seeing a man refuse to step down and support a women who beat him fairly makes me think less of him.
posted by Salieri at 6:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [33 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: "Yeah, didn't Clinton suspend her campaign (rather than "conceding") in 2008"
Eh, maybe? You can watch her 2008 concession speech here. By 6:45 she's throwing her support to "help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States". She says that she's "suspending her campaign" but given the surrounding context of the speech, I don't think there's any real difference between that and "conceding".
Side note: Boy oh boy, that crowd sure did not like Obama back then.
posted by mhum at 6:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
Eh, maybe? You can watch her 2008 concession speech here. By 6:45 she's throwing her support to "help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States". She says that she's "suspending her campaign" but given the surrounding context of the speech, I don't think there's any real difference between that and "conceding".
Side note: Boy oh boy, that crowd sure did not like Obama back then.
posted by mhum at 6:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
what he is saying right now is several orders of magnitude more important than "blah blah blah vote for Clinton." we had the WTO protests. we had the antiwar movement. We had Occupy. we had the Sanders campaign. let's get ready for the next version of this big weird protean thing we've been building for decades. let's make it bigger next time.
"And our first step is supporting a pro-life-ish Democratic Congresswoman who hasn't faced a tough election since 1982!"
posted by one_bean at 6:09 PM on June 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
"And our first step is supporting a pro-life-ish Democratic Congresswoman who hasn't faced a tough election since 1982!"
posted by one_bean at 6:09 PM on June 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
it's difficult to shoehorn "vote for Clinton" into a speech about continuing to build a left movement, since, as a liberal, Clinton is not part of that movement, and she is certainly not a leader of that movement — and it's a disservice to both liberalism and leftism to pretend that she could be.
The outcome of the general election does not hinge on an elderly socialist from Vermont properly performing a ritual of submission. In terms of the general election, this speech is irrelevant. Nothing he could say tonight could yield any effect whatsoever on the general. But, now that the excitement (and the blazing stupidity) of the campaign is over, we're free to remember that this is what Sanders got into the race for in the first place. Not the presidency — which even in this stinking year Sanders never had a real chance at. Not the presidency. This.
Go sign up.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
The outcome of the general election does not hinge on an elderly socialist from Vermont properly performing a ritual of submission. In terms of the general election, this speech is irrelevant. Nothing he could say tonight could yield any effect whatsoever on the general. But, now that the excitement (and the blazing stupidity) of the campaign is over, we're free to remember that this is what Sanders got into the race for in the first place. Not the presidency — which even in this stinking year Sanders never had a real chance at. Not the presidency. This.
Go sign up.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
I can't believe that I considered voting for him in the primary for a while. He's seriously not going to concede and explicitly endorse her? And he's going to lecture us on how to change a party that he's been a member of for less than a year? I can't even.
posted by octothorpe at 6:14 PM on June 16, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:14 PM on June 16, 2016 [27 favorites]
I can't wrap my head around how much resistance there is to the idea that the Democratic party is kindof a mess and Americans in general are fed up with politics for a specific, changeable set of reasons including/not limited to politicians who are neither financially nor ideologically bound to the representation of their constituencies.
We bought and paid for Bernie. He is the only publicly funded candidate. That means something. The stern lectures and assumptions of sexism just feel like a proof of concept for the narrative that we (people who are fed up) somehow don't deserve representation because what we want isn't what we have.
posted by an animate objects at 6:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
We bought and paid for Bernie. He is the only publicly funded candidate. That means something. The stern lectures and assumptions of sexism just feel like a proof of concept for the narrative that we (people who are fed up) somehow don't deserve representation because what we want isn't what we have.
posted by an animate objects at 6:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
Sanders endorsed Vice President Walter Mondale for president in 1984 in the least enthusiastic way possible, telling reporters that "if you go around saying that Mondale would be a great president, you would be a liar and a hypocrite."
posted by phoque at 6:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by phoque at 6:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know that annoyance towards Bernie means resistance to the idea that the Democratic party is a mess. In this case, "stern" just reads as "shrill"—and "lectures" tracks to the idea that people who publicly support Hillary and think Bernie should bow out already are in some way finger-wagging moms. Support of Hillary and annoyance towards Bernie does not necessarily equal thinking or saying that someone doesn't deserve something.
posted by mynameisluka at 6:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by mynameisluka at 6:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sanders endorsed Vice President Walter Mondale for president in 1984 in the least enthusiastic way possible,
so we get to blame him for Reagan's 2nd term?
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:24 PM on June 16, 2016
so we get to blame him for Reagan's 2nd term?
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:24 PM on June 16, 2016
We bought and paid for Bernie. He is the only publicly funded candidate. That means something.
I bought part of him too, and if I were at a shareholder meeting, I'd be demanding that he unequivocally throw his support behind Hillary, like, yesterday. What does dragging this out do to advance the issues he cares about?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:26 PM on June 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
I bought part of him too, and if I were at a shareholder meeting, I'd be demanding that he unequivocally throw his support behind Hillary, like, yesterday. What does dragging this out do to advance the issues he cares about?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:26 PM on June 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
There's something inherent to Clinton's core fandom that means they're going to be predisposed to having fights with illusionary "Bernie bros" for a good long time. Hopefully that won't get in the way of fighting for any seats.
As for Clinton, she's come over left as far as she's going to and will be sending her way back right for the general, her nod to push and by extension reclaiming the Iraq policy she voted for being part of that. I expect there will be a lot of disappointment there, or people talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Still better than trump by orders of magnitude, obviously.
posted by Artw at 6:26 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
As for Clinton, she's come over left as far as she's going to and will be sending her way back right for the general, her nod to push and by extension reclaiming the Iraq policy she voted for being part of that. I expect there will be a lot of disappointment there, or people talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Still better than trump by orders of magnitude, obviously.
posted by Artw at 6:26 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
He's had a seriously bad case of "white dude lefty who's upset that people want to talk about issues other than class" the whole campaign and he's basically declined to address the bad behavior and shrieking misogyny and racism of a lot of his supporters, especially over the last few weeks as his loss became harder and harder to deny.
The stern lectures and assumptions of sexism just feel like a proof of concept for the narrative that we (people who are fed up) somehow don't deserve representation because what we wan't isn't what we have.
Your dude lost. That is not disenfranchisement. That is not you being denied representation. Your dude had a shot and he didn't win, in part because his appeal was mostly to people who are white in a party whose demographics are increasingly not.
There's something inherent to Clinton's core fandom that means they're going to be predisposed to having fights with illusionary "Bernie bros" for a good long time.
Ask the people who are getting death threats and harassing tweets and phone calls if the Bernie Bros are make believe or not.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:27 PM on June 16, 2016 [62 favorites]
The stern lectures and assumptions of sexism just feel like a proof of concept for the narrative that we (people who are fed up) somehow don't deserve representation because what we wan't isn't what we have.
Your dude lost. That is not disenfranchisement. That is not you being denied representation. Your dude had a shot and he didn't win, in part because his appeal was mostly to people who are white in a party whose demographics are increasingly not.
There's something inherent to Clinton's core fandom that means they're going to be predisposed to having fights with illusionary "Bernie bros" for a good long time.
Ask the people who are getting death threats and harassing tweets and phone calls if the Bernie Bros are make believe or not.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:27 PM on June 16, 2016 [62 favorites]
Here is a transcript of Sanders' speech. It definitely did not have the shape of a standard concession speech. Mostly it was a list of the various issues he wants to talk about and also a call-to-action to for his supporters to get involved in local elections and public service. The closest thing to a preview of what his next move is (either at the convention or afterwards):
My guess is that this speech was just the next phase for him to mobilize his supporters and actually capitalize on this movement he's started. Maybe he'll endorse Clinton at the convention, maybe he won't. Maybe he won't explicitly endorse at all in order to keep his supporters pumped up to the max. Whatever. But, I'd be very surprised if Sanders and Clinton hadn't already worked out a general outline for messaging strategy during their meeting earlier this week.
posted by mhum at 6:29 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
The major political task that we face in the next five months is to make certain that Donald Trump is defeated and defeated badly. And I personally intend to begin my role in that process in a very short period of time.He does not specify what that role will be. He does not endorse Clinton nor acknowledge that she's won the nomination in this speech. But he also doesn't say he's going to initiate a floor fight in Philadelphia or start convincing superdelegates to flip or whatever.
But defeating Donald Trump cannot be our only goal. We must continue our grassroots efforts to create the America that we know we can become. And we must take that energy into the Democratic National Convention on July 25 in Philadelphia where we will have more than 1,900 delegates. [...]
I also look forward to working with Secretary Clinton to transform the Democratic Party so that it becomes a party of working people and young people, and not just wealthy campaign contributors: a party that has the courage to take on Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry and the other powerful special interests that dominate our political and economic life.
My guess is that this speech was just the next phase for him to mobilize his supporters and actually capitalize on this movement he's started. Maybe he'll endorse Clinton at the convention, maybe he won't. Maybe he won't explicitly endorse at all in order to keep his supporters pumped up to the max. Whatever. But, I'd be very surprised if Sanders and Clinton hadn't already worked out a general outline for messaging strategy during their meeting earlier this week.
posted by mhum at 6:29 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
A blue congress comprised of a few hundred old rich white guys isn't going to serve us much better than a red one.
Well, I suppose it's nice to see the "Clinton is no different from Trump" message has evolved.
But seriously, after the filibuster? After the shit Ryan and McCain and company have said? To say the Democrats and Republicans are equivalent is just amazing.
Sure, maybe a Democratic Congress won't won't quite be oriented enough toward the desires of young white middle class guys. But it won't be beholden to a homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, fascistic minority. And that's the important goal.
posted by happyroach at 6:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [54 favorites]
Well, I suppose it's nice to see the "Clinton is no different from Trump" message has evolved.
But seriously, after the filibuster? After the shit Ryan and McCain and company have said? To say the Democrats and Republicans are equivalent is just amazing.
Sure, maybe a Democratic Congress won't won't quite be oriented enough toward the desires of young white middle class guys. But it won't be beholden to a homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, fascistic minority. And that's the important goal.
posted by happyroach at 6:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [54 favorites]
Those fuckers will be off to trump or whatever reddity backwater they hailed from in no time, but their appellate will live on forever and be used whenever centrists want to block anything leftist.
posted by Artw at 6:33 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:33 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Clinton is not part of that movement, and she is certainly not a leader of that movement — and it's a disservice to both liberalism and leftism to pretend that she could be.
Why does Sanders or anyone else get to define who's a part of the movement and who isn't? Who's a liberal and who's a leftist and who isn't? If the movement is truly beyond Sanders, then that means he doesn't get to define who is and isn't in it.
posted by FJT at 6:34 PM on June 16, 2016 [20 favorites]
Why does Sanders or anyone else get to define who's a part of the movement and who isn't? Who's a liberal and who's a leftist and who isn't? If the movement is truly beyond Sanders, then that means he doesn't get to define who is and isn't in it.
posted by FJT at 6:34 PM on June 16, 2016 [20 favorites]
Those fuckers will be off to trump or whatever reddity backwater they hailed from in no time, but their appellate will live on forever and be used whenever centrists want to block anything leftist.
Eh, they're already doing a solid job of that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:36 PM on June 16, 2016
Eh, they're already doing a solid job of that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:36 PM on June 16, 2016
a speech about continuing to build a left movement, since, as a liberal, Clinton is not part of that movement
Is anything in this speech actually about "building a left movement" in any real way? The platform planks mentioned here seem like basic liberal stuff, things that have been on the Democratic agenda for at least the entirety of the Obama administration. Meanwhile Sanders can't be relied upon to toe even the most basic liberal party line on things like being pro-choice or supporting gun control. Free college is the only thing on his list that isn't basic duh-doy Democratic red meat.
As a socialist who is also a member of the Democratic party, I'm sick to death of people saying Sanders is a socialist. He's a liberal, just like Clinton is, whose views differ from hers slightly, and some in a more conservative direction.
I'm sick and goddamn tired of Bernie Sanders coopting the "leftist" label, and of Bernie Bros who know nothing of how politics works insisting that his policies are in any way "revolutionary". Or, frankly, not stuff that the mainstream Democrats they villify have been working towards for decades.
posted by Sara C. at 6:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [61 favorites]
Is anything in this speech actually about "building a left movement" in any real way? The platform planks mentioned here seem like basic liberal stuff, things that have been on the Democratic agenda for at least the entirety of the Obama administration. Meanwhile Sanders can't be relied upon to toe even the most basic liberal party line on things like being pro-choice or supporting gun control. Free college is the only thing on his list that isn't basic duh-doy Democratic red meat.
As a socialist who is also a member of the Democratic party, I'm sick to death of people saying Sanders is a socialist. He's a liberal, just like Clinton is, whose views differ from hers slightly, and some in a more conservative direction.
I'm sick and goddamn tired of Bernie Sanders coopting the "leftist" label, and of Bernie Bros who know nothing of how politics works insisting that his policies are in any way "revolutionary". Or, frankly, not stuff that the mainstream Democrats they villify have been working towards for decades.
posted by Sara C. at 6:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [61 favorites]
Those fuckers will be off to trump or whatever reddity backwater they hailed from in no time, but their appellate will live on forever and be used whenever centrists want to block anything leftist.Maybe Bernie should have thought about that a couple of months ago, when he decided not to condemn people behaving like total assholes in his name?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:38 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
I can't wrap my head around how much resistance there is to the idea that the Democratic party is kindof a mess
Of course it is! I can't think of a political party that isn't.
But I'm getting tired of all the very important reasons why It's Different This Time and No Really, it's Not Sexism. I mean, there are so many excuses that have been laid down over the past few weeks about how it wasn't fair to ask Bernie to concede. And hey, I've always been a fan of him staying in the race as long as he wants! God knows I was annoyed at the people asking Clinton to step aside last time before she was ready. But she won, and he lost. Does he really want to push progressive policies? Acknowledge the ways in which Clinton is a sound progressive choice! Again, it sounds like the people talking about her as a Republican-lite haven't actually looked at the policies she has espoused for years.
Also, the whole "working together to defeat Trump" thing...yes good, defeating Trump is an absolute must. But...she's the nominee, not him. And god willing, she will be the next President. This isn't a grade school election where they will co-lead so no one's feelings gets hurt.
Also also... Clinton's "fandom"? Ugh.
Although maybe I should replace my "What would Buffy do?" slogan with "What would HRC do?"
posted by Salieri at 6:38 PM on June 16, 2016 [26 favorites]
Of course it is! I can't think of a political party that isn't.
But I'm getting tired of all the very important reasons why It's Different This Time and No Really, it's Not Sexism. I mean, there are so many excuses that have been laid down over the past few weeks about how it wasn't fair to ask Bernie to concede. And hey, I've always been a fan of him staying in the race as long as he wants! God knows I was annoyed at the people asking Clinton to step aside last time before she was ready. But she won, and he lost. Does he really want to push progressive policies? Acknowledge the ways in which Clinton is a sound progressive choice! Again, it sounds like the people talking about her as a Republican-lite haven't actually looked at the policies she has espoused for years.
Also, the whole "working together to defeat Trump" thing...yes good, defeating Trump is an absolute must. But...she's the nominee, not him. And god willing, she will be the next President. This isn't a grade school election where they will co-lead so no one's feelings gets hurt.
Also also... Clinton's "fandom"? Ugh.
Although maybe I should replace my "What would Buffy do?" slogan with "What would HRC do?"
posted by Salieri at 6:38 PM on June 16, 2016 [26 favorites]
Ahhhh, nothing like actual Sanders/Clinton news to bring back those timeless squabbles we know and love.
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:40 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 6:40 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ahhhh, nothing like actual Sanders/Clinton news to bring back those timeless squabbles we know and love.
Yeah, imagine if any of this actually mattered to real people!
posted by tonycpsu at 6:42 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yeah, imagine if any of this actually mattered to real people!
posted by tonycpsu at 6:42 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
Is the Democratic party "a mess", though?
And is anyone saying that who is actually a long-standing member of the Democratic party?
If anything, watching the horrorshow on the Republican side this primary season, I'm more convinced than ever that the DNC is going to be OK.
I'd like some young blood and some kind of effective strategy to take back congress. (Or even better, a plan in place like the Republicans had in the 90s to get Democrats in at all levels of government, down to deciding what textbooks school districts have to order.) But all in all, in the sense of like how political parties actually work, the D's are at the top of the pecking order as far as I'm concerned.
posted by Sara C. at 6:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
And is anyone saying that who is actually a long-standing member of the Democratic party?
If anything, watching the horrorshow on the Republican side this primary season, I'm more convinced than ever that the DNC is going to be OK.
I'd like some young blood and some kind of effective strategy to take back congress. (Or even better, a plan in place like the Republicans had in the 90s to get Democrats in at all levels of government, down to deciding what textbooks school districts have to order.) But all in all, in the sense of like how political parties actually work, the D's are at the top of the pecking order as far as I'm concerned.
posted by Sara C. at 6:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
He's had a seriously bad case of "white dude lefty who's upset that people want to talk about issues other than class" the whole campaign
Want to know how I know you haven't done your homework?
The misogyny thing is sticking by the force of sheer wishful thinking, the race thing is straight up dumb, considering his actual personal and political history.
Bernie has three problems, and they prevented his nomination -
1) He really is too old for an office that visibly sucks the life out of its office holders. I know, ageism sucks, but this really is an exception.
2) He has no real plan to bridge the divide in congress. He is running on a platform of the Unitary Executive taken to an illogical extreme.
3) He's not actually a member of the Democratic Party, he's just using it to gain power.
And these are noted by yrs truly, "Bernie Bro" extraordinaire. (I voted for Bernie because I found his policies to address race, gender AND class equality compelling, and not in conflict. His weaknesses were understood, but man...)
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Want to know how I know you haven't done your homework?
The misogyny thing is sticking by the force of sheer wishful thinking, the race thing is straight up dumb, considering his actual personal and political history.
Bernie has three problems, and they prevented his nomination -
1) He really is too old for an office that visibly sucks the life out of its office holders. I know, ageism sucks, but this really is an exception.
2) He has no real plan to bridge the divide in congress. He is running on a platform of the Unitary Executive taken to an illogical extreme.
3) He's not actually a member of the Democratic Party, he's just using it to gain power.
And these are noted by yrs truly, "Bernie Bro" extraordinaire. (I voted for Bernie because I found his policies to address race, gender AND class equality compelling, and not in conflict. His weaknesses were understood, but man...)
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:44 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
We bought and paid for Bernie. He is the only publicly funded candidate. That means something.
Yep. If you saved the receipt, you can take him to the returns counter and exchange him for one that fits.
posted by multics at 6:46 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
Yep. If you saved the receipt, you can take him to the returns counter and exchange him for one that fits.
posted by multics at 6:46 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
The misogyny thing is sticking by the force of sheer wishful thinking
Not to pick on you personally, but I'm really not a fan of hearing a guy say this when so many women have been experiencing it otherwise.
posted by Salieri at 6:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [47 favorites]
Not to pick on you personally, but I'm really not a fan of hearing a guy say this when so many women have been experiencing it otherwise.
posted by Salieri at 6:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [47 favorites]
Is the Democratic party "a mess", though?
Yes.
And is anyone saying that who is actually a long-standing member of the Democratic party?
Yes.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yes.
And is anyone saying that who is actually a long-standing member of the Democratic party?
Yes.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:47 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Eh, maybe this is all a part of the plan. Sanders has met with both Obama and Clinton now. Maybe they all agreed that keeping the Sanders people outside the Democratic Party is the best plan, so that they don't have to take the bitter pill of identifying as "Democrats", but can still coordinate and be utilized by the party as an auxiliary force to help towards various issues.
posted by FJT at 6:53 PM on June 16, 2016
posted by FJT at 6:53 PM on June 16, 2016
Sanders conceding in the exact right way
How about "Sanders conceding", period? Why can't we get that?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:53 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
How about "Sanders conceding", period? Why can't we get that?
posted by tonycpsu at 6:53 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
Not to pick on you personally, but I'm really not a fan of hearing a guy say this when so many women have been experiencing otherwise.
The polls tell a different story. Sorry. It is a generational thing, tho, and why the #bernieorbust thing is horseshit. Those women in the Gen Y/Millennial cohort ain't voting trump or Johnson or Jill Stein. Like me, they will be voting Sec. Clinton. As the POTUS says, she is literally the most qualified candidate for the office since I can't remember when.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
The polls tell a different story. Sorry. It is a generational thing, tho, and why the #bernieorbust thing is horseshit. Those women in the Gen Y/Millennial cohort ain't voting trump or Johnson or Jill Stein. Like me, they will be voting Sec. Clinton. As the POTUS says, she is literally the most qualified candidate for the office since I can't remember when.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
How about "Sanders conceding", period? Why can't we get that?
Because he doesn't give a shit about the institutional party or the decades spent building it. The D is a flag of convenience.
posted by Talez at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because he doesn't give a shit about the institutional party or the decades spent building it. The D is a flag of convenience.
posted by Talez at 6:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mod note: If you've posted more than 3 comments in the short time since Sanders' speech began, you're probably digging in and being circular and not, at this point, adding to the conversation. If this is you, police yourself and take a break. Everyone, stop being jerks to each other, and try to recall which parts of this we have already had THOUSANDS OF COMMENTS on and maybe don't need to rehash YET AGAIN.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 6:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 6:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
When I posted the links to the AP report and stream I just assumed he had conceded at the start of the speech and that was all we would be talking about tonight. It is really baffling to me what he thinks he is gaining from this. I know a lot of Clinton supporters don't like him or his campaign, but I think a lot more are really excited to have him fully on board. If he really wants to move on to the next stage of the political revolution, move on already. It's time.
I think he just feels a lot of obligation to his supporters, he wants to make sure they know their voices were heard, but I think he has done all he needs to for them along those lines already. I'm sick of talking about a primary that has been effectively over for months. Not that the general is shaping up to be less of a headache.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think he just feels a lot of obligation to his supporters, he wants to make sure they know their voices were heard, but I think he has done all he needs to for them along those lines already. I'm sick of talking about a primary that has been effectively over for months. Not that the general is shaping up to be less of a headache.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
The fact that the ambiguity has just reignited back-and-forth of the previous months seems to me to lessen the effectiveness of the speech. It just serves to frustrate people until the convention, which is at best pointless, and at worse gives the media a new shiny toy just when they were starting to give the GOP heartburn. Why spend the energy to chase down McConnell/Ryan/etc when they can get sit on their asses and wait for juicy quotes about Dem infighting to roll in?
posted by zombieflanders at 7:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 7:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
I can't wrap my head around how much resistance there is to the idea that the Democratic party is kindof a mess
Of course it is! I can't think of a political party that isn't.
I've always held with Will Rogers on this one, and I've been a member since my first vote. Democrats have nowhere near the party discipline of the GOP past, which I suppose you could call a "mess," but the fact that it's the coalition party of the center-left and left is what makes it dynamic and a great vehicle for progressive change. I'd like to see more long-term coherent strategy, but the things that make it "a mess" are also the things that will prevent its totally imploding as the GOP has just done.
posted by Miko at 7:01 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
Of course it is! I can't think of a political party that isn't.
I've always held with Will Rogers on this one, and I've been a member since my first vote. Democrats have nowhere near the party discipline of the GOP past, which I suppose you could call a "mess," but the fact that it's the coalition party of the center-left and left is what makes it dynamic and a great vehicle for progressive change. I'd like to see more long-term coherent strategy, but the things that make it "a mess" are also the things that will prevent its totally imploding as the GOP has just done.
posted by Miko at 7:01 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
I don't understand his plan. If he doesn't concede and endorse he does not get a speaking slot at the convention. A prime speaking slot at the convention is a huge deal. Why would he blow that off?
posted by Justinian at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
it's difficult to shoehorn "vote for Clinton" into a speech about continuing to build a left movement, since, as a liberal, Clinton is not part of that movement, and she is certainly not a leader of that movement — and it's a disservice to both liberalism and leftism to pretend that she could be
As a liberal who strongly prefers Clinton's leadership to that of Sanders, I am continually surprised at this attitude. Coulda swore I've been left wing this whole time, but maybe not?
posted by EatTheWeek at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
As a liberal who strongly prefers Clinton's leadership to that of Sanders, I am continually surprised at this attitude. Coulda swore I've been left wing this whole time, but maybe not?
posted by EatTheWeek at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
It's pretty plainly a concession, TBH, since he's no longer talking about running for president.
And what he is talking about, a grassroots attempt at seizing congress, is pretty much essential at this point and something I'm suprised at seeing people upset by. We're going to need it if Clinton is elected, whoevers expectations she meets, and we're damn sure going to need it if Trump somehow wins.
posted by Artw at 7:04 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
And what he is talking about, a grassroots attempt at seizing congress, is pretty much essential at this point and something I'm suprised at seeing people upset by. We're going to need it if Clinton is elected, whoevers expectations she meets, and we're damn sure going to need it if Trump somehow wins.
posted by Artw at 7:04 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
Because he hasn't put much work into actually funding and supporting such a thing?
posted by tavella at 7:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by tavella at 7:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think people are upset because Sanders firmly endorsing Clinton, asking his supporters to vote for her and pointing out why not voting or voting for Trump would be a bad idea would go a long way towards ensuring Trump doesn't somehow win.
posted by peacheater at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by peacheater at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
It's pretty plainly a concessionA plain concession has the phrases "I'm suspending my campaign" and "I congratulate
posted by fitnr at 7:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
Vox:
First, Clinton wants him to end his campaign before the convention so the party will be unified going into it. And second, Clinton wants his enthusiastic endorsement, to help mobilize those supporters of his who have so far been reluctant to back her.posted by Drinky Die at 7:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
But Sanders appears to think that as soon as he gives up either of those things, he’ll lose whatever leverage he still has to push the party in a more progressive direction.
So here’s his strategy: be conciliatory toward Clinton, stop his attacks on her, and make clear they’re on the same team — while also trying to win whatever commitments from her on the platform and her own policies that he can manage.
Meanwhile, Hillary (or her media team) is still winning at the Twitters.
posted by octothorpe at 7:20 PM on June 16, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 7:20 PM on June 16, 2016 [27 favorites]
So here’s his strategy: be conciliatory toward Clinton, stop his attacks on her, and make clear they’re on the same team — while also trying to win whatever commitments from her on the platform and her own policies that he can manage.
There's no reason on earth he can't do that while also clearly conceding.
posted by Miko at 7:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
There's no reason on earth he can't do that while also clearly conceding.
posted by Miko at 7:21 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
I hope Hillary Clinton keeps those social media people as president. A+++
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
"There's no reason on earth he can't do that while also clearly conceding"
I think there was one conspicuously placed before the sentence you quoted.
posted by klarck at 7:24 PM on June 16, 2016
I think there was one conspicuously placed before the sentence you quoted.
posted by klarck at 7:24 PM on June 16, 2016
I think there was one conspicuously placed before the sentence you quoted.
He has no real leverage, though. There's no real upside in terms of moving Hillary more to the left than he already has, but a lot of downside if he's really willing to shoot the hostages. The expected value of this gambit is negative.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
He has no real leverage, though. There's no real upside in terms of moving Hillary more to the left than he already has, but a lot of downside if he's really willing to shoot the hostages. The expected value of this gambit is negative.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think there was one conspicuously placed before the sentence you quoted.
Right....I read it. My point being, if that is what he thinks, he is incorrect. In fact, it's clearly damaging his leverage with people who were sympathetic to him but unsure about his analytical and leadership qualities.
posted by Miko at 7:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Right....I read it. My point being, if that is what he thinks, he is incorrect. In fact, it's clearly damaging his leverage with people who were sympathetic to him but unsure about his analytical and leadership qualities.
posted by Miko at 7:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Meanwhile, Hillary (or her media team) is still winning at the Twitters.
Being pithy in response to Trump is brilliant. He uses a million words to say nothing, you use one or a few to say a lot. See also her response to Lincoln Chafee. No way to tell for sure, but I think it's definitely possible she has a personal hand in these.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Being pithy in response to Trump is brilliant. He uses a million words to say nothing, you use one or a few to say a lot. See also her response to Lincoln Chafee. No way to tell for sure, but I think it's definitely possible she has a personal hand in these.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:30 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
There's no reason on earth he can't do that while also clearly conceding.
Politics? Negotiation?
Those are two substantial reasons!
If we were seeing news reports about the high competency of the Trump campaign, and rising Trump poll numbers to go along with, maybe-probably Sanders could be shamed into falling into line. But we aren't, and so Sanders can take a maximalist position. This position (not the nom itself -- there was never a chance of that) is what he has spent the past year working toward. It's a remarkable achievement -- he's barely a Democrat! -- and here's hoping he plays the end game as deftly as he has played the opening and the middle.
posted by notyou at 7:31 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Politics? Negotiation?
Those are two substantial reasons!
If we were seeing news reports about the high competency of the Trump campaign, and rising Trump poll numbers to go along with, maybe-probably Sanders could be shamed into falling into line. But we aren't, and so Sanders can take a maximalist position. This position (not the nom itself -- there was never a chance of that) is what he has spent the past year working toward. It's a remarkable achievement -- he's barely a Democrat! -- and here's hoping he plays the end game as deftly as he has played the opening and the middle.
posted by notyou at 7:31 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Either he has leverage, or he doesn't. If he doesn't, it makes no practical difference whether he concedes now or in July -- his supporters will come round to Clinton by November either way. If he does, then it would be foolish to concede now, for exactly the logic of political hardball that Clinton claims she will excel at in dealing with Republicans as president. I myself tend towards the former -- even if he affects the platform, that will have a relatively minor effect compared to the leftward shifts he induced over the course of the campaign. The Clinton leadership (and Obama) presumably also understand this, and thus don't appear too worried about such things. The main people I see upset are a subset of Clinton supporters who feel that the symbolism of a concession, as a form of apology for what has happened in the last few months, is important. Which may be true, but it doesn't mean that a little rudeness might not be strategically advantageous in wringing out the last leftward nudges possible. And if there is no advantage to be had (and no harm to be done), then it's all just symbolism.
posted by chortly at 7:39 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by chortly at 7:39 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
One of my key lessons from 2012 was that candidates operate on their own schedules to their own purposes. There were many times when the Romney machine "won the cycle" against Obama with some idiotic mini-scandal and people on TV and across the internet worked themselves up into a panic because Obama would refuse to address it until later, when in the midst of a sometimes seemingly random campaign speech, he would casually say something as an aside that would make the whole thing and everyone associated with it seem ridiculous. We have totally different candidates, neither of whom are Obama, and very different dynamics today, but the candidates continue to operate on their own schedules despire our increasingly urgent desire for immediate conclusions. They're seeking out critical, impactful moments in which to act, and low key speeches like this really aren't that. As much as I'd like Sanders to put a bow on it so we can move on to the next phase already, unless the convention comes and goes and he decides to never concede, it seems most reasonable to think that he is biding his time and that once he finds his moment and concedes, everything will be fine.
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:50 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by feloniousmonk at 7:50 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Which may be true, but it doesn't mean that a little rudeness might not be strategically advantageous in wringing out the last leftward nudges possible.
In the many debt ceiling battles, the GOP had leverage on paper, but exercising that leverage required making a credible case that they were willing to wreck the US economy by defaulting on our debt. Eventually, the markets eventually told them "hey, that's some bullshit right there, cut it out." They weren't actually willing to pull the trigger, and if they did, it likely wouldn't have advanced their goals anyway.
That's how I feel about this. Bernie's "leverage" is that he won't ever concede and will stage a convention fight. But if he's willing to do that, to cause significant damage to the only host organism through which large-scale progressive change has ever been achieved in this country, then I can't look at that as merely a tactical disagreement or political hardball.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:54 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
In the many debt ceiling battles, the GOP had leverage on paper, but exercising that leverage required making a credible case that they were willing to wreck the US economy by defaulting on our debt. Eventually, the markets eventually told them "hey, that's some bullshit right there, cut it out." They weren't actually willing to pull the trigger, and if they did, it likely wouldn't have advanced their goals anyway.
That's how I feel about this. Bernie's "leverage" is that he won't ever concede and will stage a convention fight. But if he's willing to do that, to cause significant damage to the only host organism through which large-scale progressive change has ever been achieved in this country, then I can't look at that as merely a tactical disagreement or political hardball.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:54 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
This insistence on "I conceed" reminds me of Trump's insistence on "radical Islamic terrorism" upthread.
posted by joeyh at 7:56 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by joeyh at 7:56 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Clinton leadership (and Obama) presumably also understand this, and thus don't appear too worried about such things.
What would it look like, hypothetically, if they were worried about such things? I don't think it'd look any different from what we see now: private negotiations with Sanders, but without public expressions of frustration, which would be completely counterproductive. If they appeared worried, they'd be doing it wrong.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
What would it look like, hypothetically, if they were worried about such things? I don't think it'd look any different from what we see now: private negotiations with Sanders, but without public expressions of frustration, which would be completely counterproductive. If they appeared worried, they'd be doing it wrong.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:58 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
This insistence on "I conceed" reminds me of Trump's insistence on "radical Islamic terrorism" upthread.
One is asking somebody who cannot win to formally concede the race, and the other is the demand that a particular racist shibboleth being invoked. They're not the same at all and the comparison is insultingly facile.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [52 favorites]
One is asking somebody who cannot win to formally concede the race, and the other is the demand that a particular racist shibboleth being invoked. They're not the same at all and the comparison is insultingly facile.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [52 favorites]
"I'm not a member of any organized political party.... I'm a Democrat."
- and -
"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they'd be Republicans."
- Will Rogers.
The more things change...
posted by yhbc at 8:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
- and -
"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they'd be Republicans."
- Will Rogers.
The more things change...
posted by yhbc at 8:00 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Conceding isn't just a thing you say, it's a thing you do.
posted by octothorpe at 8:04 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:04 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
But if he's willing to do that, to cause significant damage to the only host organism through which large-scale progressive change has ever been achieved in this country...
Not a rhetorical question: what is the "significant damage" to the Democratic party he could cause? This really isn't 1968, and it's certainly not remotely comparable to the direct effects of a debt default. If there were serious risks to the party or Clinton's chances that depended on what happens between now and July, I think Clinton, Obama, and the party establishment would be acting very differently.
What would it look like, hypothetically, if they were worried about such things?
There would be a lot more leaks from the top and attacks by high-level surrogates; Obama and Sanders would not have been laughing it up at the White House; the mainstream media would be echoing such messages as well. It would not be in the Clinton campaign's strategic interests to feign complete indifference, unless the appearance of disunity caused by attacking Sanders's disloyalty was itself so damaging as to require silence. But this second-order symbolic effect seems even less likely to matter. Mainly, apart from appearances, the main reason they are probably not worried is that they shouldn't be worried. Sanders has very little (but not zero) leverage, and his supporters will largely line up behind Clinton in November, and she knows it. In the meantime, he is doing what he can to wring out whatever leverage he has left.
posted by chortly at 8:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not a rhetorical question: what is the "significant damage" to the Democratic party he could cause? This really isn't 1968, and it's certainly not remotely comparable to the direct effects of a debt default. If there were serious risks to the party or Clinton's chances that depended on what happens between now and July, I think Clinton, Obama, and the party establishment would be acting very differently.
What would it look like, hypothetically, if they were worried about such things?
There would be a lot more leaks from the top and attacks by high-level surrogates; Obama and Sanders would not have been laughing it up at the White House; the mainstream media would be echoing such messages as well. It would not be in the Clinton campaign's strategic interests to feign complete indifference, unless the appearance of disunity caused by attacking Sanders's disloyalty was itself so damaging as to require silence. But this second-order symbolic effect seems even less likely to matter. Mainly, apart from appearances, the main reason they are probably not worried is that they shouldn't be worried. Sanders has very little (but not zero) leverage, and his supporters will largely line up behind Clinton in November, and she knows it. In the meantime, he is doing what he can to wring out whatever leverage he has left.
posted by chortly at 8:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I really hope Sanders parlays his remaining leverage into something loftier than open primaries and DWS's head on a platter.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
This insistence on "I conceed" reminds me of Trump's insistence on "radical Islamic terrorism" upthread.
It's dumb if you consider the audience for the Sanders speech - at this point any of them who have decided they're going to abstain or vote for Trump are pretty much a lost cause, and probably were before the race began, directing the attention of the others on the downticket races is a much smarter play for gaining ground than doing some kind of walk of shame, as emotionally satisfying for Clinton supporters as that would be.
posted by Artw at 8:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's dumb if you consider the audience for the Sanders speech - at this point any of them who have decided they're going to abstain or vote for Trump are pretty much a lost cause, and probably were before the race began, directing the attention of the others on the downticket races is a much smarter play for gaining ground than doing some kind of walk of shame, as emotionally satisfying for Clinton supporters as that would be.
posted by Artw at 8:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Not a rhetorical question: what is the "significant damage" to the Democratic party he could cause?
A Trump victory if he fails to fully endorse Clinton and tell his supporters to vote for her?
posted by Justinian at 8:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
A Trump victory if he fails to fully endorse Clinton and tell his supporters to vote for her?
posted by Justinian at 8:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't want to see a walk of shame, I want to see a fucking enthusiastic ally in the fight to overwhelmingly defeat the worst presidential candidate of my lifetime.
I'm glad he made some noises in that direction, but I would have liked more. Ultimately, though, I don't think it matters all that much, and the Sanders chapter of this election is more or less closed.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [25 favorites]
I'm glad he made some noises in that direction, but I would have liked more. Ultimately, though, I don't think it matters all that much, and the Sanders chapter of this election is more or less closed.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [25 favorites]
Meanwhile, in actual news: Hillary Clinton vows to end “carried interest” loophole — even if Congress won’t.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 8:16 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
I really hope Sanders parlays his remaining leverage into something loftier than open primaries and DWS's head on a platter.I think he'll get DWS, not that it will really matter, but I don't think the party can deliver open primaries. There would be open revolt if the national leadership dictated to the states how to run their affairs at that level of specificity.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't want to see a walk of shame, I want to see a fucking enthusiastic ally in the fight to overwhelmingly defeat the worst presidential candidate of my lifetime.
I suspect you may have to slog there through "grudging acceptance" rather than jumping to it immediately.
posted by Artw at 8:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I suspect you may have to slog there through "grudging acceptance" rather than jumping to it immediately.
posted by Artw at 8:22 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah I am super unimpressed by his stance. In light of his recent behavior it's hard to see this as something inspirational. All that BS doesn't suddenly go away. All I see here is a grouchy old dude who lost and can't step up to it.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:34 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:34 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
Well, he always looked like the candidate most likely to shout Get Off My Lawn!
posted by y2karl at 8:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 8:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
The reality is that Sanders already lost his shot of achieving maximum gains by failing to drop out weeks ago before NJ and California.
If he had done that he could've maintain the illusion that just maybe he could've come from behind and won (In reality he lost the nomination on Super Tuesday it's just been a slow motion car wreck ever since). He could've spun a story that upon looking at Clinton's lead and Trump's nomination that the best thing to do for the Democratic party and the nation as a whole would be to mend fences because a Trump Presidency would be the worst timeline ever.
The reality is that by now the polling is beginning to show that the number of Bernie or Bust dead enders is really not that large and that most of the votes for Bernie reflected a preference for his policies rather than a explicit vote against Hillary. The number of people that were NeverShillary was always small at least among the actual liberals and left. Yeah there are probably some extreme left accelerationist types but they actually tend to be vanishingly small in numbers and even though most might grumble about Hillary being neo-liberal or whatever is the current argument advanced on reddit most are willing to sign on because voting third party in the US is literally useless and Trump is a walking cheetoh.
So Bernie never had substantial leverage in terms of dictating things to Hillary once she took a commanding lead. She just had to take her time and let him waste money on all sorts of stupid and wasteful advertising and now he basically has zero resources remaining. It's basically the political version of rope a dope which she's also beginning to use on Trump to good effect.
Yeah he could probably have influenced the party platform in some way but for the most part the party platform in largely a functional meaningless and symbolic document as nobody is actually required to support it after the convention. But yeah symbolic victories have some value I guess. However he radically overplayed his hand in trying to get two Democratic elder statesmen removed and by putting on someone like Cornel West who clearly has no desire to mend fences when he's more or less a professional shit-stirrer. Don't get me wrong we need professional shit stirrers in the US but we don't necessarily need one trying to make rules in the Democratic party.
That plus the reports of wanting to select her running mate and cabinet selections even though giving those decisions would be basically surrendering her autonomy to Sanders was massively overplaying his hand and has resulted in a deep level of distrust and scorn from many people that otherwise support him.
Combined with the increasing evidence that most of the Bernie or Bust types threatening to go over to Trump probably represented lean Republican independents and lots of libertarian types (even though functionally liberalism like Sanders is promoting is really far from what libertarians normally want) and it's clear that the idea that Clinton was going to be unable to get most of Sanders supporters without the assistance and explicit endorsement of Sanders was wrong.
Darlings of the left like Warren have already endorsed Clinton and to most Sanders supporters she's Sanders in an even better package so if Clinton wants or needs to run a unity ticket she already has that option.
Furthermore once Clinton basically consolidated her position the tightness in Clinton vs Trump polling disappeared and now Trump is more or less imploding in terms of polling so the concerns that Clinton would have to really rally the base to win have largely disappeared.
I think it will still largely be a base election but Trump's increasingly unstable behavior could result in lean Republican and even loyal Republicans voting for Clinton or Johnson. The attention of the media on Sanders has basically disappeared and coverage of his events (where he's largely been doing the same rehashed stump speech for fucking ever) is basically perfunctory at best. Even the concern trolling by bloggers on Salon and HuffPo has largely gone away. Yeah you still have the dead enders like Goodman and the douches on TYT but increasingly everyone is choosing to ignore them.
Sanders had a shot to really create a solid left-liberal consensus but his messaging and campaigning just undermined so many of his positions. Shit like discounting the votes of Black democrats in the South when African Americans are the absolute most reliable Democratic group was stupid as fuck as was all the weird flip-flopping on stuff like Caucuses and Super Delegates.
I am way to the left of Sanders and Clinton on a ton of issues but fundamentally I know that the US version of the First past the post model absolutely dictates long term stability around 2 parties (sometimes an old party is eclipsed by another one such as when the Whigs went away). As a result you have to create coalitions built on winning a plurality of the votes in national elections. The modern Democratic party is a very diverse coalition and it represents the collection of a lot of different racial and regional preferences and the simple fact of the matter is that the current center-left block of the Democratic coalition is dominant and after winning the last to national elections the Democrats seem unwilling to break with what seems like a winning strategy.
The reality is that the current fixation on Sanders as President was always a fairly sketchy proposition for making sure that socialist and progressive positions become dominant. For the first thing Clinton is already pretty liberal and progressive certainly more so than Obama. Second, the presidency is a nice figure head because of the theoretical bully pulpit but the best way to actually advance progressive goals is to win house and senate races and honestly Sanders has been absolutely awful as helping that goal. Third, the idea that progressive policy positions some how require a uncorruptible politician to achieve is simply false. It created an illusion that we somehow need a great man to champion a cause and the truth of the matter is that is a relatively rare and honestly not the best model for change. It's just that we had so many good examples of it during the 20th century that we tend to expect it now.
The reality of course was that the two periods in which liberal and progressive policies made the biggest advances were during the FDR and Johnson period but not neccesarily because either was a brilliant leader but largely because the left had assembled a massive and basically unstoppable congressional advantage. That is the revolution that people needed to hear about but it got lost in all the relatively useless rhetoric. The truth of the matter was that the change he was largely talking about is the type of incrementalism that Clinton advocates for (building congressional majorities etc) it's just that he happened to basically promise a whole lot of stuff he was never ever going to be able to deliver because promising incremental change had absolutely no way of differentiating himself to potential voters.
TL, DR Sanders wasted his opportunity to actually make a big difference in changing Democratic politics because he waited too long and misplayed the hand he was dealt. Not that big of a deal because lots of other good politicians have made similar blunders but I suspect the unfortunate reality is that the bad way he's finishing his campaign is really undercutting a lot of the lessons that should've be found in the way he was able to generate a relatively successful campaign in a relatively short time period mainly through very effective fundraising and social media. That sort of thing is 100% what Democrats need to pick up from Sanders and the truth is Hillary has already been snagging his best social media campaign people.
posted by vuron at 9:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
If he had done that he could've maintain the illusion that just maybe he could've come from behind and won (In reality he lost the nomination on Super Tuesday it's just been a slow motion car wreck ever since). He could've spun a story that upon looking at Clinton's lead and Trump's nomination that the best thing to do for the Democratic party and the nation as a whole would be to mend fences because a Trump Presidency would be the worst timeline ever.
The reality is that by now the polling is beginning to show that the number of Bernie or Bust dead enders is really not that large and that most of the votes for Bernie reflected a preference for his policies rather than a explicit vote against Hillary. The number of people that were NeverShillary was always small at least among the actual liberals and left. Yeah there are probably some extreme left accelerationist types but they actually tend to be vanishingly small in numbers and even though most might grumble about Hillary being neo-liberal or whatever is the current argument advanced on reddit most are willing to sign on because voting third party in the US is literally useless and Trump is a walking cheetoh.
So Bernie never had substantial leverage in terms of dictating things to Hillary once she took a commanding lead. She just had to take her time and let him waste money on all sorts of stupid and wasteful advertising and now he basically has zero resources remaining. It's basically the political version of rope a dope which she's also beginning to use on Trump to good effect.
Yeah he could probably have influenced the party platform in some way but for the most part the party platform in largely a functional meaningless and symbolic document as nobody is actually required to support it after the convention. But yeah symbolic victories have some value I guess. However he radically overplayed his hand in trying to get two Democratic elder statesmen removed and by putting on someone like Cornel West who clearly has no desire to mend fences when he's more or less a professional shit-stirrer. Don't get me wrong we need professional shit stirrers in the US but we don't necessarily need one trying to make rules in the Democratic party.
That plus the reports of wanting to select her running mate and cabinet selections even though giving those decisions would be basically surrendering her autonomy to Sanders was massively overplaying his hand and has resulted in a deep level of distrust and scorn from many people that otherwise support him.
Combined with the increasing evidence that most of the Bernie or Bust types threatening to go over to Trump probably represented lean Republican independents and lots of libertarian types (even though functionally liberalism like Sanders is promoting is really far from what libertarians normally want) and it's clear that the idea that Clinton was going to be unable to get most of Sanders supporters without the assistance and explicit endorsement of Sanders was wrong.
Darlings of the left like Warren have already endorsed Clinton and to most Sanders supporters she's Sanders in an even better package so if Clinton wants or needs to run a unity ticket she already has that option.
Furthermore once Clinton basically consolidated her position the tightness in Clinton vs Trump polling disappeared and now Trump is more or less imploding in terms of polling so the concerns that Clinton would have to really rally the base to win have largely disappeared.
I think it will still largely be a base election but Trump's increasingly unstable behavior could result in lean Republican and even loyal Republicans voting for Clinton or Johnson. The attention of the media on Sanders has basically disappeared and coverage of his events (where he's largely been doing the same rehashed stump speech for fucking ever) is basically perfunctory at best. Even the concern trolling by bloggers on Salon and HuffPo has largely gone away. Yeah you still have the dead enders like Goodman and the douches on TYT but increasingly everyone is choosing to ignore them.
Sanders had a shot to really create a solid left-liberal consensus but his messaging and campaigning just undermined so many of his positions. Shit like discounting the votes of Black democrats in the South when African Americans are the absolute most reliable Democratic group was stupid as fuck as was all the weird flip-flopping on stuff like Caucuses and Super Delegates.
I am way to the left of Sanders and Clinton on a ton of issues but fundamentally I know that the US version of the First past the post model absolutely dictates long term stability around 2 parties (sometimes an old party is eclipsed by another one such as when the Whigs went away). As a result you have to create coalitions built on winning a plurality of the votes in national elections. The modern Democratic party is a very diverse coalition and it represents the collection of a lot of different racial and regional preferences and the simple fact of the matter is that the current center-left block of the Democratic coalition is dominant and after winning the last to national elections the Democrats seem unwilling to break with what seems like a winning strategy.
The reality is that the current fixation on Sanders as President was always a fairly sketchy proposition for making sure that socialist and progressive positions become dominant. For the first thing Clinton is already pretty liberal and progressive certainly more so than Obama. Second, the presidency is a nice figure head because of the theoretical bully pulpit but the best way to actually advance progressive goals is to win house and senate races and honestly Sanders has been absolutely awful as helping that goal. Third, the idea that progressive policy positions some how require a uncorruptible politician to achieve is simply false. It created an illusion that we somehow need a great man to champion a cause and the truth of the matter is that is a relatively rare and honestly not the best model for change. It's just that we had so many good examples of it during the 20th century that we tend to expect it now.
The reality of course was that the two periods in which liberal and progressive policies made the biggest advances were during the FDR and Johnson period but not neccesarily because either was a brilliant leader but largely because the left had assembled a massive and basically unstoppable congressional advantage. That is the revolution that people needed to hear about but it got lost in all the relatively useless rhetoric. The truth of the matter was that the change he was largely talking about is the type of incrementalism that Clinton advocates for (building congressional majorities etc) it's just that he happened to basically promise a whole lot of stuff he was never ever going to be able to deliver because promising incremental change had absolutely no way of differentiating himself to potential voters.
TL, DR Sanders wasted his opportunity to actually make a big difference in changing Democratic politics because he waited too long and misplayed the hand he was dealt. Not that big of a deal because lots of other good politicians have made similar blunders but I suspect the unfortunate reality is that the bad way he's finishing his campaign is really undercutting a lot of the lessons that should've be found in the way he was able to generate a relatively successful campaign in a relatively short time period mainly through very effective fundraising and social media. That sort of thing is 100% what Democrats need to pick up from Sanders and the truth is Hillary has already been snagging his best social media campaign people.
posted by vuron at 9:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [28 favorites]
In light of his recent behavior it's hard to see this as something inspirational.
Well, over 12 million voters were inspired, including millions of women, people of color, LGBTQ, poor, etc. Perhaps they were all misguided, but I doubt their affections would be significantly swayed by an enthused concession. And regarding Sanders himself, and what he says or does inpendent of its effects -- I myself can't see why we should care too much.
posted by chortly at 9:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, over 12 million voters were inspired, including millions of women, people of color, LGBTQ, poor, etc. Perhaps they were all misguided, but I doubt their affections would be significantly swayed by an enthused concession. And regarding Sanders himself, and what he says or does inpendent of its effects -- I myself can't see why we should care too much.
posted by chortly at 9:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
That plus the reports of wanting to select her running mate and cabinet selections even though giving those decisions would be basically surrendering her autonomy to Sanders
Oh barf, did he seriously? That's astonishing arrogance. Where were these reports coming from?
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh barf, did he seriously? That's astonishing arrogance. Where were these reports coming from?
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders demands
Short of the party taking over the primary process entirely which is possible most of the reforms that Sanders wants are simply not achievable because state's have a degree of control over how they run elections.
Open Primaries- Maybe but I'm already beginning to see more and more democrats that are completely frustrated with Bernie's refusal to concede as a sign that he doesn't give a shit about the party. So the counter narrative is basically "Fuck that why should people who aren't Democrats be able to select who runs as a Democrat"?
Basically there is an increasing realization that the much vaunted independent swing voter is becoming more and more rare with the intense polarization of politics. Most independents are generally pretty strongly committed to voting one party or the other they just choose to avoid party affiliation in many cases.
Closed primaries of course have a potential issue there is a chance that the eventual selection will be unpalatable to the supposed independent swing voter but that is balanced by the benefit that Republican voters can't cross over in the primaries just to make sure that the Democrats select a completely shit candidate which has happened at least a few times generally on down ballot races.
Getting rid of DWS- Honestly I don't think Clinton or Obama are really big supporters of DWS. She's not the worst DNC Chair but let's be honest she could be replaced by someone much better. i think she's a pretty mediocre politician and her positions tend to be pretty lame for a representative especially in a pretty safe Democratic district. Patrick Murphy for instance has way more reasons to be centrist being in a pretty Republican leaning district.
Honestly I haven't really been that impressed with just about any recent DNC Chairs McAuliffe was competent but frankly meh, Kaine was awful, Dean showed potential but it kinda went nowhere.
I really like Donna Brazile but she only got it as an interim so probably the last really solid DNC chair was probably Ron Brown. I would totally be willing to kick DWS to the curb as DNC chair if it was required for healing the rift.
posted by vuron at 9:24 PM on June 16, 2016
Short of the party taking over the primary process entirely which is possible most of the reforms that Sanders wants are simply not achievable because state's have a degree of control over how they run elections.
Open Primaries- Maybe but I'm already beginning to see more and more democrats that are completely frustrated with Bernie's refusal to concede as a sign that he doesn't give a shit about the party. So the counter narrative is basically "Fuck that why should people who aren't Democrats be able to select who runs as a Democrat"?
Basically there is an increasing realization that the much vaunted independent swing voter is becoming more and more rare with the intense polarization of politics. Most independents are generally pretty strongly committed to voting one party or the other they just choose to avoid party affiliation in many cases.
Closed primaries of course have a potential issue there is a chance that the eventual selection will be unpalatable to the supposed independent swing voter but that is balanced by the benefit that Republican voters can't cross over in the primaries just to make sure that the Democrats select a completely shit candidate which has happened at least a few times generally on down ballot races.
Getting rid of DWS- Honestly I don't think Clinton or Obama are really big supporters of DWS. She's not the worst DNC Chair but let's be honest she could be replaced by someone much better. i think she's a pretty mediocre politician and her positions tend to be pretty lame for a representative especially in a pretty safe Democratic district. Patrick Murphy for instance has way more reasons to be centrist being in a pretty Republican leaning district.
Honestly I haven't really been that impressed with just about any recent DNC Chairs McAuliffe was competent but frankly meh, Kaine was awful, Dean showed potential but it kinda went nowhere.
I really like Donna Brazile but she only got it as an interim so probably the last really solid DNC chair was probably Ron Brown. I would totally be willing to kick DWS to the curb as DNC chair if it was required for healing the rift.
posted by vuron at 9:24 PM on June 16, 2016
That plus the reports of wanting to select her running mate and cabinet selections even though giving those decisions would be basically surrendering her autonomy to Sanders
I would be interested if there is a link for that. He's definitely given his own input on who to pick, but I haven't heard of anything besides that.
"I would hope, if I am not the nominee, that the vice-presidential candidate will not be from Wall Street, will be somebody who has a history of standing up and fighting for working families, taking on the drug companies whose greed is doing so much harm, taking on Wall Street, taking on corporate America, and fighting for a government that works for all of us, not just the 1%," Sanders said.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:26 PM on June 16, 2016
And regarding Sanders himself, and what he says or does inpendent of its effects -- I myself can't see why we should care too much.
I care because Sanders did inspire a lot of people, and those people will be important to continue to push for progressive causes for decades to come. A decent number of the folks he inspired are casting their first Presidential votes this cycle; some are still too young to vote. They shouldn't coddled to be sure, but the more this drags on, the more we all blow any opportunity we had with them; your first vote matters, a lot.
These voters deserve a straightforward and appropriate end to the campaign: a celebration of what they've accomplished; an acknowledgement that they've fallen short legitimately and honorably; and a clear direction for what happens next.
All of us deserve a generation of new voters that don't believe that this primary was rigged or that there aren't meaningful and vital differences between Clinton and Trump that must take precedence over Sanders supporters not getting everything they perhaps want.
Downballot progressives, actual progressives, deserve and can benefit from the continued support of Sanders.
And lastly, the elements of the progressive agenda shared by both Sanders and Clinton deserve unified and enthusiastic champions, because the only way any of it has any chance of being passed is with the continued advocacy and enthusiasm of Sanders supporters, both outside of elections, and in the 2018 midterms.
Or to put it another way:
My you chivalric fool... as if the way one fell down mattered.
When the fall is all there is, it matters.
posted by zachlipton at 9:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
I care because Sanders did inspire a lot of people, and those people will be important to continue to push for progressive causes for decades to come. A decent number of the folks he inspired are casting their first Presidential votes this cycle; some are still too young to vote. They shouldn't coddled to be sure, but the more this drags on, the more we all blow any opportunity we had with them; your first vote matters, a lot.
These voters deserve a straightforward and appropriate end to the campaign: a celebration of what they've accomplished; an acknowledgement that they've fallen short legitimately and honorably; and a clear direction for what happens next.
All of us deserve a generation of new voters that don't believe that this primary was rigged or that there aren't meaningful and vital differences between Clinton and Trump that must take precedence over Sanders supporters not getting everything they perhaps want.
Downballot progressives, actual progressives, deserve and can benefit from the continued support of Sanders.
And lastly, the elements of the progressive agenda shared by both Sanders and Clinton deserve unified and enthusiastic champions, because the only way any of it has any chance of being passed is with the continued advocacy and enthusiasm of Sanders supporters, both outside of elections, and in the 2018 midterms.
Or to put it another way:
My you chivalric fool... as if the way one fell down mattered.
When the fall is all there is, it matters.
posted by zachlipton at 9:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
I care because Sanders did inspire a lot of people, and those people will be important to continue to push for progressive causes for decades to come.
If their response to not winning a primary is to freak out and threaten people and proclaim that the system is rigged and refuse to vote Democratic in the general, I think you may overestimate their importance.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
If their response to not winning a primary is to freak out and threaten people and proclaim that the system is rigged and refuse to vote Democratic in the general, I think you may overestimate their importance.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN SO MUCH BETTER
posted by Drinky Die at 9:40 PM on June 16, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:40 PM on June 16, 2016 [22 favorites]
Please, just stop. Bernie is not a secret racist or misogynist. He's not a senile old man. He's not a narcissistic fool, or a deluded tool. He is as he seems - a Democratic Socialist, deeply committed to causes he feels the Democratic Party is not paying enough attention to.
He feels Sec. Clinton has not done enough to earn his endorsement. She may never get there, either, but he keeps driving her ever leftward. This is a good thing. The run-to-the-center-and-overshoot-to-the-right bullshit keeps losing elections.
The Democratic Party's natural base has been taken for granted for far too long. Now our nominee has to work to keep us in the fold, to get us knocking on doors to GOTV. Sec. Clinton runs leftward, because of Bernie, or she does not win.
I say, make her sweat until the convention, confirming and re-confirming her progressive bonifides. The Donald is actively burning all his bridges, left right and center, so why not?
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:51 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
He feels Sec. Clinton has not done enough to earn his endorsement. She may never get there, either, but he keeps driving her ever leftward. This is a good thing. The run-to-the-center-and-overshoot-to-the-right bullshit keeps losing elections.
The Democratic Party's natural base has been taken for granted for far too long. Now our nominee has to work to keep us in the fold, to get us knocking on doors to GOTV. Sec. Clinton runs leftward, because of Bernie, or she does not win.
I say, make her sweat until the convention, confirming and re-confirming her progressive bonifides. The Donald is actively burning all his bridges, left right and center, so why not?
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:51 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
Consider the following:
The last time Bernie was making front-page headlines was last Thursday, when he met with Obama. Since then... Orlando, Orange Human Tire Fire's response, the Filibuster. Oh, and the DC primary somewhere in there, but also a baby taken by an alligator OMG. Also, three polls showing Hillary with a comfortable lead over Trump.
Bernie's total contribution to the news cycle in that time has been:
-- Meeting with Hillary on Tuesday
-- Not showing up at the Filibuster
In essence, as much as Bernie wants to think he has leverage... he really doesn't. He has a donor list. He could monkeywrench the Hillary campaign in Philly, but there's not much he can do to stop the nomination. He really can't even make it any more than awkward anymore. His rabid supporters are all that are left as the classical Democrats melt away and the independents go their own way. And it feels like he's keeping up appearances for them.
I don't know if he even has a strategy anymore. Holding on to the donor list in exchange for concessions on the party platform seems reasonable. But every day he's slipping further from the mind of the press and the rank-and-file. He better create an exit strategy soon.
posted by dw at 9:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
The last time Bernie was making front-page headlines was last Thursday, when he met with Obama. Since then... Orlando, Orange Human Tire Fire's response, the Filibuster. Oh, and the DC primary somewhere in there, but also a baby taken by an alligator OMG. Also, three polls showing Hillary with a comfortable lead over Trump.
Bernie's total contribution to the news cycle in that time has been:
-- Meeting with Hillary on Tuesday
-- Not showing up at the Filibuster
In essence, as much as Bernie wants to think he has leverage... he really doesn't. He has a donor list. He could monkeywrench the Hillary campaign in Philly, but there's not much he can do to stop the nomination. He really can't even make it any more than awkward anymore. His rabid supporters are all that are left as the classical Democrats melt away and the independents go their own way. And it feels like he's keeping up appearances for them.
I don't know if he even has a strategy anymore. Holding on to the donor list in exchange for concessions on the party platform seems reasonable. But every day he's slipping further from the mind of the press and the rank-and-file. He better create an exit strategy soon.
posted by dw at 9:57 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
The Democratic Party's natural base has been taken for granted for far too long.
I keep seeing people saying that, but I see little evidence that it's really the case. And aside from a plan to help white middle class college kids, I honestly don't see that much difference between the programs of Sanders and Clinton.
posted by happyroach at 10:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
I keep seeing people saying that, but I see little evidence that it's really the case. And aside from a plan to help white middle class college kids, I honestly don't see that much difference between the programs of Sanders and Clinton.
posted by happyroach at 10:02 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
I can't wrap my head around how much resistance there is to the idea that the Democratic party is kindof a mess
Compared to what?
posted by bongo_x at 10:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Compared to what?
posted by bongo_x at 10:08 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Even if Bernie Bros are as exaggerated as you claim, they're still making people hesitant to openly show their support for Clinton. Women volunteers still fear being shown on media in case they get a backlash. Many people are not willing to discuss politics because mentioning anything tangentially related to Clinton or involving the presidency can set off a furious response.
Saying we should be satisfied that he has made a commitment to work with Clinton is really shifting the Overton window. We applauded Bernie when he said he was sick of hearing about the damn emails, and helped focus on actual policy debate. But not addressing the myriad issues with his campaign and supporters is tacitly condoning it. We don't care if he's apparently not a misogynist or racist if he doesn't actually do anything to curb it. He could have helped many local candidates that were in contested primaries. But he didn't, and a few of them lost when directing his base could have changed that.
So I'm glad that he's not being a shitshow and making active statements that he will fight for the Democratic nomination. But many have been berned and are not going to give him the benefit of the doubt until he earns it again.
posted by halifix at 10:11 PM on June 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
Saying we should be satisfied that he has made a commitment to work with Clinton is really shifting the Overton window. We applauded Bernie when he said he was sick of hearing about the damn emails, and helped focus on actual policy debate. But not addressing the myriad issues with his campaign and supporters is tacitly condoning it. We don't care if he's apparently not a misogynist or racist if he doesn't actually do anything to curb it. He could have helped many local candidates that were in contested primaries. But he didn't, and a few of them lost when directing his base could have changed that.
So I'm glad that he's not being a shitshow and making active statements that he will fight for the Democratic nomination. But many have been berned and are not going to give him the benefit of the doubt until he earns it again.
posted by halifix at 10:11 PM on June 16, 2016 [21 favorites]
I say, make her sweat until the convention, confirming and re-confirming her progressive bonifides. The Donald is actively burning all his bridges, left right and center, so why not?
She's not sweating.
posted by current resident at 10:11 PM on June 16, 2016 [29 favorites]
She's not sweating.
posted by current resident at 10:11 PM on June 16, 2016 [29 favorites]
Mod note: y2karl, repost with a smaller excerpt, thanks!
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 10:15 PM on June 16, 2016
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 10:15 PM on June 16, 2016
The Democratic Party's natural base has been taken for granted for far too long.
What natural base? Because from where I'm sitting, the "natural base" of the Democratic Party, c. 2016 is the Obama coalition. Sure, progressives are part of that, but they're only part of it, and need to realize that the base does contain other groups that do have their own goals and agendas.
Frankly, it's this attitude which has the rest of the base routinely looking askance at progressives.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:17 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
What natural base? Because from where I'm sitting, the "natural base" of the Democratic Party, c. 2016 is the Obama coalition. Sure, progressives are part of that, but they're only part of it, and need to realize that the base does contain other groups that do have their own goals and agendas.
Frankly, it's this attitude which has the rest of the base routinely looking askance at progressives.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:17 PM on June 16, 2016 [15 favorites]
The Democratic Party's natural base has been taken for granted for far too long.
They're not the natural base. There is one CPC member in the Senate; Bernie Sanders himself. If young progressives want to be taken seriously they need to show up more often than once every four years, they must be prepared to realize there are also liberals and centrists in the party and they must be prepared to lose once in a while. This whole bullshit of disappointing the young progressives? If they show up once every four years and then take their ball and go home when they only get 80-90% instead of 100% then fuck them. We don't need them. Come back when you grow up.
The reason the Tea Party has such a strangehold over Republican politics is they show up consistently every election. They primaried the House Majority Leader out of his own god damn seat. You want a lock on Democratic platforms? Get your people to show up. Start paying attention to local party politics instead of whining about DWS and the DNC on Facebook. But that takes effort and this is America and WE WANT IT NOW.
Me? I'm a social democrat so Bernie was as close as it got to my policy views. I supported him. I donated to him. But I'm not about to allow a crypto-fascist into office just because everyone else picked a hybrid liberal/third way centrist.
posted by Talez at 10:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [57 favorites]
They're not the natural base. There is one CPC member in the Senate; Bernie Sanders himself. If young progressives want to be taken seriously they need to show up more often than once every four years, they must be prepared to realize there are also liberals and centrists in the party and they must be prepared to lose once in a while. This whole bullshit of disappointing the young progressives? If they show up once every four years and then take their ball and go home when they only get 80-90% instead of 100% then fuck them. We don't need them. Come back when you grow up.
The reason the Tea Party has such a strangehold over Republican politics is they show up consistently every election. They primaried the House Majority Leader out of his own god damn seat. You want a lock on Democratic platforms? Get your people to show up. Start paying attention to local party politics instead of whining about DWS and the DNC on Facebook. But that takes effort and this is America and WE WANT IT NOW.
Me? I'm a social democrat so Bernie was as close as it got to my policy views. I supported him. I donated to him. But I'm not about to allow a crypto-fascist into office just because everyone else picked a hybrid liberal/third way centrist.
posted by Talez at 10:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [57 favorites]
Apropos of nothing, I just watched a health insurance company's television advertisement that promoted how easy their smartphone app makes it to choose an in-network emergency room before seeking emergency care.
posted by XMLicious at 10:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 10:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
I really hope Sanders parlays his remaining leverage into something loftier than open primaries and DWS's head on a platter.
Forget the Debbie Wasserman Schultz obsession. As of today, Clinton has already installed her new head of the DNC, Brandon Davis. Brandon was national political director for the Service Employees International Union, is very experienced and knows what he is doing.
It is standard practice for the Presidential nominee to take over the reins of the DNC. DWS will retain her official title as chair, but the real control is in Brandon Davis' hands from this point forward. DWS' only role will be chief fundraiser from here on out, so Bernie can just chill.
posted by JackFlash at 10:38 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
Forget the Debbie Wasserman Schultz obsession. As of today, Clinton has already installed her new head of the DNC, Brandon Davis. Brandon was national political director for the Service Employees International Union, is very experienced and knows what he is doing.
It is standard practice for the Presidential nominee to take over the reins of the DNC. DWS will retain her official title as chair, but the real control is in Brandon Davis' hands from this point forward. DWS' only role will be chief fundraiser from here on out, so Bernie can just chill.
posted by JackFlash at 10:38 PM on June 16, 2016 [17 favorites]
Grr, I just managed to nuke a big response regarding progressives as the base.
But yeah basically we aren't the base. Yes some of us show up every damned election even shitty local and state elections where we absolutely know we are going to get blown out but that's the relative rarity.
Progressives especially young progressives haven't been the most reliable voter demographic. Yes push comes to shove we vote Democratic but the current multi-cultural Obama coalition has a very strong track record and politics tends to be if it's not broke don't fix it with the Republicans attempting to generate a new playbook of even if it's broke don't fix it and just pray it works anyway.
The thing is that because Bernie chose extremely popular issues for a limited subset of the Democratic audience. The result is that he generated big big leads among a younger demographic that is very progressive on a ton of issues and that we really want to capture long term as Democrats because who you vote for in your first election is a primary determinant of your future voting behavior. The unfortunate thing is that either those issues lacked a plurality of support among Democratic voters or people felt that he was promising shit he couldn't deliver.
A real concern of some democrats is that disillusionment with the democratic process often comes from promising too much and delivering too little. So you could make a potential case that a disillusioned base that felt a lot of unachieved 2008 campaign promises resulted in big mid term losses in 2010. Considering that younger voters are extremely unreliable voters out of presidential election years anyway there is a good case to be made that maintaining a realistic set of campaign promises is a better strategy.
The other really dumb thing about Sanders campaign was that there is an implicit criticism of the President when you attack the economic policies of the current administration. Yes Presidents have very little control over the economy but that is not the perception of most of the electorate.It's bad form to run against your own party leader when by most measures Obama has done a remarkably decent job (which is reflected in his current popularity).
Plus when you are looking to win election to national office, criticizing a person who is extremely popular with the current Obama coalition is a poor move. If you notice Clinton has explicitly run as a continuation of Obama's legacy, hell short of saying 4 more years already I'm not sure she could be more of an Obama legacy. Among critical demographics like AA voters attacking Obama even implicitly was not the best strategy and Sanders got nuked as a result.
I think some radical changes are required to solve some deep structural issue but I think Sanders was a completely mediocre spokesman for those changes and as a result there doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency that his reforms are needed by most of the party much less the electorate as a whole.
posted by vuron at 10:42 PM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
But yeah basically we aren't the base. Yes some of us show up every damned election even shitty local and state elections where we absolutely know we are going to get blown out but that's the relative rarity.
Progressives especially young progressives haven't been the most reliable voter demographic. Yes push comes to shove we vote Democratic but the current multi-cultural Obama coalition has a very strong track record and politics tends to be if it's not broke don't fix it with the Republicans attempting to generate a new playbook of even if it's broke don't fix it and just pray it works anyway.
The thing is that because Bernie chose extremely popular issues for a limited subset of the Democratic audience. The result is that he generated big big leads among a younger demographic that is very progressive on a ton of issues and that we really want to capture long term as Democrats because who you vote for in your first election is a primary determinant of your future voting behavior. The unfortunate thing is that either those issues lacked a plurality of support among Democratic voters or people felt that he was promising shit he couldn't deliver.
A real concern of some democrats is that disillusionment with the democratic process often comes from promising too much and delivering too little. So you could make a potential case that a disillusioned base that felt a lot of unachieved 2008 campaign promises resulted in big mid term losses in 2010. Considering that younger voters are extremely unreliable voters out of presidential election years anyway there is a good case to be made that maintaining a realistic set of campaign promises is a better strategy.
The other really dumb thing about Sanders campaign was that there is an implicit criticism of the President when you attack the economic policies of the current administration. Yes Presidents have very little control over the economy but that is not the perception of most of the electorate.It's bad form to run against your own party leader when by most measures Obama has done a remarkably decent job (which is reflected in his current popularity).
Plus when you are looking to win election to national office, criticizing a person who is extremely popular with the current Obama coalition is a poor move. If you notice Clinton has explicitly run as a continuation of Obama's legacy, hell short of saying 4 more years already I'm not sure she could be more of an Obama legacy. Among critical demographics like AA voters attacking Obama even implicitly was not the best strategy and Sanders got nuked as a result.
I think some radical changes are required to solve some deep structural issue but I think Sanders was a completely mediocre spokesman for those changes and as a result there doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency that his reforms are needed by most of the party much less the electorate as a whole.
posted by vuron at 10:42 PM on June 16, 2016 [19 favorites]
Oh I hadn't heard about Brandon Davis, that's a very good thing because unlike most other unions the SEIU has been extremely aggressive in recent years about not just retaining union representation but actually dramatically increasing union representation.
Hopefully this can result in some real increased synergy between the DNC and organized labor as I'm beginning to see more and more signs that Americans are beginning to abandon the idea that all unions are basically ineffective leeches and that there are needs for increased collective bargaining power for workers.
Like I said up further in the thread I don't feel like Clinton was in any ways a strong DWS supporter and I think in many cases there has been frustration with DWS not so much based upon some perception of bias on her part but mainly because she hasn't exactly been the most effective chair other than fundraising efforts.
posted by vuron at 10:49 PM on June 16, 2016
Hopefully this can result in some real increased synergy between the DNC and organized labor as I'm beginning to see more and more signs that Americans are beginning to abandon the idea that all unions are basically ineffective leeches and that there are needs for increased collective bargaining power for workers.
Like I said up further in the thread I don't feel like Clinton was in any ways a strong DWS supporter and I think in many cases there has been frustration with DWS not so much based upon some perception of bias on her part but mainly because she hasn't exactly been the most effective chair other than fundraising efforts.
posted by vuron at 10:49 PM on June 16, 2016
He feels Sec. Clinton has not done enough to earn his endorsement. She may never get there, either, but he keeps driving her ever leftward. This is a good thing. The run-to-the-center-and-overshoot-to-the-right bullshit keeps losing elections.
What's cool is that now if Clinton sticks to her liberal principles and doesn't tack right, people will credit Sanders for that even if she would have done that regardless
Isn't that awesome
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:31 PM on June 16, 2016 [48 favorites]
What's cool is that now if Clinton sticks to her liberal principles and doesn't tack right, people will credit Sanders for that even if she would have done that regardless
Isn't that awesome
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:31 PM on June 16, 2016 [48 favorites]
Giving credit to a man for something that a woman does is basically as American as apple pie!
posted by vuron at 11:33 PM on June 16, 2016 [39 favorites]
posted by vuron at 11:33 PM on June 16, 2016 [39 favorites]
...and I think in many cases there has been frustration with DWS not so much based upon some perception of bias on her part but mainly because she hasn't exactly been the most effective chair other than fundraising efforts.
But now we got an effective guy in there, amirite ? Who will be called by his full name, no doubt, unreified, undemonized. There ought to be bumpin' chests over that.
posted by y2karl at 11:54 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
But now we got an effective guy in there, amirite ? Who will be called by his full name, no doubt, unreified, undemonized. There ought to be bumpin' chests over that.
posted by y2karl at 11:54 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I know, I know, how dare I suggest that the demonization of Deborah Wasserman Schultz ever had a thing to do with her being a woman. But that's how it came across to me. In no small part.
posted by y2karl at 12:02 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by y2karl at 12:02 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Nah, I can totally get that. Maybe there is some bias that I'm relaying. Even if it's not specifically mine it could be in how her actions are reported.
On the other hand I've heard from multiple people that are involved pretty heavily in Democratic politics that recruiting for down ballot races has been less than stellar. But honestly it was mediocre under Kaine IMHO.
posted by vuron at 12:06 AM on June 17, 2016
On the other hand I've heard from multiple people that are involved pretty heavily in Democratic politics that recruiting for down ballot races has been less than stellar. But honestly it was mediocre under Kaine IMHO.
posted by vuron at 12:06 AM on June 17, 2016
Well, nothing personal intended towards you but, man, the torches and pitchforks over Deborah Wasserman Schultz were so overblown, like Sanders supporters want to blame everything on someone other than themselves and Sanders. Hillary Clinton got a lot more votes. Period. More people voted for her. What is so hard about that ? Are those people less than human ? Do they count for less ?
posted by y2karl at 12:17 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 12:17 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
He feels Sec. Clinton has not done enough to earn his endorsement.
When a normal human person who is not a living dumpster fire beats you for the nomination, that really ought to be enough.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
When a normal human person who is not a living dumpster fire beats you for the nomination, that really ought to be enough.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
And the shenanigans -- first the Superdelegates are evil, then he's going to flip them after more people voted for her than him. What kinda gas was he huffin'?
Now it's like he wants to call the shots and be the backseat driver. But withdrawal from the approval of huge crowds clouds the mind, expands the ego to monstrous proportions. And then it deflates. I.hope he gets over himself soon.
posted by y2karl at 12:29 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Now it's like he wants to call the shots and be the backseat driver. But withdrawal from the approval of huge crowds clouds the mind, expands the ego to monstrous proportions. And then it deflates. I.hope he gets over himself soon.
posted by y2karl at 12:29 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Of course, this is not unlike the experience of Cheeto Jesus -- everywhere he goes, crowds of people adore him. He doesn't even have to make.sense. They lap it up. But then he finds out even more people who don't come to his rallies deny his godhood. What a let down. Sad.
posted by y2karl at 12:36 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 12:36 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Democratic Party's natural base has been taken for granted for far too long. Now our nominee has to work to keep us in the fold
The Democratic Party's natural base voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. They did not support Sanders. It's people who aren't in the party's base that make up the majority of the resistant-to-Clinton faction.
Now I'm kind of curious who you think is the Democratic Party's base? Because most people would (correctly) say that it is the Obama coalition.
posted by Justinian at 12:45 AM on June 17, 2016 [37 favorites]
The Democratic Party's natural base voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. They did not support Sanders. It's people who aren't in the party's base that make up the majority of the resistant-to-Clinton faction.
Now I'm kind of curious who you think is the Democratic Party's base? Because most people would (correctly) say that it is the Obama coalition.
posted by Justinian at 12:45 AM on June 17, 2016 [37 favorites]
I'm a little unpersuaded by the moral purity/ clarity/values of Sanders' endorsement decisions after his endorsement of an anti choice representative. Whatever his endorsement represents, it's hard to buy that it is some kind of certification of progressive values or commitment to 'the base.'
posted by Salamandrous at 1:46 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Salamandrous at 1:46 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
it's difficult to shoehorn "vote for Clinton" into a speech about continuing to build a left movement, since, as a liberal, Clinton is not part of that movement, and she is certainly not a leader of that movement — and it's a disservice to both liberalism and leftism to pretend that she could be.
Whoa whoa whoa. Dude. This is some spurious nonsense right here. Clinton is pretty damn progressive in a lot of ways. She is also through-and-through establishment, but that's why I like the thought of her being given the biggest establishment position in the nation—especially if her political opponents have gone nutjob to the point of refusing to vote for a Supreme Court nominee. I want hyper-competence in the good ol' knows-the-system way.
And, yeah, leftism's gonna have its time. You're also right that Bernie isn't responsible for it and hasn't helped foment it, until the point that he ran for president against the most-despised woman in the country. But you know what, I think you left off a few movements while you were drawing your Grand Progressive Trajectory in one of your comments above. You jump right from the antiwar movement to Occupy to the Sanders campaign, but wasn't there that thing, in between, about black lives mattering? Or how about the Clinton campaign, in which people voted in record numbers for the person who handed Bernie Sanders his ass? Those sound like movements to me, but you left them out for some reason. I'm not sure why.
I think we need an Intersectional Leftism the way we have intersectional feminism right now. Only maybe we need to put leftism into that existing feminism fold, because you and I both know that the second "feminism" is dropped from the masthead we'll get people, I dunno, ignoring women's voices, probably throwing chairs in Nevada, probably something something death threats, I just don't know!!! It's almost like maybe the whole lofty ideals thing should also be backed up by some pragmatic assessments of where the nation stands, because as much as I am pretty hardcore Leftist I also don't like the thought of saying the contemporary Leftist movement should start by me signing up for Bernie Sanders campaign emails??
(Which. By the way. I'm already signed up for those. They're not all that revolutionary. I can send you a few if you like.)
Please, just stop. Bernie is not a secret racist or misogynist.
DEAR MEN OF THIS WEB SITE CAN YOU PLEASE STOP WEIGHING IN ON IF YOU THINK BERNIE SANDERS IS A MISOGYNIST
IT'S JUST, WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION LIKE TEN BILLION TIMES BEFORE AND YOU SEEMINGLY IGNORE ALL THE REQUESTS THAT PREVIOUSLY CAME YOUR WAY
MOST OF WHICH WERE MADE BY WOMEN
BUT I MEAN THAT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE MAYBE JUST LIKE ALL THOSE BERNIE BROS
posted by rorgy at 3:03 AM on June 17, 2016 [46 favorites]
Whoa whoa whoa. Dude. This is some spurious nonsense right here. Clinton is pretty damn progressive in a lot of ways. She is also through-and-through establishment, but that's why I like the thought of her being given the biggest establishment position in the nation—especially if her political opponents have gone nutjob to the point of refusing to vote for a Supreme Court nominee. I want hyper-competence in the good ol' knows-the-system way.
And, yeah, leftism's gonna have its time. You're also right that Bernie isn't responsible for it and hasn't helped foment it, until the point that he ran for president against the most-despised woman in the country. But you know what, I think you left off a few movements while you were drawing your Grand Progressive Trajectory in one of your comments above. You jump right from the antiwar movement to Occupy to the Sanders campaign, but wasn't there that thing, in between, about black lives mattering? Or how about the Clinton campaign, in which people voted in record numbers for the person who handed Bernie Sanders his ass? Those sound like movements to me, but you left them out for some reason. I'm not sure why.
I think we need an Intersectional Leftism the way we have intersectional feminism right now. Only maybe we need to put leftism into that existing feminism fold, because you and I both know that the second "feminism" is dropped from the masthead we'll get people, I dunno, ignoring women's voices, probably throwing chairs in Nevada, probably something something death threats, I just don't know!!! It's almost like maybe the whole lofty ideals thing should also be backed up by some pragmatic assessments of where the nation stands, because as much as I am pretty hardcore Leftist I also don't like the thought of saying the contemporary Leftist movement should start by me signing up for Bernie Sanders campaign emails??
(Which. By the way. I'm already signed up for those. They're not all that revolutionary. I can send you a few if you like.)
Please, just stop. Bernie is not a secret racist or misogynist.
DEAR MEN OF THIS WEB SITE CAN YOU PLEASE STOP WEIGHING IN ON IF YOU THINK BERNIE SANDERS IS A MISOGYNIST
IT'S JUST, WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION LIKE TEN BILLION TIMES BEFORE AND YOU SEEMINGLY IGNORE ALL THE REQUESTS THAT PREVIOUSLY CAME YOUR WAY
MOST OF WHICH WERE MADE BY WOMEN
BUT I MEAN THAT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE MAYBE JUST LIKE ALL THOSE BERNIE BROS
posted by rorgy at 3:03 AM on June 17, 2016 [46 favorites]
(if I want to see what Berniebros *really* think, I check out Reddit. Today's top hits include "hillary folks, leave us alone", "california election fraud (according to some guy with a spreadsheet)", "here's another women we can beat", and an open letter to bernie about how his voters are the only ones that count and how he is the latest in a long line of african-american civil rights activists, signed "the people".)
posted by effbot at 3:45 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by effbot at 3:45 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Democratic Platform Drafting Committee Hearing, Day 1, Part 1, Part 2, Day 2 Morning, Afternoon. CSPAN videos about 12hrs.
posted by phoque at 4:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by phoque at 4:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The best part is the fraud one is titled "Stanford University confirms election fraud!!" because that apparently sounds better than "One dude who takes classes at Stanford in disciplines unrelated to statistical analysis or election auditing claims in non-peer-reviewed essay that election fraud happened!"
posted by Justinian at 4:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
I understand why the platform stuff needs to be public but I hate how any time you put a camera near politicians or bureaucrats it turns into speechifying. That said it is amusing how this is a mixture of high powered pols (Eric Holder!), civil rights heros, and random scrubbos.
posted by Justinian at 4:13 AM on June 17, 2016
posted by Justinian at 4:13 AM on June 17, 2016
CNN will host a primetime town hall with Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson and vice presidential candidate William Weld, the cable news channel announced Wednesday.
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo will moderate the town hall, which will air Wednesday, June 22 at 9 p.m. It will be held at CNN's headquarters in New York's Time Warner Center, with Johnson and Weld being asked questions by voters.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:22 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo will moderate the town hall, which will air Wednesday, June 22 at 9 p.m. It will be held at CNN's headquarters in New York's Time Warner Center, with Johnson and Weld being asked questions by voters.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:22 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I honestly don't care about the Libertarians getting a free advertising hour but I am kinda curious why them and not any number of other third party options. Is it based upon some sort of current polling average because while I have seen some tracking polls that suggest decent Libertarian support currently due to hatred of the Cheetoh Jesus it seems like it's a weird decision.
Other third party candidates can scream what about us and Trump can perhaps legitimately albiet in a crocodile tear manner that giving the Libertarians free publicity is a political move designed to hurt him.
I of course welcome any attempt to harm Trump in a political manner but it feels weirdly partisan for the 4th estate.
posted by vuron at 4:46 AM on June 17, 2016
Other third party candidates can scream what about us and Trump can perhaps legitimately albiet in a crocodile tear manner that giving the Libertarians free publicity is a political move designed to hurt him.
I of course welcome any attempt to harm Trump in a political manner but it feels weirdly partisan for the 4th estate.
posted by vuron at 4:46 AM on June 17, 2016
I believe the Libertarians are the only third party on the ballot in all 50 states + DC?
posted by Justinian at 4:55 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 4:55 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The libertarians are ahead of the other third party candidates. Johnson is polling close to getting on the debate stage. A major party candidate complaining about a third party candidate having an advantage would be laughable. It's an hour on a network people barely watch when there isn't breaking news.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:01 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 5:01 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, the LP polled at 3% in 2012 according to Gallup, while the Greens were next closer at 1% (and I'm pretty sure that's rounded up). No one else really has even close to a meaningful slice of the population (not that 3% is especially meaningful).
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:10 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:10 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or another measure: in the 2012 presidential election Gary Johnson received 1.3M (0.99%) votes versus Jill Stein's 470k (0.36%).
posted by Perplexity at 5:15 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Perplexity at 5:15 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
i don't think the party can deliver open primaries. There would be open revolt if the national leadership dictated to the states how to run their affairs at that level of specificity.
Also, the members of the party. I do not want an open primary! I want a primary that is run by and for my party in which members of our party choose our party's nominee. Since there are no ideological tests for membership, anyone can become a member - that, to me, is open enough. It puts the onus on people to figure out how to become a member, but it infuriates me no end that people somehow want what is at its heart a party process to pick a party nominee to suddenly become subject to the unpredictable and typically temporary passions of a relatively un-engaged swath of people. I would not support a move to further open primaries.
And given how easy it is to vote in a primary, I'm also OK with superdelegates as a check and balance on the state systems. As Samantha Bee said earlier, "The GOP would give its left nut to have superdelegates right now."
posted by Miko at 5:25 AM on June 17, 2016 [48 favorites]
Also, the members of the party. I do not want an open primary! I want a primary that is run by and for my party in which members of our party choose our party's nominee. Since there are no ideological tests for membership, anyone can become a member - that, to me, is open enough. It puts the onus on people to figure out how to become a member, but it infuriates me no end that people somehow want what is at its heart a party process to pick a party nominee to suddenly become subject to the unpredictable and typically temporary passions of a relatively un-engaged swath of people. I would not support a move to further open primaries.
And given how easy it is to vote in a primary, I'm also OK with superdelegates as a check and balance on the state systems. As Samantha Bee said earlier, "The GOP would give its left nut to have superdelegates right now."
posted by Miko at 5:25 AM on June 17, 2016 [48 favorites]
The Libertarian Party is the strongest third party at present, and third parties in general are very strong this year. No, none of them are going to win, but it's not unreasonable to give them some press coverage.
posted by jackbishop at 6:02 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jackbishop at 6:02 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
More Marcy Kaptur idiocy:
Democratic Congresswoman Suggests Trump May Be a Clinton Plant
She literally says - in a long interview with the National Review -- that Trump and the Clintons are old pals, maybe they cooked this whole thing up. No mention of her opposition to abortion rights.
posted by msalt at 6:40 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Democratic Congresswoman Suggests Trump May Be a Clinton Plant
She literally says - in a long interview with the National Review -- that Trump and the Clintons are old pals, maybe they cooked this whole thing up. No mention of her opposition to abortion rights.
posted by msalt at 6:40 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Shunned, Stared at, Still for Trump: The Holdout in Hillary Clinton’s Town
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:54 AM on June 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:54 AM on June 17, 2016
Democratic Congresswoman Suggests Trump May Be a Clinton Plant
Honestly, the conspiracy theorizing bothers me less than the sexism buried in the apparent assumption that Bill must have been doing all the plotting while Hillary just passively benefited.
posted by DiscountDeity at 7:06 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Honestly, the conspiracy theorizing bothers me less than the sexism buried in the apparent assumption that Bill must have been doing all the plotting while Hillary just passively benefited.
posted by DiscountDeity at 7:06 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yglasias points out why Sanders' assertions of bad faith on the part of the Democratic Party are infuriating to Party members:
It’s one thing to disagree with people about policy substance or political tactics. But something Sanders has done throughout his campaign and very pointedly did here is straightforwardly challenge the good faith of the vast majority of his colleagues in Democratic Party politics. It’s worked pretty well for him on the stump, but it doesn’t win you a lot of friends. And to be honest, it’s simply wrong — you can raise a lot of objections to Obama’s approach to Wall Street or climate change, but the fact is that the financial services industry and the fossil fuel industries have been fighting him every step of the way.
This is important to understanding why, at the end of the day, Sanders got so very little institutional support for his campaign despite a very long career in Congress that’s involved a lot of working constructively with other members and left-wing interest groups.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:10 AM on June 17, 2016 [25 favorites]
It’s one thing to disagree with people about policy substance or political tactics. But something Sanders has done throughout his campaign and very pointedly did here is straightforwardly challenge the good faith of the vast majority of his colleagues in Democratic Party politics. It’s worked pretty well for him on the stump, but it doesn’t win you a lot of friends. And to be honest, it’s simply wrong — you can raise a lot of objections to Obama’s approach to Wall Street or climate change, but the fact is that the financial services industry and the fossil fuel industries have been fighting him every step of the way.
This is important to understanding why, at the end of the day, Sanders got so very little institutional support for his campaign despite a very long career in Congress that’s involved a lot of working constructively with other members and left-wing interest groups.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:10 AM on June 17, 2016 [25 favorites]
“When steel gets dumped on the international markets, it’s workers in Ohio who get laid off,” she says. “It’s very different in Washington, D.C., where the majority of jobs are government jobs. I don’t come from that kind of America.”Y'know what, Kaptur? Fuck. Off. The conspiracy theory stuff is bad enough, but your "real America" posturing here is some straight-up Palin-esque bullshit. You're talking about a city that was founded specifically as the seat of the federal government. What's more, it's a city with a large population of transplants from other parts of the country and the world, and was the last stop for many escaped and former slaves. I'm sorry that that offends your allegedly hardscrabble, folksy mindset.
But you know what the worst of it all is? It's that your claim that "the majority of [DC] jobs are government jobs" isn't even accurate. There are thousands of other arguments you could have used here, and you went with that one? You want to impugn hundreds of thousands of people who have chose to go into civil service, in the only place that reliably votes 100% Democratic, as indifferent to the plight of steelworkers in "your kind of America"?
If that's your idea of party unity, then let me repeat: Fuck. Off.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:20 AM on June 17, 2016 [42 favorites]
it's difficult to shoehorn "vote for Clinton" into a speech about continuing to build a left movement, since, as a liberal, Clinton is not part of that movement, and she is certainly not a leader of that movement — and it's a disservice to both liberalism and leftism to pretend that she could be.
Boy howdy, you really were gone for two months
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:28 AM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
Boy howdy, you really were gone for two months
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:28 AM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
The leftier-than-thou-ism behind "natural base" is precisely why Sanders' refusal to suspend/concede is harmful to the progressive cause. Political parties don't have "natural bases", they simply have "bases", as defined by the people who routinely show up to vote for that party's candidates. The composition of those bases change over time as the composition of the electorate changes and as the parties realign in response to those changes, but at no time has the "base" of the Democratic party resembled the part of the Sanders coalition that hasn't already unified behind Clinton.
We absolutely need reform on many of the issues Sanders ran on -- that's how he got my vote -- but that push for reform did not come from the party's base. It could eventually become a significant constituency within the party's base -- I hope it does -- but you don't get to call yourself the base because you feel like you're holding down the left-most position on the issues you happen to care about. That's really not how it works.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:56 AM on June 17, 2016 [26 favorites]
We absolutely need reform on many of the issues Sanders ran on -- that's how he got my vote -- but that push for reform did not come from the party's base. It could eventually become a significant constituency within the party's base -- I hope it does -- but you don't get to call yourself the base because you feel like you're holding down the left-most position on the issues you happen to care about. That's really not how it works.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:56 AM on June 17, 2016 [26 favorites]
You know I think that Bernie probably isn't sexist or racist or homophobic.
However as I was reading the lonelygirl15 thread I remembered how I used to always think of myself as being good on race, on gender, on sexuality, etc. I remember thinking to myself how righteous I was as a defender of the down-trodden. I remember thinking to myself along the lines of this is all related to economics and if we just fix economic issues things will get better.
However there has been a certain point in recent years when exposure to a whole host of postmodern thinking in regards to intersectionality in lots of areas has changed my thinking. Exposure to concepts of feminist neo-marxist thought, discussions of structures of privilege, understanding of concepts like the Matrix of Domination allowed me to develop a much more nuance understanding of the complex issues at work that act as determinants on people's ability to succeed and how those structure are embodied in various institutions within our culture. As I learned more I began to understand my privilege and became more and more innoculated to the virus of "You are just having white guilt". Even later on I began to understand how to effectively function as an ally, that I as a cis-gender, white male of relatively privileged economic status don't need to solve these problems for other people thereby taking away their agency but that it is incumbent on me to realize that my privileged position makes it where if I don't make room for others I can suck up all the oxygen in the room leaving no room for anyone else to contribute or share ideas or feel powerful or share their story.
As I learned to step back and make room for other people I also began to realize that yep I had a moderate case of engineer's disease. When people relate problems I tend to immediately go into let's fix it mode and I start to pull out solutions of my design and I also fail to actually listen and validate other people emotionally. I know I have this tendency and this is extremely challenging to counteract in online and real world social settings. As I learned all of these I have been able to look back on my past and see "ohh yeah I was a shit ally at times" and instead of focusing on feelings of guilt and shame for past actions it's inspired me to continue trying to improve.
What I see in Sanders is someone else on a similar journey that perhaps has been shaped by different drivers but who has very significant blind spot when it comes to his ability to see social structures through a lens of a matrix of oppression. Even if he understands intersectionality on an intellectual level it seems like his speeches and statements just accentuate the likelihood that the lens with which he sees the world is almost exclusively colored by a lens of economic class. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, for a lot of people in the US there is a denial that differential outcomes based upon economic class even are a factor. They are still buying into the "bootstraps" and "poor-shaming" ideology. It's just that increasingly it's not enough especially when you are trying to build a progressive movement.
What I see happening in regards to the split online and the supposed split of the Democratic party in terms of voter preferences is that progressives are increasingly divided into the group that see just about everything through the lens of economic determinism and a group that is increasingly willing to look at how lots of structural elements in our society influence outcomes.
The tone deaf response to concerns of BLM activists and the "southern states don't matter narrative" showed that there is a really big split along understanding how class and race intersect. I see it all the time when I talk to a lot of very progressive white people about issues of how the criminal justice system disproportionately disadvantages PoC. Very well meaning people that I really like and think are very smart will then tell me without a wry smile or any sense that they are being sarcastic that really is a function of economics that PoC are disproportionately poor and that if they had better resources they would have better criminal justice outcomes. While that is likely true to a degree it completely denies the experience of the upper middle class black driver who has experienced "driving while black" despite driving in a nice car and following the traffic rules and who gets a disproportionately aggressive interogation by an officer that would simply not be the norm for a caucasian driver even one who quite regularly speeds. Anecdotes get negated with things along the lines of "bad apples" or "not all cops" which basically undermine the experiences of PoC in our society.
I saw the same sort of tone deaf shit online regarding gender where people were absolutely in denial about how Hillary was seeing a disproportionately negative response at least partially motivated by her gender.
These sort of actions that I've seen over and over online and in the real world over the last year especially have made me develop some deep doubts about the long term success of a progressive movement as shaping the course of Democratic politics. While I think ultimately most people are actually well meaning and not particularly sexist, or racist or homophobic they have been inculturated with a default if low level of all 3 (and let's be honest more forms of prejudice) just by growing up in this society many of which had their formative years under very very different social norms.
I don't blame Bernie as he's a product of his past but I am increasingly disposed to want better. I don't think every elected official needs to be a member of a class that has historically been discriminated against but I do think that the cis-gender white males that make up the bulk of elected officials and tend to dominate online spaces absolutely need to get better about making room for other voices.
Of course I just did a lecture about how white males shouldn't be all preachy and try to solve other people's problems and I try to solve other people's problem with a TL;DR response from hell. I can just say that I'm trying to get better not that I'm always successful...
posted by vuron at 8:13 AM on June 17, 2016 [33 favorites]
However as I was reading the lonelygirl15 thread I remembered how I used to always think of myself as being good on race, on gender, on sexuality, etc. I remember thinking to myself how righteous I was as a defender of the down-trodden. I remember thinking to myself along the lines of this is all related to economics and if we just fix economic issues things will get better.
However there has been a certain point in recent years when exposure to a whole host of postmodern thinking in regards to intersectionality in lots of areas has changed my thinking. Exposure to concepts of feminist neo-marxist thought, discussions of structures of privilege, understanding of concepts like the Matrix of Domination allowed me to develop a much more nuance understanding of the complex issues at work that act as determinants on people's ability to succeed and how those structure are embodied in various institutions within our culture. As I learned more I began to understand my privilege and became more and more innoculated to the virus of "You are just having white guilt". Even later on I began to understand how to effectively function as an ally, that I as a cis-gender, white male of relatively privileged economic status don't need to solve these problems for other people thereby taking away their agency but that it is incumbent on me to realize that my privileged position makes it where if I don't make room for others I can suck up all the oxygen in the room leaving no room for anyone else to contribute or share ideas or feel powerful or share their story.
As I learned to step back and make room for other people I also began to realize that yep I had a moderate case of engineer's disease. When people relate problems I tend to immediately go into let's fix it mode and I start to pull out solutions of my design and I also fail to actually listen and validate other people emotionally. I know I have this tendency and this is extremely challenging to counteract in online and real world social settings. As I learned all of these I have been able to look back on my past and see "ohh yeah I was a shit ally at times" and instead of focusing on feelings of guilt and shame for past actions it's inspired me to continue trying to improve.
What I see in Sanders is someone else on a similar journey that perhaps has been shaped by different drivers but who has very significant blind spot when it comes to his ability to see social structures through a lens of a matrix of oppression. Even if he understands intersectionality on an intellectual level it seems like his speeches and statements just accentuate the likelihood that the lens with which he sees the world is almost exclusively colored by a lens of economic class. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, for a lot of people in the US there is a denial that differential outcomes based upon economic class even are a factor. They are still buying into the "bootstraps" and "poor-shaming" ideology. It's just that increasingly it's not enough especially when you are trying to build a progressive movement.
What I see happening in regards to the split online and the supposed split of the Democratic party in terms of voter preferences is that progressives are increasingly divided into the group that see just about everything through the lens of economic determinism and a group that is increasingly willing to look at how lots of structural elements in our society influence outcomes.
The tone deaf response to concerns of BLM activists and the "southern states don't matter narrative" showed that there is a really big split along understanding how class and race intersect. I see it all the time when I talk to a lot of very progressive white people about issues of how the criminal justice system disproportionately disadvantages PoC. Very well meaning people that I really like and think are very smart will then tell me without a wry smile or any sense that they are being sarcastic that really is a function of economics that PoC are disproportionately poor and that if they had better resources they would have better criminal justice outcomes. While that is likely true to a degree it completely denies the experience of the upper middle class black driver who has experienced "driving while black" despite driving in a nice car and following the traffic rules and who gets a disproportionately aggressive interogation by an officer that would simply not be the norm for a caucasian driver even one who quite regularly speeds. Anecdotes get negated with things along the lines of "bad apples" or "not all cops" which basically undermine the experiences of PoC in our society.
I saw the same sort of tone deaf shit online regarding gender where people were absolutely in denial about how Hillary was seeing a disproportionately negative response at least partially motivated by her gender.
These sort of actions that I've seen over and over online and in the real world over the last year especially have made me develop some deep doubts about the long term success of a progressive movement as shaping the course of Democratic politics. While I think ultimately most people are actually well meaning and not particularly sexist, or racist or homophobic they have been inculturated with a default if low level of all 3 (and let's be honest more forms of prejudice) just by growing up in this society many of which had their formative years under very very different social norms.
I don't blame Bernie as he's a product of his past but I am increasingly disposed to want better. I don't think every elected official needs to be a member of a class that has historically been discriminated against but I do think that the cis-gender white males that make up the bulk of elected officials and tend to dominate online spaces absolutely need to get better about making room for other voices.
Of course I just did a lecture about how white males shouldn't be all preachy and try to solve other people's problems and I try to solve other people's problem with a TL;DR response from hell. I can just say that I'm trying to get better not that I'm always successful...
posted by vuron at 8:13 AM on June 17, 2016 [33 favorites]
You know I think that Bernie probably isn't sexist or racist or homophobic.
Well, sure, he farted, but that doesn't mean he's a Farter. He's emphatically a Non-Farter who just happened to fart one time.
posted by Etrigan at 8:15 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, sure, he farted, but that doesn't mean he's a Farter. He's emphatically a Non-Farter who just happened to fart one time.
posted by Etrigan at 8:15 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
If Sanders was actually interested in reforming the nomination process and making it more open, his first move would be to push for getting rid of caucuses, which are extremely hostile to anyone who doesn't have the time, funds, or ability to sit around for the better part of a day to have their vote count. Great for college students, not really for people doing shift work, people with medical issues, etc. But he's quite silent on that. In other words, he doesn't give a shit about openness, he wants what is good for Bernie, and he had difficulty winning outside of caucuses.
My respect for him continues to decay to just about nothing.
posted by tavella at 8:18 AM on June 17, 2016 [32 favorites]
My respect for him continues to decay to just about nothing.
posted by tavella at 8:18 AM on June 17, 2016 [32 favorites]
According to Weaver this morning, he's still an 'active candidate'.
The thing that bothers me about this - besides the pettiness of refusing to actually say, "I lost," - is that it's doing nothing to unify the party. There's this idea that by refusing to concede Sanders is "dragging" Clinton to the left, as if she's some recalcitrant toddler digging her heels in. It ignores her firmly progressive policies and the ways in which she's to the left of him on some issues.
Worse, it's doing nothing to help his supporters transition to the general. Why in the world would you want to go out and vote for the Democrats when it's been insinuated over and over that the candidate is a corrupt liar who cheated her way into the nomination? Do you actually want people to be enthusiastic about participating in the party rather than treating it as a reluctant protest vote? If so, the worst way I can think of doing that is to spend your remaining political capital ranting about superdelegates and open vs. closed primaries and the details of the electoral process rather than the actual issues that garnered you so much support in the first case. It's okay to see problems and want to fix them, but it starts looking petty when the particular "fixes" in this case transition from policy differences to "things that kept me from winning".
I honestly don't know that he actually wants to "reform" the party. His demands for the convention - such as putting West on the committee and wanting the ouster of solid Democrats like Frank because he has a personal grudge against him - look ugly and do nothing to support the idea that we're all supposedly on the same side. And the limited way in which he has so far chosen to support specific down-ticket races also makes no sense strategically for the larger good of the party - unless it's all about only supporting people who endorse him personally or some very specific policies which are in his wheelhouse.
posted by Salieri at 8:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [34 favorites]
Asked to answer "yes or no" whether Sanders is still running for president, Weaver was unequivocal.Plus some more stuff about "transforming America".
“Yes, he is. Yes, he is. Yes, he is," Weaver said. "He is an active candidate for president, yes."
The thing that bothers me about this - besides the pettiness of refusing to actually say, "I lost," - is that it's doing nothing to unify the party. There's this idea that by refusing to concede Sanders is "dragging" Clinton to the left, as if she's some recalcitrant toddler digging her heels in. It ignores her firmly progressive policies and the ways in which she's to the left of him on some issues.
Worse, it's doing nothing to help his supporters transition to the general. Why in the world would you want to go out and vote for the Democrats when it's been insinuated over and over that the candidate is a corrupt liar who cheated her way into the nomination? Do you actually want people to be enthusiastic about participating in the party rather than treating it as a reluctant protest vote? If so, the worst way I can think of doing that is to spend your remaining political capital ranting about superdelegates and open vs. closed primaries and the details of the electoral process rather than the actual issues that garnered you so much support in the first case. It's okay to see problems and want to fix them, but it starts looking petty when the particular "fixes" in this case transition from policy differences to "things that kept me from winning".
I honestly don't know that he actually wants to "reform" the party. His demands for the convention - such as putting West on the committee and wanting the ouster of solid Democrats like Frank because he has a personal grudge against him - look ugly and do nothing to support the idea that we're all supposedly on the same side. And the limited way in which he has so far chosen to support specific down-ticket races also makes no sense strategically for the larger good of the party - unless it's all about only supporting people who endorse him personally or some very specific policies which are in his wheelhouse.
posted by Salieri at 8:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [34 favorites]
The best part is the fraud one is titled "Stanford University confirms election fraud!!" because that apparently sounds better than "One dude who takes classes at Stanford in disciplines unrelated to statistical analysis or election auditing claims in non-peer-reviewed essay that election fraud happened!"
Here is a Snopes piece on the topic. Poll Position - Two researchers released a paper (not a study) examining whether primary election fraud that favored Hillary Clinton had occurred.
posted by dougzilla at 8:41 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here is a Snopes piece on the topic. Poll Position - Two researchers released a paper (not a study) examining whether primary election fraud that favored Hillary Clinton had occurred.
posted by dougzilla at 8:41 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
@NYTMetro: The optimum speed of a MetroCard swipe. #MetDiary
@HillaryClinton Hillary Clinton Retweeted NYT Metro Desk: Helpful.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:42 AM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
@HillaryClinton Hillary Clinton Retweeted NYT Metro Desk: Helpful.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:42 AM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
The ultimate political truth that I have seen play out of way way way too many games of Diplomacy is that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
So let's assume that Clinton is Germany and Sanders is Austria. Both are concerned about the Russian steamroller so there is an agreement that Russia needs to go but Germany is also concerned about Britain and France while Austria is worried about Turkey and lol Italy (true fact, despite trying just about every different strategy for being a successful Italian player including countless Lepanto openings I have never ever done particularly well with Italy- I think my best result has been maybe a 4 way tie).
So while both Sanders and Clinton are distinctly worried about the same threat they don't necessarily share the same concerns about everything and furthermore unless the constitution allows for some sort of dual consul system (which actually wouldn't be awful) eventually there can be only one and just like Germany in Diplomacy Clinton has the much stronger hand right now and Sanders can either be swallowed whole or arrange for some sort of shared victory (because playing out every permutation takes too long exactly like something else like our nomination calendar).
Right now Austria is holding out for a power sharing arrangement when he's down to maybe 3 supply centers and Hillary has like 10 and Trump has like 8 and Italy (Green) and Britain (Libertarian) are doing fuck all in their half of the map because they are really really bad players. Hillary knocked out France (Malloy) and Trump defeated Turkey (Cruz) and the reality is that it's pretty much going to be a Russia vs Germany cage match for the win.
Austria is still holding onto hope and completely pointless Italy is telling him to totally stab Clinton in the back because they can totes win this together and the reality is that the German republic going to seize all his supply centers no matter what and Bernie needs to figure out a way to save face.
Note- after writing most of this long ass comment I realized that despite the metaphor of Diplomacy being chosen and the Germany-Austria alliance happens almost every game thus it was the natural fit for this metaphor the could be a perception based upon Sanders being Jewish that there is some underlying anti semitic intent behind my metaphor which I want to assure people is 100% not the intent. Diplomacy should be played with a Great War mindset not with a WWII mindset even though yes WW2 can be seen as a natural continuation of WW1.
posted by vuron at 8:51 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
So let's assume that Clinton is Germany and Sanders is Austria. Both are concerned about the Russian steamroller so there is an agreement that Russia needs to go but Germany is also concerned about Britain and France while Austria is worried about Turkey and lol Italy (true fact, despite trying just about every different strategy for being a successful Italian player including countless Lepanto openings I have never ever done particularly well with Italy- I think my best result has been maybe a 4 way tie).
So while both Sanders and Clinton are distinctly worried about the same threat they don't necessarily share the same concerns about everything and furthermore unless the constitution allows for some sort of dual consul system (which actually wouldn't be awful) eventually there can be only one and just like Germany in Diplomacy Clinton has the much stronger hand right now and Sanders can either be swallowed whole or arrange for some sort of shared victory (because playing out every permutation takes too long exactly like something else like our nomination calendar).
Right now Austria is holding out for a power sharing arrangement when he's down to maybe 3 supply centers and Hillary has like 10 and Trump has like 8 and Italy (Green) and Britain (Libertarian) are doing fuck all in their half of the map because they are really really bad players. Hillary knocked out France (Malloy) and Trump defeated Turkey (Cruz) and the reality is that it's pretty much going to be a Russia vs Germany cage match for the win.
Austria is still holding onto hope and completely pointless Italy is telling him to totally stab Clinton in the back because they can totes win this together and the reality is that the German republic going to seize all his supply centers no matter what and Bernie needs to figure out a way to save face.
Note- after writing most of this long ass comment I realized that despite the metaphor of Diplomacy being chosen and the Germany-Austria alliance happens almost every game thus it was the natural fit for this metaphor the could be a perception based upon Sanders being Jewish that there is some underlying anti semitic intent behind my metaphor which I want to assure people is 100% not the intent. Diplomacy should be played with a Great War mindset not with a WWII mindset even though yes WW2 can be seen as a natural continuation of WW1.
posted by vuron at 8:51 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Or, as someone pointed out, he's afraid that if he makes nice and enthusiastically endorses Clinton, he loses whatever influence and input he has left to shape the campaign or the party. So, holding out is the only hand he has left to play, after which he sits at the kids table.
Except that dragging it out too long diminishes him, too, as it turns into a version of that old National Lampoon cover of Buy this Magazine or We Shoot this Dog.
posted by y2karl at 9:11 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Except that dragging it out too long diminishes him, too, as it turns into a version of that old National Lampoon cover of Buy this Magazine or We Shoot this Dog.
posted by y2karl at 9:11 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's a new Anti-Trump "Super* PAC", and it's awesome.
*Super in the same way anything of Trump's can be "yuuge" or "bigly"
Warning: Gawker link
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:14 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
*Super in the same way anything of Trump's can be "yuuge" or "bigly"
Warning: Gawker link
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:14 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Except that dragging it out diminishes him, too, as it turns into a version of that old National Lampoon cover of Buy this Magazine or We Shoot this Dog.
A friend of mine posted a picture on facebook today to the effect of "I'm not helping Trump get elected by refusing to vote Hillary in the general, you knew I wouldn't vote for her so by electing her in the primary it was you who was voting for Trump."
I was unable to convince him that "Look what you made me do" is not a morally defensible position.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:17 AM on June 17, 2016 [50 favorites]
A friend of mine posted a picture on facebook today to the effect of "I'm not helping Trump get elected by refusing to vote Hillary in the general, you knew I wouldn't vote for her so by electing her in the primary it was you who was voting for Trump."
I was unable to convince him that "Look what you made me do" is not a morally defensible position.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:17 AM on June 17, 2016 [50 favorites]
That's some serious intellectual contortion there. It took me a minute or two just to parse what the hell they were even trying to say.
Like, do you really think that other people would alter their votes because they're worried you would have a tantrum like a bloated manbaby because they didn't do what YOU want? Would you do something like that?
posted by Existential Dread at 9:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Like, do you really think that other people would alter their votes because they're worried you would have a tantrum like a bloated manbaby because they didn't do what YOU want? Would you do something like that?
posted by Existential Dread at 9:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Politics is also about acting with decisiveness when the right opportunity arises. That even means conceding when defeat is inevitable because sometimes conceding quickly is preferable to dragging things out because all it does is increase anger and angst and limits your bargaining power.
Sanders failure to appreciate the writing on the wall and parlay his broad base of support during it's high point into a position of increased influence within the Clinton campaign was basically a missed moment.
It's like buying a company's stock when it's really low and then holding on to it way past the peak and then letting your belief that past performance can influence future returns influence your behavior so you ride the stock all the way down to where it's getting close to where it was when you first bought it.
I mean I know Bernie is supposedly a socialist but damn dude even Marxists can appreciate the basic logic of buy low and sell high.
And unfortunately a lot of the people that "bought" Bernie stock at the high point (because apparently donating to him makes you own him I guess which is really kind of strange terminology - I'm pretty comfortable saying that nobody should own anyone else humans aren't property yo) seemed to be thinking that Bernie 2016 was kinda like Apple before Jobs came back and launched the iPod and it was totally going to make everyone incredibly rich (or at least pay off college). Market analysts were of course going sell, sell, sell you fools but nope.
posted by vuron at 9:24 AM on June 17, 2016
Sanders failure to appreciate the writing on the wall and parlay his broad base of support during it's high point into a position of increased influence within the Clinton campaign was basically a missed moment.
It's like buying a company's stock when it's really low and then holding on to it way past the peak and then letting your belief that past performance can influence future returns influence your behavior so you ride the stock all the way down to where it's getting close to where it was when you first bought it.
I mean I know Bernie is supposedly a socialist but damn dude even Marxists can appreciate the basic logic of buy low and sell high.
And unfortunately a lot of the people that "bought" Bernie stock at the high point (because apparently donating to him makes you own him I guess which is really kind of strange terminology - I'm pretty comfortable saying that nobody should own anyone else humans aren't property yo) seemed to be thinking that Bernie 2016 was kinda like Apple before Jobs came back and launched the iPod and it was totally going to make everyone incredibly rich (or at least pay off college). Market analysts were of course going sell, sell, sell you fools but nope.
posted by vuron at 9:24 AM on June 17, 2016
Vuron, the difference is that if you're a nation state working through diplomatic responses to various threats, you're just a thing that's trying to exist and get the best deal for itself. If you take a setback today, there's always tomorrow. Unless your nation state gets disassembled or colonized, you live on to fight another day, even if that fight will be based on the shitty circumstances that resulted from today.
If you're running for the nomination of the Democratic party, it's a win/lose thing. Someone will win, and someone will lose. Party cohesion and winning the general election are the most important thing for everyone playing the game, and thus you base your calculus on knowing you may lose fair and square for reasons entirely outside your control, and knowing that there's a bit of political theatre at the end that the loser has to comply with in order to not poison the well forever.
The Primaries are much more like Candy Land than they are like Diplomacy. (Well real life diplomacy, anyway.)
posted by Sara C. at 9:28 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you're running for the nomination of the Democratic party, it's a win/lose thing. Someone will win, and someone will lose. Party cohesion and winning the general election are the most important thing for everyone playing the game, and thus you base your calculus on knowing you may lose fair and square for reasons entirely outside your control, and knowing that there's a bit of political theatre at the end that the loser has to comply with in order to not poison the well forever.
The Primaries are much more like Candy Land than they are like Diplomacy. (Well real life diplomacy, anyway.)
posted by Sara C. at 9:28 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Right now Austria is holding out for a power sharing arrangement when he's down to maybe 3 supply centers and Hillary has like 10 and Trump has like 8
and that really ended up well for everyone, didn't it? - germany lost and went bankrupt and eventually went fascist, austria ceased to exist as an empire, russia had a revolution, turkey tore itself apart with civil war and ethnic cleansing, france and italy were their usual fun selves, britain kept looking for a way out, and the americans, off the board, made a lot of money until the stock market crashed
hmmm
are you sure this is an analogy you're making?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:29 AM on June 17, 2016
and that really ended up well for everyone, didn't it? - germany lost and went bankrupt and eventually went fascist, austria ceased to exist as an empire, russia had a revolution, turkey tore itself apart with civil war and ethnic cleansing, france and italy were their usual fun selves, britain kept looking for a way out, and the americans, off the board, made a lot of money until the stock market crashed
hmmm
are you sure this is an analogy you're making?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:29 AM on June 17, 2016
Pope Guilty- maybe a picture of a domestic violence victim with a "look what you made me do" caption would wake people up to the how their facebook rants could be perceived because that was basically the image that popped into my head based upon god knows how many movie scenes with essentially that dialogue and that sort of violence (which I assume was your intent but maybe he was too clueless to understand the subtext).
I hate having to shock people awake with actual text that confronts people with the underlying nature of their rhetoric but I am increasingly coming around to the side that yep sometimes shocking people is the only way to make them wake up.
posted by vuron at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2016
I hate having to shock people awake with actual text that confronts people with the underlying nature of their rhetoric but I am increasingly coming around to the side that yep sometimes shocking people is the only way to make them wake up.
posted by vuron at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2016
Donald Trump says he's "the real friend" of the LGBT community.
Yeah, no.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, no.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Primaries are much more like Candy Land than they are like Diplomacy
actually, it's more like mexican roulette - many lose, one wins
posted by pyramid termite at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2016
actually, it's more like mexican roulette - many lose, one wins
posted by pyramid termite at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2016
maybe a picture of a domestic violence victim with a "look what you made me do"
Ew, no.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Ew, no.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:30 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
The Sanders campaign is starting to remind me of an NBA team that's down by 20 points with under a minute to play that keeps intentionally fouling the other team in order to stop the clock.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:31 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:31 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders failure to appreciate the writing on the wall and parlay his broad base of support during it's high point into a position of increased influence within the Clinton campaign was basically a missed moment.
That assumes you take him at his word about wanting to move the US left through any means available, rather than his primary goal (hah!) being to become president for the sake of being president. My willingness to give him the benefit of that doubt is quickly going away.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:31 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
That assumes you take him at his word about wanting to move the US left through any means available, rather than his primary goal (hah!) being to become president for the sake of being president. My willingness to give him the benefit of that doubt is quickly going away.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:31 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
you knew I wouldn't vote for her so by electing her in the primary it was you who was voting for Trump
I suppose there's a kind of logic in there about how, by electing an unelectable candidate, the Democratic base did it to ourselves and now Trump will inevitably win.
The problem is that this logic is rooted in... well, a lot of things, but mostly misogyny (Clinton can't possibly win because she's a woman) and also a high degree of delusion about Sanders' own chances in the general.
posted by Sara C. at 9:31 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I suppose there's a kind of logic in there about how, by electing an unelectable candidate, the Democratic base did it to ourselves and now Trump will inevitably win.
The problem is that this logic is rooted in... well, a lot of things, but mostly misogyny (Clinton can't possibly win because she's a woman) and also a high degree of delusion about Sanders' own chances in the general.
posted by Sara C. at 9:31 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Or, as someone pointed out, he's afraid that if he makes nice and enthusiastically endorses Clinton, he loses whatever influence and input he has left to shape the campaign or the party.
But at some point - maybe not realistically ever, maybe soon, maybe already passed - it could shift from "Make nice and we'll do this for you" to "Make nice or lose your slot on Budget" or some other actual punishment.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:35 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
But at some point - maybe not realistically ever, maybe soon, maybe already passed - it could shift from "Make nice and we'll do this for you" to "Make nice or lose your slot on Budget" or some other actual punishment.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:35 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Sanders campaign is starting to remind me of an NBA team that's down by 20 points with under a minute to play that keeps intentionally fouling the other team in order to stop the clock.
Or a Greg Schiano-coached football team that, outscored and outplayed, rushes the victory formation in an attempt to knock the winner on their ass.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:37 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Or a Greg Schiano-coached football team that, outscored and outplayed, rushes the victory formation in an attempt to knock the winner on their ass.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:37 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
The problem is that this logic is rooted in... well, a lot of things, but mostly misogyny (Clinton can't possibly win because she's a woman) and also a high degree of delusion about Sanders' own chances in the general.
Also, buying into the decades-old right wing propaganda that Hillary Clinton is "the most hated woman in America".
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:37 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also, buying into the decades-old right wing propaganda that Hillary Clinton is "the most hated woman in America".
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:37 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
"I'm not helping Trump get elected by refusing to vote Hillary in the general, you knew I wouldn't vote for her so by electing her in the primary it was you who was voting for Trump."
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Why does this person assume we can somehow not only read his mind, but read it four months into the future when he's thinking about voting? Unless your friend is a celebrity endorser of Sanders (Sarandon, Ruffalo, etc.), then I can safely say I had absolutely no idea what his thinking is or will be.
And doesn't this also undercut an argument that Sanders supporters put forward towards the beginning of the primaries: That we shouldn't vote for who we think will win, but who we actually WANT? Well, some people genuinely WANTED Clinton to be president, just like some people WANTED Sanders for president, even though he might not have had the best chance to win.
posted by FJT at 9:44 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Why does this person assume we can somehow not only read his mind, but read it four months into the future when he's thinking about voting? Unless your friend is a celebrity endorser of Sanders (Sarandon, Ruffalo, etc.), then I can safely say I had absolutely no idea what his thinking is or will be.
And doesn't this also undercut an argument that Sanders supporters put forward towards the beginning of the primaries: That we shouldn't vote for who we think will win, but who we actually WANT? Well, some people genuinely WANTED Clinton to be president, just like some people WANTED Sanders for president, even though he might not have had the best chance to win.
posted by FJT at 9:44 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Why does this person assume we can somehow not only read his mind, but read it four months into the future when he's thinking about voting? Unless your friend is a celebrity endorser of Sanders (Sarandon, Ruffalo, etc.), then I can safely say I had absolutely no idea what his thinking is or will be.
He thinks that since Hillary supporters should know Bernie supporters would never vote Hillary in the general, voting for Hillary in the primary is a vote for Trump in the general since Hillary can't beat Trump without the support of Bernie supporters.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:47 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
He thinks that since Hillary supporters should know Bernie supporters would never vote Hillary in the general, voting for Hillary in the primary is a vote for Trump in the general since Hillary can't beat Trump without the support of Bernie supporters.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:47 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
But it's hard when they make vague inchoate statements of the evil of HRC.
It's continually mindblowing to me that ostensible 'leftists' have internalized right-wing anti-Hillary smears that have failed to have any basis in reality. I guess it just demonstrates the effectiveness of twenty years of misogyny, whisper campaigns, and public show-trials.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:48 AM on June 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
It's continually mindblowing to me that ostensible 'leftists' have internalized right-wing anti-Hillary smears that have failed to have any basis in reality. I guess it just demonstrates the effectiveness of twenty years of misogyny, whisper campaigns, and public show-trials.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:48 AM on June 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
"I'm not helping Trump get elected by refusing to vote Hillary in the general, you knew I wouldn't vote for her so by electing her in the primary it was you who was voting for Trump."
I wholeheartedly reject the notion that people like this are the Future of the Party who we need to soothe and cater to
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:49 AM on June 17, 2016 [37 favorites]
I wholeheartedly reject the notion that people like this are the Future of the Party who we need to soothe and cater to
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:49 AM on June 17, 2016 [37 favorites]
He thinks that since Hillary supporters should know Bernie supporters would never vote Hillary in the general, voting for Hillary in the primary is a vote for Trump in the general since Hillary can't beat Trump without the support of Bernie supporters.
This hurts my head.
posted by bongo_x at 9:52 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
This hurts my head.
posted by bongo_x at 9:52 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
And doesn't this also undercut an argument that Sanders supporters put forward towards the beginning of the primaries: That we shouldn't vote for who we think will win, but who we actually WANT? Well, some people genuinely WANTED Clinton to be president, just like some people WANTED Sanders for president, even though he might not have had the best chance to win.
But that's the thing - they don't believe that people genuinely wanted Clinton to win.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:55 AM on June 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
But that's the thing - they don't believe that people genuinely wanted Clinton to win.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:55 AM on June 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
He thinks that since Hillary supporters should know Bernie supporters would never vote Hillary in the general
What is he basing this on? His own candidate is saying, albeit gradually, to support the Democrats against Trump. The general polling that has been done in the last few months so far also says that most of Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.
posted by FJT at 9:55 AM on June 17, 2016
What is he basing this on? His own candidate is saying, albeit gradually, to support the Democrats against Trump. The general polling that has been done in the last few months so far also says that most of Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.
posted by FJT at 9:55 AM on June 17, 2016
He thinks that since Hillary supporters should know Bernie supporters would never vote Hillary in the general, voting for Hillary in the primary is a vote for Trump in the general since Hillary can't beat Trump without the support of Bernie supporters.
Truly, he has a dizzying intellect.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:55 AM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
Truly, he has a dizzying intellect.
posted by murphy slaw at 9:55 AM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
Ryan Instructs Republicans to Follow Their 'Conscience' on Trump
This exchange is a little inarticulate and hard to parse, and I don't think the official transcript does a very good job. I've bolded my changes, plus a later bit cut out:
This exchange is a little inarticulate and hard to parse, and I don't think the official transcript does a very good job. I've bolded my changes, plus a later bit cut out:
TODD: Do you think it is that--that members in the House Republican conference-- "Follow your conscience. If you don't want to support him, don't do it --"posted by J.K. Seazer at 9:57 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
RYAN: Oh, absolutely. The last thing I would do is tell anybody to do something that's contrary to their conscience. Of course I wouldn't do that. Look, believe me, Chuck. I get that this a very strange situation. [Trump is] a very unique nominee. But I feel as a responsibility institutionally as the speaker of the House that I should not be leading some chasm [schism?] in the middle of our party. Because you know what I know that'll do? That'll definitely knock us out of the White House.
TODD: The party's already divided.
RYAN: I guess, well, it's divided, and I'm not gonna tell somebody to go against their conscience.
I'm not gonna tell somebody to go against their conscience.
Ryan just flunked Party Leadership 101.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:00 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ryan just flunked Party Leadership 101.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:00 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Sanders campaign is starting to remind me of an NBA team that's down by 20 points with under a minute to play that keeps intentionally fouling the other team in order to stop the clock.
Having been the author of this very idea many, many threads ago, I'll say it's more that the game is over, they lost by 20, but in the post-game press conference they keep talking about how important it is to beat the Trump team in the Finals but refusing to admit they even lost the game or the series and only giving mealymouth compliments to the other team while complaining about the officials and demanding the head of officiating be fired and can't we reform the way the playoffs are run to allow you to use players from teams not in the playoffs?
And probably some beautiful sound bite that gets run on Best Damn Sports Press Conferences Ever between "You Play to Win The Game!!!" and "PLAYOFFS?"
But by next news cycle everyone is talking about how Hillary's team matches up with Trump's team and all anyone remembers 10 years later is that stupid sound bite and how bitter Bernie was.
posted by dw at 10:01 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Having been the author of this very idea many, many threads ago, I'll say it's more that the game is over, they lost by 20, but in the post-game press conference they keep talking about how important it is to beat the Trump team in the Finals but refusing to admit they even lost the game or the series and only giving mealymouth compliments to the other team while complaining about the officials and demanding the head of officiating be fired and can't we reform the way the playoffs are run to allow you to use players from teams not in the playoffs?
And probably some beautiful sound bite that gets run on Best Damn Sports Press Conferences Ever between "You Play to Win The Game!!!" and "PLAYOFFS?"
But by next news cycle everyone is talking about how Hillary's team matches up with Trump's team and all anyone remembers 10 years later is that stupid sound bite and how bitter Bernie was.
posted by dw at 10:01 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Sanders campaign is starting to remind me of an NBA team that's down by 20 points with under a minute to play that keeps intentionally fouling the other team in order to stop the clock.
Also, and I realize this breaks the NBA metaphor, they scheduled the game as a tune-up that would put the eventual winner (whoever it turned out to be) in great shape to contend for a championship but now they're throwing elbows and body-checking and saying that if their "friendly opponents" get so injured that they can't field a full team, hooray, Team Sanders totally gets a victory by DQ!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, and I realize this breaks the NBA metaphor, they scheduled the game as a tune-up that would put the eventual winner (whoever it turned out to be) in great shape to contend for a championship but now they're throwing elbows and body-checking and saying that if their "friendly opponents" get so injured that they can't field a full team, hooray, Team Sanders totally gets a victory by DQ!
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ryan Instructs Republicans to Follow Their 'Conscience' on Trump
The much more interesting piece of that article is that Hillary is going strong on ad buys when Trump is literally in the polling dumpster right now.
posted by Talez at 10:05 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
The much more interesting piece of that article is that Hillary is going strong on ad buys when Trump is literally in the polling dumpster right now.
posted by Talez at 10:05 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wholeheartedly reject the notion that people like this are the Future of the Party who we need to soothe and cater to
Sure. Totally agree.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party does need to figure out what is up with the generation gap that was evidenced throughout this primary season -- most strongly among white Democrats, but also clearly present among blacks, Latinos and brown folks.
I don't think there's been a whole lot of compilation of data yet but I have a feeling that if you picture the Democratic primary vote universe, Clinton's support is sort of the center of the coalition, people and groups who have been longtime active parts of the Dem coalition: African-Americans, obviously; center-left whites; urbanites and inner-ring suburbanites, first- and second-generation immigrants...
Whereas Sanders' support is in the penumbra -- both to the left and to the right, as well as orthogonally to people who don't fit well on the established political spectrum and who are moderately or strongly disaffected from conventional politics. And, well, it is something like 40% of the total primary vote.
I feel like particularly on the right fringe of the Dem primary electorate, there's a big demographic of young, mainly white people that is sort of inchoately political and could either go full libertarian or could move in a socialist direction.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:05 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sure. Totally agree.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party does need to figure out what is up with the generation gap that was evidenced throughout this primary season -- most strongly among white Democrats, but also clearly present among blacks, Latinos and brown folks.
I don't think there's been a whole lot of compilation of data yet but I have a feeling that if you picture the Democratic primary vote universe, Clinton's support is sort of the center of the coalition, people and groups who have been longtime active parts of the Dem coalition: African-Americans, obviously; center-left whites; urbanites and inner-ring suburbanites, first- and second-generation immigrants...
Whereas Sanders' support is in the penumbra -- both to the left and to the right, as well as orthogonally to people who don't fit well on the established political spectrum and who are moderately or strongly disaffected from conventional politics. And, well, it is something like 40% of the total primary vote.
I feel like particularly on the right fringe of the Dem primary electorate, there's a big demographic of young, mainly white people that is sort of inchoately political and could either go full libertarian or could move in a socialist direction.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:05 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The much more interesting piece of that article is that Hillary is going strong on ad buys when Trump is literally in the polling dumpster right now.
His numbers will rise during and probably after the convention.
posted by zarq at 10:05 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
His numbers will rise during and probably after the convention.
posted by zarq at 10:05 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
McSweeney's skewers BernieBros and "critics" of the upcoming Ghostbusters remake with I Don’t Dislike the New Ghostbusters Movie Because I Hate Women-I Strongly Support Hollywood Finance Reform .
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:06 AM on June 17, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:06 AM on June 17, 2016 [22 favorites]
TODD: The party's already divided.
RYAN: I guess, well, it's divided, and I'm not gonna tell somebody to go against their conscience.
As you know, ah, you go to election with the nominee you have, not the nominee you might want or even wish to be President.
posted by zarq at 10:08 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
RYAN: I guess, well, it's divided, and I'm not gonna tell somebody to go against their conscience.
As you know, ah, you go to election with the nominee you have, not the nominee you might want or even wish to be President.
posted by zarq at 10:08 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
His numbers will rise during and probably after the convention.
Yes but the convention is still a month out.
It's not like you can knock a contender out of an election before the convention. The institutional memory of the American electorate is somewhere between goldfish and hyperactive toddler and reminding them now so heavily seems like a bit of a waste of cash.
posted by Talez at 10:08 AM on June 17, 2016
Yes but the convention is still a month out.
It's not like you can knock a contender out of an election before the convention. The institutional memory of the American electorate is somewhere between goldfish and hyperactive toddler and reminding them now so heavily seems like a bit of a waste of cash.
posted by Talez at 10:08 AM on June 17, 2016
His numbers will rise during and probably after the convention.
I wish I could find the article, but someone found a 2-4 point average bump post convention. Hillary has the advantage in going last and only going a week after the GOP convention.
If she's going all-out to drive his numbers above a 7 point margin, that's the right strategy. It buys her a huge cushion going into August. She's going to need it.
posted by dw at 10:09 AM on June 17, 2016
I wish I could find the article, but someone found a 2-4 point average bump post convention. Hillary has the advantage in going last and only going a week after the GOP convention.
If she's going all-out to drive his numbers above a 7 point margin, that's the right strategy. It buys her a huge cushion going into August. She's going to need it.
posted by dw at 10:09 AM on June 17, 2016
I'm not a fan of the idea that the Dems need to ignore the electoral preferences of POC in order to appeal better to white people.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:09 AM on June 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:09 AM on June 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
His numbers will rise during and probably after the convention.
I think that depends on what happens in Cleveland. If Trump protesters become violent, we could see his numbers rise quite a bit. If Trump supporters become violent or spark an all-out riot, his numbers could get even worse. If the RNC finds a way to circumvent Trump entirely, all bets are off.
posted by stolyarova at 10:09 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think that depends on what happens in Cleveland. If Trump protesters become violent, we could see his numbers rise quite a bit. If Trump supporters become violent or spark an all-out riot, his numbers could get even worse. If the RNC finds a way to circumvent Trump entirely, all bets are off.
posted by stolyarova at 10:09 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
And probably some beautiful sound bite that gets run on Best Damn Sports Press Conferences Ever between "You Play to Win The Game!!! yt " and "PLAYOFFS? yt "
"The Clinton campaign is who we thought they were."
"If you were a thousand delegates behind, you'd be in a bad mood, too."
"Franklin Delano Roosevelt is not walking through that door, fans. Lyndon Johnson is not walking through that door, and John F. Kennedy is not walking through that door."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:10 AM on June 17, 2016
"The Clinton campaign is who we thought they were."
"If you were a thousand delegates behind, you'd be in a bad mood, too."
"Franklin Delano Roosevelt is not walking through that door, fans. Lyndon Johnson is not walking through that door, and John F. Kennedy is not walking through that door."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:10 AM on June 17, 2016
The much more interesting piece of that article is that Hillary is going strong on ad buys when Trump is literally in the polling dumpster right now.
Anybody know how much money Clinton is making per day? Saw a note earlier that at this point in time Romney was getting ~$1M per day in funds. Trump is nowhere near that, of course, but I’m not sure about just how well the D side is doing.
I wish I could find the article, but someone found a 2-4 point average bump post convention. Hillary has the advantage in going last and only going a week after the GOP convention.
Also remember that the Trump University case goes to court the week after the GOP convention.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:10 AM on June 17, 2016
Anybody know how much money Clinton is making per day? Saw a note earlier that at this point in time Romney was getting ~$1M per day in funds. Trump is nowhere near that, of course, but I’m not sure about just how well the D side is doing.
I wish I could find the article, but someone found a 2-4 point average bump post convention. Hillary has the advantage in going last and only going a week after the GOP convention.
Also remember that the Trump University case goes to court the week after the GOP convention.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:10 AM on June 17, 2016
It's not like you can knock a contender out of an election before the convention.
At this point, sowing discord among Republican supporters by focusing on Trump's lack of electability is a decent goal. So is spreading the word about things Trump has actually said. Keep the guy on the defensive, and see how low his poll numbers can drop.
posted by zarq at 10:15 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
At this point, sowing discord among Republican supporters by focusing on Trump's lack of electability is a decent goal. So is spreading the word about things Trump has actually said. Keep the guy on the defensive, and see how low his poll numbers can drop.
posted by zarq at 10:15 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The much more interesting piece of that article is that Hillary is going strong on ad buys when Trump is literally in the polling dumpster right now.
Combine that with this nytimes article about how Trump's campaign schedule has been driven lately by his fundraising. He's been in Texas and Georgia to raise money, while Clinton has been campaigning in actual battleground states like Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
posted by peeedro at 10:17 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Combine that with this nytimes article about how Trump's campaign schedule has been driven lately by his fundraising. He's been in Texas and Georgia to raise money, while Clinton has been campaigning in actual battleground states like Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
posted by peeedro at 10:17 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not a fan of the idea that the Dems need to ignore the electoral preferences of POC in order to appeal better to white people.
It's not like it could get you the governor’s mansion and legislature in 24 states, 70 of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers, both chambers in 30 states, plus Nebraska’s single chamber, and 31 governor’s mansions. Oh wait. It totally does!
The only things of political significance the Republicans don't have are the presidency and California.
posted by Talez at 10:19 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's not like it could get you the governor’s mansion and legislature in 24 states, 70 of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers, both chambers in 30 states, plus Nebraska’s single chamber, and 31 governor’s mansions. Oh wait. It totally does!
The only things of political significance the Republicans don't have are the presidency and California.
posted by Talez at 10:19 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, the Democratic Party does need to figure out what is up with the generation gap that was evidenced throughout this primary season -- most strongly among white Democrats, but also clearly present among blacks, Latinos and brown folks.
But, these people don't want to be Democrats. I'm taking them at their word when they say they don't want to have anything to do with the party and think the party is dirty, corrupt, and should be burned to the ground. I don't think Sanders started the idea of the Democratic Party being corrupt. The idea already existed before Sanders and he merely brought it to the forefront to fuel his campaign. So even if Sanders concedes, I don't think these people will want to be brought in.
I think the best thing to do is what I speculated upthread: to transition these people into a separate movement that will never be officially affiliated with the Democratic Party, but be on the outskirts to support or help when it can. I think that would be the most helpful, and I also think this movement/group would be best poised to capture any people that have soured on Trump for whatever reason, but don't want to join the Democratic Party.
It's kind of like one of the ideas in the crappy Matrix sequels: there always has to be a safety valve for people who don't want to be in the Matrix to exit to, because they'll never accept the Matrix.
posted by FJT at 10:20 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
But, these people don't want to be Democrats. I'm taking them at their word when they say they don't want to have anything to do with the party and think the party is dirty, corrupt, and should be burned to the ground. I don't think Sanders started the idea of the Democratic Party being corrupt. The idea already existed before Sanders and he merely brought it to the forefront to fuel his campaign. So even if Sanders concedes, I don't think these people will want to be brought in.
I think the best thing to do is what I speculated upthread: to transition these people into a separate movement that will never be officially affiliated with the Democratic Party, but be on the outskirts to support or help when it can. I think that would be the most helpful, and I also think this movement/group would be best poised to capture any people that have soured on Trump for whatever reason, but don't want to join the Democratic Party.
It's kind of like one of the ideas in the crappy Matrix sequels: there always has to be a safety valve for people who don't want to be in the Matrix to exit to, because they'll never accept the Matrix.
posted by FJT at 10:20 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dozens of GOP delegates launch new push to halt Donald Trump
posted by nubs at 10:22 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nubs at 10:22 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
“THERE ARE LITERALLY DOZENS OF US!”
posted by Going To Maine at 10:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Primaries are much more like Candy Land than they are like Diplomacy. (Well real life diplomacy, anyway.)
And Bernie Sanders is Jean-Paul Sartre?
posted by jackbishop at 10:26 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
And Bernie Sanders is Jean-Paul Sartre?
posted by jackbishop at 10:26 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can't wrap my head around how much resistance there is to the idea that the Democratic party is kindof a mess and Americans in general are fed up with politics for a specific, changeable set of reasons including/not limited to politicians who are neither financially nor ideologically bound to the representation of their constituencies.
We bought and paid for Bernie. He is the only publicly funded candidate. That means something. The stern lectures and assumptions of sexism just feel like a proof of concept for the narrative that we (people who are fed up) somehow don't deserve representation because what we want isn't what we have.
As a Bernie supporter since the very beginning, who defended him and his supporters vehemently since last year, and was adamant that there was a lot of unfair shit being slung...
I'm beginning to see why a lot of people on here are so fed up with well.... us.
This is pretty embarrassing and a pretty shitty take on a lot of people here, who are good people i generally agree with. You already got a pretty strong response to why this is wrong but more of like...
Fuck guys, i'm sorry. It really got to a fevered pitch with well, this kind of post in general all over the place, but holy crap give it a rest.
Look, i stood in line for hours and hours. I paid money. I signed shit. I proselytized at length to a lot of people. All my friends were on board, we were excited. The first rally i went to he spoke at you couldn't get inside and everyone was screaming like it was a fucking Beyonce concert or something for like 10 solid minutes. There was energy.
But like, no one was disenfranchised here. If there was fraud or fuckups, it was the same goddamn mundane shit that happens every time. People were LOOKING FOR IT and no one found shit. I'll happily eat my foot if years later that comes out to not be the case. This is not 2000.
I, myself, was pissed off by the assumptions and implications or reading of sexism but it's fucking there. You and i have something to own up to for defending the people on our team who were fucking assholes. More importantly, he has something to own up to for not saying shit about it. That's, honestly, one of the most legitimate non-policy complaints if not the most legitimate that anyone brought against him(and one could argue staying silent in the midst of rampant sexism when in a position of power IS a demonstration of policy).
Is his platform noble and inspiring, and would i still vote for him if he won? Absolutely. Do i think that this game is over, our guy lost, and we need to put down the goddamn signs and torches? Yea.
We didn't lose anything we deserved. And it's time to look at why something that seemed "so obviously good for everyone" didn't resonate with others the way it resonated with us. At the rallies, i saw a whole lot of older affluent REI hippie-ish white people and young white kids... and almost just that. Our issue is not being wronged, it's how and why his message didn't connect with minorities and people in between or outside those demographics. And it's definitely not some kind of bullshit about how people(especially poor southern people, or minorities, or some other disenfranchised group) "didn't know what was good for them".
I've talked to a lot of people in person who were turned off by that paternalistic attitude so much, and got that vibe from him as well.
What we should be doing now, in my opinion, is looking at why he didn't connect with those people, and why we didn't, and how not to be goddamn assholes about it. Because an awful lot of the way sanders supporters were acting was a combination of how people judging others for how they spend their foodstamps, and people giving women/minorities advice about how not to get harassed or really just do anything. "It's sooo simple, why don't you just do this obvious thing you definitely already thought of that i'm going to condescend to you about anyways?".
And look, i did it too. I was that guy.
We need to be better than that. The next Bernie needs to be better than that, and address their supporters that they need to be better than that. Because the more that time goes on, the more fed up i get with public figures of any kind, even like popular musicians, who have shitty fans and just silently let them be shitty because it forwards their message in some way or they don't want to lose fans.
I was pissed for a long time, because all the Bernie supporters i know offline or on social media are pretty cool, and often not even white dudes. But you can't "not all men" the way out of people spouting rhetoric like you were, and much, much worse. Enough is enough.
This look will only be a worse look as time goes on, if the arc of the universe keeps bending towards good and the patience of people getting stepped on keeps wearing thinner. I think going forward, i'm going to roast as many people i know personally who don't think "he lost fair" and feel entitled. That entitlement reeked off of his supporters in this campaign, and he hasn't done shit to dispell it. That's the worst look here.
posted by emptythought at 10:27 AM on June 17, 2016 [73 favorites]
We bought and paid for Bernie. He is the only publicly funded candidate. That means something. The stern lectures and assumptions of sexism just feel like a proof of concept for the narrative that we (people who are fed up) somehow don't deserve representation because what we want isn't what we have.
As a Bernie supporter since the very beginning, who defended him and his supporters vehemently since last year, and was adamant that there was a lot of unfair shit being slung...
I'm beginning to see why a lot of people on here are so fed up with well.... us.
This is pretty embarrassing and a pretty shitty take on a lot of people here, who are good people i generally agree with. You already got a pretty strong response to why this is wrong but more of like...
Fuck guys, i'm sorry. It really got to a fevered pitch with well, this kind of post in general all over the place, but holy crap give it a rest.
Look, i stood in line for hours and hours. I paid money. I signed shit. I proselytized at length to a lot of people. All my friends were on board, we were excited. The first rally i went to he spoke at you couldn't get inside and everyone was screaming like it was a fucking Beyonce concert or something for like 10 solid minutes. There was energy.
But like, no one was disenfranchised here. If there was fraud or fuckups, it was the same goddamn mundane shit that happens every time. People were LOOKING FOR IT and no one found shit. I'll happily eat my foot if years later that comes out to not be the case. This is not 2000.
I, myself, was pissed off by the assumptions and implications or reading of sexism but it's fucking there. You and i have something to own up to for defending the people on our team who were fucking assholes. More importantly, he has something to own up to for not saying shit about it. That's, honestly, one of the most legitimate non-policy complaints if not the most legitimate that anyone brought against him(and one could argue staying silent in the midst of rampant sexism when in a position of power IS a demonstration of policy).
Is his platform noble and inspiring, and would i still vote for him if he won? Absolutely. Do i think that this game is over, our guy lost, and we need to put down the goddamn signs and torches? Yea.
We didn't lose anything we deserved. And it's time to look at why something that seemed "so obviously good for everyone" didn't resonate with others the way it resonated with us. At the rallies, i saw a whole lot of older affluent REI hippie-ish white people and young white kids... and almost just that. Our issue is not being wronged, it's how and why his message didn't connect with minorities and people in between or outside those demographics. And it's definitely not some kind of bullshit about how people(especially poor southern people, or minorities, or some other disenfranchised group) "didn't know what was good for them".
I've talked to a lot of people in person who were turned off by that paternalistic attitude so much, and got that vibe from him as well.
What we should be doing now, in my opinion, is looking at why he didn't connect with those people, and why we didn't, and how not to be goddamn assholes about it. Because an awful lot of the way sanders supporters were acting was a combination of how people judging others for how they spend their foodstamps, and people giving women/minorities advice about how not to get harassed or really just do anything. "It's sooo simple, why don't you just do this obvious thing you definitely already thought of that i'm going to condescend to you about anyways?".
And look, i did it too. I was that guy.
We need to be better than that. The next Bernie needs to be better than that, and address their supporters that they need to be better than that. Because the more that time goes on, the more fed up i get with public figures of any kind, even like popular musicians, who have shitty fans and just silently let them be shitty because it forwards their message in some way or they don't want to lose fans.
I was pissed for a long time, because all the Bernie supporters i know offline or on social media are pretty cool, and often not even white dudes. But you can't "not all men" the way out of people spouting rhetoric like you were, and much, much worse. Enough is enough.
This look will only be a worse look as time goes on, if the arc of the universe keeps bending towards good and the patience of people getting stepped on keeps wearing thinner. I think going forward, i'm going to roast as many people i know personally who don't think "he lost fair" and feel entitled. That entitlement reeked off of his supporters in this campaign, and he hasn't done shit to dispell it. That's the worst look here.
posted by emptythought at 10:27 AM on June 17, 2016 [73 favorites]
But, these people don't want to be Democrats. I'm taking them at their word when they say they don't want to have anything to do with the party and think the party is dirty, corrupt, and should be burned to the ground.
If that's so, why was Bernie telling them to run for office last night?
posted by dw at 10:27 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
If that's so, why was Bernie telling them to run for office last night?
posted by dw at 10:27 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
McSweeney's skewers BernieBros and "critics" of the upcoming Ghostbusters remake with I Don’t Dislike the New Ghostbusters Movie Because I Hate Women-I Strongly Support Hollywood Finance Reform .
Well, that's money in government and politics sorted
I wonder what secret bigotry people who claim to care about military adventurism are guilty of
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:33 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, that's money in government and politics sorted
I wonder what secret bigotry people who claim to care about military adventurism are guilty of
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:33 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
And speaking of, what's up with the call for open primaries? If you don't want to be in the party, why should you get to tell the party who to nominate?
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:34 AM on June 17, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:34 AM on June 17, 2016 [24 favorites]
Just read on the twitter that Elizabeth Warren made another visit to Clinton's HQ just now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:35 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:35 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
George Washington warned against political factions, and honestly anything that can weaken both parties is a good thing.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:38 AM on June 17, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 10:38 AM on June 17, 2016
George Washington also owned people as slaves.
posted by humanfont at 10:41 AM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 10:41 AM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
The only things of political significance the Republicans don't have are the presidency and California.
Sure, but it doesn't follow that the way for the Democratic Party to gain more of a toehold at the state level and in congress is to appeal to the Sanders demographic. They don't turn out to vote reliably, many are not Democratic party members in the first place, and it's really hard to sell the idea that what is really needed to flip a state like North Carolina from Red to Blue is an appeal to the leftish* white youth vote. Especially when DNC boots on the ground know where their base is in Republican held states.
The DNC is not actually stupid, or willfully trying to suck at politics. The reason Sanders didn't carry any Southern states is that he failed to resonate with the (largely non-white) base there. Dropping those tried-and-true reliable Blue voters is not only racist AF, it would also be an obvious failure.
*Typo deliberate
posted by Sara C. at 10:42 AM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sure, but it doesn't follow that the way for the Democratic Party to gain more of a toehold at the state level and in congress is to appeal to the Sanders demographic. They don't turn out to vote reliably, many are not Democratic party members in the first place, and it's really hard to sell the idea that what is really needed to flip a state like North Carolina from Red to Blue is an appeal to the leftish* white youth vote. Especially when DNC boots on the ground know where their base is in Republican held states.
The DNC is not actually stupid, or willfully trying to suck at politics. The reason Sanders didn't carry any Southern states is that he failed to resonate with the (largely non-white) base there. Dropping those tried-and-true reliable Blue voters is not only racist AF, it would also be an obvious failure.
*Typo deliberate
posted by Sara C. at 10:42 AM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
This country has abolished slavery. It still has a lot more work to do towards abolishing political factionalism.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:42 AM on June 17, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 10:42 AM on June 17, 2016
That's true, if political parties get too strong, there may be a revolt against a government.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:45 AM on June 17, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 10:45 AM on June 17, 2016
I'm sorry to bum anyone out, but the problem with Sanders, as someone who appreciated and voted for him, is that his campaign had a few very appealing messages, appealed heavily to a small demographic, and didn't have a lot of depth beyond that.
He wanted, or his campaign wanted, to disrupt the political space, the Uber of politicians. A lot has been said about the generational divide here, but frankly, that's the kind of thing that appeals to younger voters. Not just this unique generation of younger people, but the last unique generation and the one before that, etc. I think it was more about the disruption than the substance. I feel that too much of his campaign was trying to cash in on that natural appeal of "stick it to the man" and not enough about why Social Democrats would be good for the country.
posted by bongo_x at 10:45 AM on June 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
He wanted, or his campaign wanted, to disrupt the political space, the Uber of politicians. A lot has been said about the generational divide here, but frankly, that's the kind of thing that appeals to younger voters. Not just this unique generation of younger people, but the last unique generation and the one before that, etc. I think it was more about the disruption than the substance. I feel that too much of his campaign was trying to cash in on that natural appeal of "stick it to the man" and not enough about why Social Democrats would be good for the country.
posted by bongo_x at 10:45 AM on June 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
Our current party system is just about as far from faction as you can get. The two parties are barely organized, broad coalitions (one left and center-left, the other right and far right). What would be better, regional parties? Supposedly neutral technocrats?
posted by fitnr at 10:47 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by fitnr at 10:47 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
A Westminster system sounds good, and fun.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:47 AM on June 17, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 10:47 AM on June 17, 2016
It still has a lot more work to do towards abolishing political factionalism.
Maybe laws to prevent people from gathering & organizing?
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:48 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe laws to prevent people from gathering & organizing?
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:48 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wonder what secret bigotry people who claim to care about military adventurism are guilty of
so, what you’re doing here is #notallsanderssupporters
which, fine. it’s understandable that people get defensive.
but you’ve missed the point, which is: #somesanderssupporters
as you can see from a poll i linked to upthread where Joe Biden has a 73% favorability rating among sanders supporters who are #neverhillary a lot of those people claim to hate hillary because of iraq or campaign funding or whatever, but if they support biden, they clearly don’t care about that stuff. it only matters when it applies to her.
so a lot of people are claiming to care about stuff they don’t really care about, as a screen for something else. And in many cases it's probably subconscious, and not intentional. But some people are going to want to call them out on that, and point out the truth of that situation.
Pretending that conversation accuses everybody who cares about those things of bad faith misses the point and doesn’t help the conversation. We know there are people who genuinely care about those things. In fact, some of those people are us! But we're not talking about them right now.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:49 AM on June 17, 2016 [33 favorites]
so, what you’re doing here is #notallsanderssupporters
which, fine. it’s understandable that people get defensive.
but you’ve missed the point, which is: #somesanderssupporters
as you can see from a poll i linked to upthread where Joe Biden has a 73% favorability rating among sanders supporters who are #neverhillary a lot of those people claim to hate hillary because of iraq or campaign funding or whatever, but if they support biden, they clearly don’t care about that stuff. it only matters when it applies to her.
so a lot of people are claiming to care about stuff they don’t really care about, as a screen for something else. And in many cases it's probably subconscious, and not intentional. But some people are going to want to call them out on that, and point out the truth of that situation.
Pretending that conversation accuses everybody who cares about those things of bad faith misses the point and doesn’t help the conversation. We know there are people who genuinely care about those things. In fact, some of those people are us! But we're not talking about them right now.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:49 AM on June 17, 2016 [33 favorites]
Apocryphon, you realize that a Westminster system would have more parties, more strictly divided factions, and is in fact the type of system Washington was trying to get away from in his assertion that political factions are bad. Right?
posted by Sara C. at 10:50 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 10:50 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe laws to prevent people from gathering & organizing?
We could have soldiers sleep over at their homes so they're too busy cooking and cleaning for the extra guests in order to foment rebellion.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:51 AM on June 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
We could have soldiers sleep over at their homes so they're too busy cooking and cleaning for the extra guests in order to foment rebellion.
posted by Apocryphon at 10:51 AM on June 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
Where have you gone, George W. Bush — a party turns its lonely eyes to you.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:53 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:53 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
via @ZekeJMiller: List of prohibited items inside the GOP convention perimeter.
Also: the "Quicken Loans Arena?" For Donald Trump's nomination? Wow.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:53 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also: the "Quicken Loans Arena?" For Donald Trump's nomination? Wow.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:53 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Pope Guilty:
Oh, wait, that's Trump.
posted by charred husk at 10:54 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
"And speaking of, what's up with the call for open primaries? If you don't want to be in the party, why should you get to tell the party who to nominate?"Amen. Who wants the political equivalent of a boat being named "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong" by an online poll?
Oh, wait, that's Trump.
posted by charred husk at 10:54 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
pocketfullofrye, I'm there with you, but don't discount the fact that there's been a minor industry in this country for a quarter-century devoted to churning out and spreading libel and slander against both Clintons, and Hillary in particular. It's only natural that in such an environment, even decent folks could pick up a sense of opprobrium without realizing it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:54 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:54 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
We could have soldiers sleep over at their homes so they're too busy cooking and cleaning for the extra guests in order to foment rebellion.
This would violate the 3rd Amendment. The most underappreciated of amendments.
Don't worry, 3rd Amendment. I remember you.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:55 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
This would violate the 3rd Amendment. The most underappreciated of amendments.
Don't worry, 3rd Amendment. I remember you.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:55 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
If you don't want to be in the party, why should you get to tell the party who to nominate?
Yet the Party would claim dominion over all, not just the members.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:59 AM on June 17, 2016
Yet the Party would claim dominion over all, not just the members.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 10:59 AM on June 17, 2016
via @ZekeJMiller: List of prohibited items inside the GOP convention perimeter.
Whole fruit?
posted by zarq at 11:00 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Whole fruit?
posted by zarq at 11:00 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yet the Party would claim dominion over all, not just the members.
Pretending that 2016 is 1984 and expecting not to get eyes rolled at you is a bad look.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:02 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Pretending that 2016 is 1984 and expecting not to get eyes rolled at you is a bad look.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:02 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Whole fruit?
Vegetables are OK, though, which is good news any vulgar talking yams that were planning on attending.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:02 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Vegetables are OK, though, which is good news any vulgar talking yams that were planning on attending.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:02 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
This would violate the 3rd Amendment. The most underappreciated of amendments.
I love the third amendment because it says "You can't quarter troops in people's houses without their consent. Unless you pass a law saying you can quarter troops in people's houses without their consent." Bravo, Framers. Bra-fucking-vo.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
I love the third amendment because it says "You can't quarter troops in people's houses without their consent. Unless you pass a law saying you can quarter troops in people's houses without their consent." Bravo, Framers. Bra-fucking-vo.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Apocryphon, you realize that a Westminster system would have more parties, more strictly divided factions, and is in fact the type of system Washington was trying to get away from in his assertion that political factions are bad. Right?
Not speaking for Apocryphon obviously; that certainly seems to be what Washington meant, but honestly I'm not sure global political history has supported that argument. Almost every presidential system modeled after the US system has collapsed at some point, and far fewer of the Westminster-style parliaments have, proportionately, since about 1800. I know a lot of parliamentary style governments have collapsed to dictatorship in Africa, but it's like... all the presidential systems other than the US.
I am pretty concerned we're getting the party discipline of a parliament with the veto points ("checks and balances") of a presidential system, which is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Like, what if the Republicans hold the Senate and just continue to refuse to confirm anyone to the Supreme Court? Would we even have a supreme court in 8 years? That would be a real possibility with a R candidate less-bad than Trump, who would simply lose without depressing down-ballot turnout.
Better to just switch to a Westminster system with no-confidence votes. Of course, I have no plan to get from here to there.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Not speaking for Apocryphon obviously; that certainly seems to be what Washington meant, but honestly I'm not sure global political history has supported that argument. Almost every presidential system modeled after the US system has collapsed at some point, and far fewer of the Westminster-style parliaments have, proportionately, since about 1800. I know a lot of parliamentary style governments have collapsed to dictatorship in Africa, but it's like... all the presidential systems other than the US.
I am pretty concerned we're getting the party discipline of a parliament with the veto points ("checks and balances") of a presidential system, which is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Like, what if the Republicans hold the Senate and just continue to refuse to confirm anyone to the Supreme Court? Would we even have a supreme court in 8 years? That would be a real possibility with a R candidate less-bad than Trump, who would simply lose without depressing down-ballot turnout.
Better to just switch to a Westminster system with no-confidence votes. Of course, I have no plan to get from here to there.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:04 AM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
The DNC is not actually stupid, or willfully trying to suck at politics. The reason Sanders didn't carry any Southern states is that he failed to resonate with the (largely non-white) base there. Dropping those tried-and-true reliable Blue voters is not only racist AF, it would also be an obvious failure.
I... don't think anyone is saying the Dems need to "drop" anyone, particularly not POC. I'm certainly not.
But POC alone are not going to be able to carry the weight of a winning electoral coalition. Right now the Democrats have a pretty solid structural advantage in the Electoral college and a significant disadvantage in the House. How do we flip those marginal-ish red seats without expanding the coalition?
And when we're looking to expand the Democratic coalition, where else should we go beside people who have already indicated some level of openness to progressive politics and some level of engagement with Democratic party institutions?
I have yet to see any evidence that bernie-or-busters are any more NeverClinton than PUMAs were NeverObama at this point in the cycle. And they (the PUMAs) got behind Obama for the general for the most part. (I could be wrong; if anyone has links to equivalent polling from '08 that would be great. I can't find any with cursory googling.)
as you can see from a poll i linked to upthread where Joe Biden has a 73% favorability rating among sanders supporters who are #neverhillary a lot of those people claim to hate hillary because of iraq or campaign funding or whatever, but if they support biden, they clearly don’t care about that stuff. it only matters when it applies to her.
so a lot of people are claiming to care about stuff they don’t really care about, as a screen for something else. And in many cases it's probably subconscious, and not intentional. But some people are going to want to call them out on that, and point out the truth of that situation.
Sure. But how do we handle that? I'm not saying that women and POC should fall all over ourselves to suck up to the whiny young white guys or whatever. But, okay, this is a swing demographic and I can see them going hard libertarianfascist or whatever the hell is happening right now on the Right, or also becoming a strong progressive voice.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:06 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I... don't think anyone is saying the Dems need to "drop" anyone, particularly not POC. I'm certainly not.
But POC alone are not going to be able to carry the weight of a winning electoral coalition. Right now the Democrats have a pretty solid structural advantage in the Electoral college and a significant disadvantage in the House. How do we flip those marginal-ish red seats without expanding the coalition?
And when we're looking to expand the Democratic coalition, where else should we go beside people who have already indicated some level of openness to progressive politics and some level of engagement with Democratic party institutions?
I have yet to see any evidence that bernie-or-busters are any more NeverClinton than PUMAs were NeverObama at this point in the cycle. And they (the PUMAs) got behind Obama for the general for the most part. (I could be wrong; if anyone has links to equivalent polling from '08 that would be great. I can't find any with cursory googling.)
as you can see from a poll i linked to upthread where Joe Biden has a 73% favorability rating among sanders supporters who are #neverhillary a lot of those people claim to hate hillary because of iraq or campaign funding or whatever, but if they support biden, they clearly don’t care about that stuff. it only matters when it applies to her.
so a lot of people are claiming to care about stuff they don’t really care about, as a screen for something else. And in many cases it's probably subconscious, and not intentional. But some people are going to want to call them out on that, and point out the truth of that situation.
Sure. But how do we handle that? I'm not saying that women and POC should fall all over ourselves to suck up to the whiny young white guys or whatever. But, okay, this is a swing demographic and I can see them going hard libertarianfascist or whatever the hell is happening right now on the Right, or also becoming a strong progressive voice.
posted by tivalasvegas at 11:06 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
This would violate the 3rd Amendment. The most underappreciated of amendments.
Don't worry, 3rd Amendment. I remember you.
Fun fact: In the entire history of the Supreme Court, there has only been one Third Amendment case brought before it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:06 AM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
Don't worry, 3rd Amendment. I remember you.
Fun fact: In the entire history of the Supreme Court, there has only been one Third Amendment case brought before it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:06 AM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
so, what you’re doing here is #notallsanderssupporters
which, fine. it’s understandable that people get defensive.
but you’ve missed the point, which is: #somesanderssupporters
I would not consider myself a Sanders supporter. I never gave to his campaign. I recognize there is a fraction of his support that has done bigoted things. I'm not defending him or his campaign or supporters. It's just that the actions of that fraction of his supporters is being used to tar and discredit anyone who approaches this election and the Clinton campaign from a position of progressive criticism.
The refrain is always
We know there are people who genuinely care about those things. In fact, some of those people are us! But we're not talking about them right now.
but the constant not-so-subtle implication is that any commentary beyond support for Clinton and derision for Trump is motivated by anti-Hillary bigotry. Which is not a very interesting or productive discussion.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:07 AM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
which, fine. it’s understandable that people get defensive.
but you’ve missed the point, which is: #somesanderssupporters
I would not consider myself a Sanders supporter. I never gave to his campaign. I recognize there is a fraction of his support that has done bigoted things. I'm not defending him or his campaign or supporters. It's just that the actions of that fraction of his supporters is being used to tar and discredit anyone who approaches this election and the Clinton campaign from a position of progressive criticism.
The refrain is always
We know there are people who genuinely care about those things. In fact, some of those people are us! But we're not talking about them right now.
but the constant not-so-subtle implication is that any commentary beyond support for Clinton and derision for Trump is motivated by anti-Hillary bigotry. Which is not a very interesting or productive discussion.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 11:07 AM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
I love the third amendment because it says "You can't quarter troops in people's houses without their consent. Unless you pass a law saying you can quarter troops in people's houses without their consent." Bravo, Framers. Bra-fucking-vo.
I don't think that's any worse than the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. Like, the police can't subject someone to an unreasonable search unless they can, right? How silly!
The warrant requirement, and the enabling statute requirement for quartering troops, are procedural safeguards. The government can't go doing these things willy-nilly. They have to check with a judge / get Congress to write up rules first. It's not perfect, but it's not nothing.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:08 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think that's any worse than the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. Like, the police can't subject someone to an unreasonable search unless they can, right? How silly!
The warrant requirement, and the enabling statute requirement for quartering troops, are procedural safeguards. The government can't go doing these things willy-nilly. They have to check with a judge / get Congress to write up rules first. It's not perfect, but it's not nothing.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:08 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have yet to see any evidence that bernie-or-busters are any more NeverClinton than PUMAs were NeverObama at this point in the cycle. And they (the PUMAs) got behind Obama for the general for the most part.
Maybe what the PUMAs did was also bad, and very dangerous, even if it didn't result in electoral defeat for Obama. Maybe the stakes are high enough that "well, this also happened in 2008 and it worked out okay" isn't enough of a justification for not supporting a candidate who is better on every single issue than the alternative.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:10 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Maybe what the PUMAs did was also bad, and very dangerous, even if it didn't result in electoral defeat for Obama. Maybe the stakes are high enough that "well, this also happened in 2008 and it worked out okay" isn't enough of a justification for not supporting a candidate who is better on every single issue than the alternative.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:10 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Pope Guilty- maybe a picture of a domestic violence victim with a "look what you made me do" caption would wake people up to the how their facebook rants could be perceived because that was basically the image that popped into my head based upon god knows how many movie scenes with essentially that dialogue and that sort of violence (which I assume was your intent but maybe he was too clueless to understand the subtext).
I hate having to shock people awake with actual text that confronts people with the underlying nature of their rhetoric but I am increasingly coming around to the side that yep sometimes shocking people is the only way to make them wake up.
This is a really weird and shitty post to come from someone who wrote a pretty good thoughtful post just a few scrolls up. I'd sit down and think long and hard about why pope guilty, and likely many other people who scrolled by this were extremely uncomfortable with it.
DV victims are not a prop for your rhetoric or to win some argument or "shock" someone into a point. And just... eww.
posted by emptythought at 11:12 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
I hate having to shock people awake with actual text that confronts people with the underlying nature of their rhetoric but I am increasingly coming around to the side that yep sometimes shocking people is the only way to make them wake up.
This is a really weird and shitty post to come from someone who wrote a pretty good thoughtful post just a few scrolls up. I'd sit down and think long and hard about why pope guilty, and likely many other people who scrolled by this were extremely uncomfortable with it.
DV victims are not a prop for your rhetoric or to win some argument or "shock" someone into a point. And just... eww.
posted by emptythought at 11:12 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
I love the third amendment because it says "You can't quarter troops in people's houses without their consent. Unless you pass a law saying you can quarter troops in people's houses without their consent." Bravo, Framers. Bra-fucking-vo.
The "pass a law" part only applies to times of war. So there's that.
posted by fitnr at 11:14 AM on June 17, 2016
The "pass a law" part only applies to times of war. So there's that.
posted by fitnr at 11:14 AM on June 17, 2016
So much of the anti-South sentiment Sanders played into is a double bigotry -- against the right-wing whites that the liberals have fought with the last 30+ years, and against the PoC whose votes do not "count" because they're in states that are loyally Republican.
If we could eliminate the electoral college, or at the very least shifted to a system where the small states are lower impact (e.g. 1 EV for winning a state, the remaining 488 or so divided based on the percentage of national votes), I think this argument would disappear and this weird bigotry would go away. The Democratic primary process is proportional (except for the superdelegates and the rule giving later primaries more delegates), so what Bernie was suffering from was what happens when a system that's first-past-the-post uses a proportional system.
It was a bad look for him. But in reality, the Democrats' process is better than the Calvinball the Republicans offered.
posted by dw at 11:19 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
If we could eliminate the electoral college, or at the very least shifted to a system where the small states are lower impact (e.g. 1 EV for winning a state, the remaining 488 or so divided based on the percentage of national votes), I think this argument would disappear and this weird bigotry would go away. The Democratic primary process is proportional (except for the superdelegates and the rule giving later primaries more delegates), so what Bernie was suffering from was what happens when a system that's first-past-the-post uses a proportional system.
It was a bad look for him. But in reality, the Democrats' process is better than the Calvinball the Republicans offered.
posted by dw at 11:19 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
but the constant not-so-subtle implication is that any commentary beyond support for Clinton and derision for Trump is motivated by anti-Hillary bigotry.
Yes, that's what you're saying is going on. I'm saying that's not what's going on, it's what you're defensively reading into these conversations which are actually about something else. Looks like we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:20 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes, that's what you're saying is going on. I'm saying that's not what's going on, it's what you're defensively reading into these conversations which are actually about something else. Looks like we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:20 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
POC alone are not going to be able to carry the weight of a winning electoral coalition
"Demographers predict that the U.S. will be majority-minority for the first time by the mid-2040s." "They may not know it, but for kids under the age of 5, the day the United States became a minority-majority nation has already arrived."
I believe anxiety over this coming demographic change is driving a lot of the overt racism and bigotry we've seen from the Tea Party and the Trump campaign.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:21 AM on June 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
But, okay, this is a swing demographic and I can see them going hard libertarianfascist or whatever the hell is happening right now on the Right, or also becoming a strong progressive voice.
people existing in a liminal state between libertarianfascism and strong progressivism are people whose political beliefs are half-baked or unconsidered at best
"be the party these people can side with if they choose to be strong progressives" is a good plan. "make concessions to the structure and platform of the party to lure them in" is not
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:22 AM on June 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
people existing in a liminal state between libertarianfascism and strong progressivism are people whose political beliefs are half-baked or unconsidered at best
"be the party these people can side with if they choose to be strong progressives" is a good plan. "make concessions to the structure and platform of the party to lure them in" is not
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:22 AM on June 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
Politico: Trump appears to have paid no taxes for two years in early 1990s: Trump’s avoidance of income taxes as described in the documents was not illegal but the result of significant losses his hotel and casino holdings sustained during an economic downtown.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:24 AM on June 17, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:24 AM on June 17, 2016
ibut the constant not-so-subtle implication is that any commentary beyond support for Clinton and derision for Trump is motivated by anti-Hillary bigotry. Which is not a very interesting or productive discussion.
Hey so you responded to the Clinton/Ghostbusters using economic concerns to disguise sexism link with a comment about objecting to military adventuring. Since the topic there was sexism, your response came across (at least to me and I think to others) as missing the point of the article.
I don't think anyone wants to suppress substantive discussion of candidates positions but in this particular case, your first post came across maybe as "let's not discuss sexism but instead this other thing that is not sexism." That's sort of exactly the satirical point that the Ghostbusters article was making.
Not saying you are sexist at all - just that, unconsciously, you kind of reinforced the article's point.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:25 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Hey so you responded to the Clinton/Ghostbusters using economic concerns to disguise sexism link with a comment about objecting to military adventuring. Since the topic there was sexism, your response came across (at least to me and I think to others) as missing the point of the article.
I don't think anyone wants to suppress substantive discussion of candidates positions but in this particular case, your first post came across maybe as "let's not discuss sexism but instead this other thing that is not sexism." That's sort of exactly the satirical point that the Ghostbusters article was making.
Not saying you are sexist at all - just that, unconsciously, you kind of reinforced the article's point.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:25 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
@NYTMetro: The optimum speed of a MetroCard swipe. #MetDiary
@HillaryClinton Hillary Clinton Retweeted NYT Metro Desk: Helpful.
So that was really funny. And then I made the mistake of reading the responses, which ranged from hostile to obscene and offensive, with a couple of appreciative ones there as the exception to the rule.
posted by bardophile at 11:27 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
@HillaryClinton Hillary Clinton Retweeted NYT Metro Desk: Helpful.
So that was really funny. And then I made the mistake of reading the responses, which ranged from hostile to obscene and offensive, with a couple of appreciative ones there as the exception to the rule.
posted by bardophile at 11:27 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Apocryphon, you realize that a Westminster system would have more parties, more strictly divided factions, and is in fact the type of system Washington was trying to get away from in his assertion that political factions are bad. Right?
I think having more factions are okay if they are divided against one another and weakened and forced to go through procedural loopholes in order to compromise one another, as opposed to having two, or one-and-a-half, dominant factions.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:28 AM on June 17, 2016
I think having more factions are okay if they are divided against one another and weakened and forced to go through procedural loopholes in order to compromise one another, as opposed to having two, or one-and-a-half, dominant factions.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:28 AM on June 17, 2016
Politico: Trump appears to have paid no taxes for two years in early 1990s
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
posted by Going To Maine at 11:29 AM on June 17, 2016
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
posted by Going To Maine at 11:29 AM on June 17, 2016
This would violate the 3rd Amendment. The most underappreciated of amendments.
Maybe you can honorably discharge the troops and then rehire them under letters of marque and reprisal as 1099 military contractors for the Navy, because the Constitution says nothing about quartering privateers.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:29 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Maybe you can honorably discharge the troops and then rehire them under letters of marque and reprisal as 1099 military contractors for the Navy, because the Constitution says nothing about quartering privateers.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:29 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
ArmyBNB?
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:33 AM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:33 AM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Data on who Sanders supporters are, for those who continue to portray the coalition as a combination of Sanders himself, Weaver and a few other advisors, and Bernie Bros. Aggregating over the last six weeks:
• 42% of all Democrats prefer Sanders (~30 million total, 12 million primary voters)
Among Democrats:
• 45% of women prefer Sanders
• 59% of LGBT prefer Sanders
• 56% of Hispanics/Latinos prefer Sanders.
• 54% of non-Christians prefer Sanders.
• 31% of African Americans prefer Sanders.
• 35% of Southern Democrats prefer Sanders.
• 45% of those with a High School degree only prefer Sanders.
• 48% of the Unemployed prefer Sanders.
• 46% of the poor prefer Sanders.
It is not misogynist or #notallsanderssupporters to point out these millions of women, LGBT, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, southerners, and the poor. These millions of women, for instance, are not self-haters, and object vociferously to the claim that they prefer Sanders over Clinton due to sexism. The same goes for the millions of blacks, LGBT, Hispanics, non-Christians, etc. These are exactly the sorts of people who most like Clinton for her personal qualities, and generally they do like her. They just like Sanders better -- not (from any survey I've seen) based on his personal charisma, but based on what he says. Sanders supporters are a huge, diverse, ideologically committed coalition, and number in the many millions even looking at official Democrats. To write these millions off as misogynists and Bernie Bros is not just bad argument, it is factually deeply wrong. These people, and their ideas, amount to nearly half the Democratic party, and will continue to do so well after July.
posted by chortly at 11:33 AM on June 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
• 42% of all Democrats prefer Sanders (~30 million total, 12 million primary voters)
Among Democrats:
• 45% of women prefer Sanders
• 59% of LGBT prefer Sanders
• 56% of Hispanics/Latinos prefer Sanders.
• 54% of non-Christians prefer Sanders.
• 31% of African Americans prefer Sanders.
• 35% of Southern Democrats prefer Sanders.
• 45% of those with a High School degree only prefer Sanders.
• 48% of the Unemployed prefer Sanders.
• 46% of the poor prefer Sanders.
It is not misogynist or #notallsanderssupporters to point out these millions of women, LGBT, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, southerners, and the poor. These millions of women, for instance, are not self-haters, and object vociferously to the claim that they prefer Sanders over Clinton due to sexism. The same goes for the millions of blacks, LGBT, Hispanics, non-Christians, etc. These are exactly the sorts of people who most like Clinton for her personal qualities, and generally they do like her. They just like Sanders better -- not (from any survey I've seen) based on his personal charisma, but based on what he says. Sanders supporters are a huge, diverse, ideologically committed coalition, and number in the many millions even looking at official Democrats. To write these millions off as misogynists and Bernie Bros is not just bad argument, it is factually deeply wrong. These people, and their ideas, amount to nearly half the Democratic party, and will continue to do so well after July.
posted by chortly at 11:33 AM on June 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
via @ZekeJMiller: List of prohibited items inside the GOP convention perimeter."
Whole fruit?"
Vegetables are OK, though, which is good news any vulgar talking yams that were planning on attending.
Where does that leave the tomato, the iconic protest fruit/vegetable?
posted by jedicus at 11:34 AM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Whole fruit?"
Vegetables are OK, though, which is good news any vulgar talking yams that were planning on attending.
Where does that leave the tomato, the iconic protest fruit/vegetable?
posted by jedicus at 11:34 AM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Also: Dozens of GOP delegates launch new push to halt Donald Trump
posted by jedicus at 11:35 AM on June 17, 2016
posted by jedicus at 11:35 AM on June 17, 2016
The reality is that by now the polling is beginning to show that the number of Bernie or Bust dead enders is really not that large and that most of the votes for Bernie reflected a preference for his policies rather than a explicit vote against Hillary. The number of people that were NeverShillary was always small at least among the actual liberals and left. Yeah there are probably some extreme left accelerationist types but they actually tend to be vanishingly small in numbers and even though most might grumble about Hillary being neo-liberal or whatever is the current argument advanced on reddit most are willing to sign on because voting third party in the US is literally useless and Trump is a walking cheetoh.
The bigger issue i've brought up before, and that i think needs more airtime in writeups and such is that while that number of people is tiny, but loud and annoying, and ultimately don't matter... There's a MUCH larger contingent, at least to my eyes on the ground here of people who refuse to vote.
They're not really "nevershillary", quite a few of them aren't even white dudes. But they just feel disenfranchised with the whole thing and refuse to engage.
If anything scares the shit out of me about trump maybe winning, it's the people who are like 20-30 who just refuse to vote at all.
Forget people switching to trump. What if a whole lot of young people just don't vote for anyone? What the fuck will that do?
posted by emptythought at 11:38 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
The bigger issue i've brought up before, and that i think needs more airtime in writeups and such is that while that number of people is tiny, but loud and annoying, and ultimately don't matter... There's a MUCH larger contingent, at least to my eyes on the ground here of people who refuse to vote.
They're not really "nevershillary", quite a few of them aren't even white dudes. But they just feel disenfranchised with the whole thing and refuse to engage.
If anything scares the shit out of me about trump maybe winning, it's the people who are like 20-30 who just refuse to vote at all.
Forget people switching to trump. What if a whole lot of young people just don't vote for anyone? What the fuck will that do?
posted by emptythought at 11:38 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Data on who Sanders supporters are, for those who continue to portray the coalition...
I thought the debate here was about Sanders supporters who aren't supporting Hillary yet, not his entire coalition. All that polling data seems like a non-sequitur if those are the people we're talking about.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:39 AM on June 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
I thought the debate here was about Sanders supporters who aren't supporting Hillary yet, not his entire coalition. All that polling data seems like a non-sequitur if those are the people we're talking about.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:39 AM on June 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
So...Obama's got an event scheduled in Roswell, New Mexico today. I can't tell if there's an actual reason, or he's just trolling the fuck out of GOP tinfoil-hatters.
please be trolling please be trolling please be trolling
posted by zombieflanders at 11:40 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
please be trolling please be trolling please be trolling
posted by zombieflanders at 11:40 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump Sends Celebratory Tweet Showing Him Polling Behind Clinton
The poll also appears to have been conducted May 10, although the graphic Trump tweeted carries a June 16 timestamp.posted by Salieri at 11:41 AM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
As of Friday afternoon, the top reply to Trump's tweet read simply "uh…"
...it's more that the game is over, they lost by 20, but in the post-game press conference they keep talking about how important it is to beat the Trump team in the Finals but refusing to admit they even lost the game or the series...From 2008:
Some in the media are declaring the series over because the Boston Celtics have won four of the six games played so far. But I don’t understand why, with a series this close and hotly contested, anyone would want to shut it down before we play a seventh game and have all the results in. As anybody who follows the NBA knows, a seven-game series would be good for the league, and the added competition would make the eventual victor, whomever it might be, a stronger opponent against the Los Angeles Lakers in the Finals.posted by kirkaracha at 11:41 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
...
Yes, Boston has won four games and Detroit only two. But it's hard to imagine a more arbitrary and undemocratic way to determine this series’s outcome than "games won."
Chortly, Sanders lost the popular vote among Democrats, and lost it badly. While I consider myself a progressive (and would have voted for Sanders if my state had voted before the antics in Nevada), and I agree that progressive issues and habitual progressive voters have an important role in the Democratic Party going forward -- and I even agree that a grassroots/downticket focus combined with pushing a more progressive platform is probably what the party needs right now -- citing poll numbers about Sanders doesn't really mean anything here. Because Sanders lost. Sanders got millions fewer votes than Clinton, never had any real chance at securing the nomination, and lost bad by literally any metric you can come up with. Because of that, it's weird to suggest that really what the Democratic Party needs is to become the party of Sanders. Because Sanders lost.
posted by Sara C. at 11:41 AM on June 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 11:41 AM on June 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
So...Obama's got an event scheduled in Roswell, New Mexico today. I can't tell if there's an actual reason, or he's just trolling the fuck out of GOP tinfoil-hatters.
The first generation Greys who crashed in the desert couldn't vote, not least because they turned out to be terrible at the naturalization citizenship test, but their children, being born on US soil, are voters, even if they don't leave Nellis AFB often.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:42 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
The first generation Greys who crashed in the desert couldn't vote, not least because they turned out to be terrible at the naturalization citizenship test, but their children, being born on US soil, are voters, even if they don't leave Nellis AFB often.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:42 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also: Dozens of GOP delegates launch new push to halt Donald Trump
The Corb-omite Maneuver
posted by Going To Maine at 11:43 AM on June 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
The Corb-omite Maneuver
posted by Going To Maine at 11:43 AM on June 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
Because of that, it's weird to suggest that really what the Democratic Party needs is to become the party of Sanders. Because Sanders lost.
I... don't think that's what chortly was saying.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:43 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I... don't think that's what chortly was saying.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:43 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
What if a whole lot of young people just don't vote for anyone? What the fuck will that do?
I don't know, that's never happened before
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:45 AM on June 17, 2016 [26 favorites]
I don't know, that's never happened before
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:45 AM on June 17, 2016 [26 favorites]
As of Friday afternoon, the top reply to Trump's tweet read simply “uh…”
I enjoyed @pourmecoffee’s “@realDonaldTrump Did you go to a different, similarly-spelled Wharton, like ‘Warton’ or ‘Whartin?’”
posted by Going To Maine at 11:46 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
I enjoyed @pourmecoffee’s “@realDonaldTrump Did you go to a different, similarly-spelled Wharton, like ‘Warton’ or ‘Whartin?’”
posted by Going To Maine at 11:46 AM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Warren visits Clinton HQ, warns: Don't lose to Trump: Warren spoke to Clinton staffers for about 15 minutes and then lingered to take selfies with the campaign operatives for about 20 minutes longer. One Clinton staffer noted that Warren attracted a crowd "bigger than Jon Bon Jovi did" when he recently stopped by the headquarters.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:46 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:46 AM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't know, that's never happened before
Exactly. And to clarify, a lot of these people are people who registered in the first place to vote for Obama, and voted for him again.
posted by emptythought at 11:47 AM on June 17, 2016
Exactly. And to clarify, a lot of these people are people who registered in the first place to vote for Obama, and voted for him again.
posted by emptythought at 11:47 AM on June 17, 2016
pocketfullofrye, I'm there with you, but don't discount the fact that there's been a minor industry in this country for a quarter-century devoted to churning out and spreading libel and slander against both Clintons, and Hillary in particular. It's only natural that in such an environment, even decent folks could pick up a sense of opprobrium without realizing it.
Oh I totally agree -- I think lots of things are at play in the hate Clinton/like Biden dynamic. They include internalized Republican propaganda, complicated feelings toward women in power, straight-up sexism, youthful idealism, and a lack of understanding of the difficulty and complexity of campaigning and governing at the executive level. Plus some amount of the pure, irrational sportsteam-like partisanship that can infuse politics at a certain level, especially when you feel (misguidedly or not) that for the first time you have a candidate who is speaking for you. And of course the fact that Clinton simply doesn't have the charisma of an Obama, or even a Bill Clinton or George W Bush.
But I do think it's telling that the favorability ratings in that poll of #NeverHillary voters are, in descending order: white man (Biden), black man (Obama) white woman who isn't Clinton (Warren), white man who wants to expel immigrants and racially profile muslims (Trump) and then Clinton. If these people were truly motivated by the things that are supposedly motivating the #neverHillary contingent of Sanders supporters, Warren would be way ahead of Biden -- instead she's 22 points behind.
Honestly I suspect a lot of those pro-Biden/anti-Hillary Sanders-supporters purely don't know enough about Biden's career to know why that's an absurd position to hold if you care about militarism or campaign funding.
But then I suspect they don't know enough about Sanders to know that he's been pork barreling Lockheed Martin in his state for years, including his support for building the the trillion-dollar F-35 stealth fighter in Vermont, or that his 2006 Senate campaign took $200k from the evil establishment money machine through the DSCC (which in fact was primarily funded by Friends of Hillary).
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:58 AM on June 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
Oh I totally agree -- I think lots of things are at play in the hate Clinton/like Biden dynamic. They include internalized Republican propaganda, complicated feelings toward women in power, straight-up sexism, youthful idealism, and a lack of understanding of the difficulty and complexity of campaigning and governing at the executive level. Plus some amount of the pure, irrational sportsteam-like partisanship that can infuse politics at a certain level, especially when you feel (misguidedly or not) that for the first time you have a candidate who is speaking for you. And of course the fact that Clinton simply doesn't have the charisma of an Obama, or even a Bill Clinton or George W Bush.
But I do think it's telling that the favorability ratings in that poll of #NeverHillary voters are, in descending order: white man (Biden), black man (Obama) white woman who isn't Clinton (Warren), white man who wants to expel immigrants and racially profile muslims (Trump) and then Clinton. If these people were truly motivated by the things that are supposedly motivating the #neverHillary contingent of Sanders supporters, Warren would be way ahead of Biden -- instead she's 22 points behind.
Honestly I suspect a lot of those pro-Biden/anti-Hillary Sanders-supporters purely don't know enough about Biden's career to know why that's an absurd position to hold if you care about militarism or campaign funding.
But then I suspect they don't know enough about Sanders to know that he's been pork barreling Lockheed Martin in his state for years, including his support for building the the trillion-dollar F-35 stealth fighter in Vermont, or that his 2006 Senate campaign took $200k from the evil establishment money machine through the DSCC (which in fact was primarily funded by Friends of Hillary).
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:58 AM on June 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
Among Democrats:
Using tracking polls for demographic breakdowns is a fool's errand as pointed out in previous threads. That should be clear if you think about the results you posted. I mean, just look at the Hispanic numbers. Does it make sense from the election results that Sanders won 56% of Hispanics? It should be obvious that it doesn't; Clinton won heavily in the most heavily Hispanic districts in most states.
posted by Justinian at 11:58 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Using tracking polls for demographic breakdowns is a fool's errand as pointed out in previous threads. That should be clear if you think about the results you posted. I mean, just look at the Hispanic numbers. Does it make sense from the election results that Sanders won 56% of Hispanics? It should be obvious that it doesn't; Clinton won heavily in the most heavily Hispanic districts in most states.
posted by Justinian at 11:58 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Here's what irritates the heck out of me about Sanders' failure to concede. Still.
1. Sanders and his campaign did a lot to demonize HRC, and most unfairly. I think she'll mop the floor with the Donald in the fall, but it does not help that her unfavorables are so high. And it isn't like she's Nixon and has always been disliked. She was long one of the most admired women in the the world, and she hasn't changed. She has been trashed, but plenty, by someone who is nearly indistinguishable on the issues. It is past time for Bernie to fix that.
2. Anger is corrosive and destructive. To "keep fighting" and keep appealing to anger helps to feed a truly toxic current political atmosphere. Not only did HRC earn Sanders' support, but he needs to do his part at this point to move toward quelling the hatred and being inspirational. We all do.
3. There is a big, huge opportunity this year to change the whole political equation, to make red states blue and grab control of Congress, and toss idiots out of the state legislatures and the state houses. That's what can happen when the other side runs a blithering idiot who is an offensive racist and demagogue as their candidate. But timing is everything. For Sanders to wait to help with the down ballot until the convention is selfish and counterproductive. For example, he could be turning strongly toward fundraising efforts for all D candidates. This minute. And toward turn out the vote efforts for all D candidates. This minute.
I'll add that it is pretty clear that Sanders has both been a valued ally for Ds in the Senate, because they have needed his vote, and a prickly, difficult partner. It doesn't speak well of him that he doesn't have the ability to show at this key time, even after both the President (!) and HRC have essentially kissed his ring, his awareness that it is about a lot more than him.
I'm more than a little fed up with him, frankly. Though in the big scheme of things his failure to do the graceful, gracious and public spirited thing now of conceding and pivoting to rally the troops probably makes very little difference. The more the public sees of HRC, the more they will like her. The more they see of Trump and the R's inability to either rein him in or back away, the more the R cause will bleed. With or without Sanders.
posted by bearwife at 12:02 PM on June 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
1. Sanders and his campaign did a lot to demonize HRC, and most unfairly. I think she'll mop the floor with the Donald in the fall, but it does not help that her unfavorables are so high. And it isn't like she's Nixon and has always been disliked. She was long one of the most admired women in the the world, and she hasn't changed. She has been trashed, but plenty, by someone who is nearly indistinguishable on the issues. It is past time for Bernie to fix that.
2. Anger is corrosive and destructive. To "keep fighting" and keep appealing to anger helps to feed a truly toxic current political atmosphere. Not only did HRC earn Sanders' support, but he needs to do his part at this point to move toward quelling the hatred and being inspirational. We all do.
3. There is a big, huge opportunity this year to change the whole political equation, to make red states blue and grab control of Congress, and toss idiots out of the state legislatures and the state houses. That's what can happen when the other side runs a blithering idiot who is an offensive racist and demagogue as their candidate. But timing is everything. For Sanders to wait to help with the down ballot until the convention is selfish and counterproductive. For example, he could be turning strongly toward fundraising efforts for all D candidates. This minute. And toward turn out the vote efforts for all D candidates. This minute.
I'll add that it is pretty clear that Sanders has both been a valued ally for Ds in the Senate, because they have needed his vote, and a prickly, difficult partner. It doesn't speak well of him that he doesn't have the ability to show at this key time, even after both the President (!) and HRC have essentially kissed his ring, his awareness that it is about a lot more than him.
I'm more than a little fed up with him, frankly. Though in the big scheme of things his failure to do the graceful, gracious and public spirited thing now of conceding and pivoting to rally the troops probably makes very little difference. The more the public sees of HRC, the more they will like her. The more they see of Trump and the R's inability to either rein him in or back away, the more the R cause will bleed. With or without Sanders.
posted by bearwife at 12:02 PM on June 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
I think I'm going to have to boot an author from my Twitter list, because I don't think I can deal with another 5+ months of snide comments about Hillary. I've tried to be tolerant because a) I don't want to have an echo chamber and b) I realize that people have different moral calculus about what is unbearable to them. Though I can't help but notice that he doesn't seem to tweet these remarks often or at all about Obama and Sanders, who also also are fans of drone warfare. But I think referring to the Clintons as monsters was my breaking point. No, they aren't, dude. They may have made decisions you view as monstrous, but they are politicians trying to thread the road between their beliefs, what they can get done, and what they think they have to do to be elected. Sometimes they are wrong; sometimes they are venial; mostly they are trying to make the least shitty choices, and sometimes least shitty is really fucking shitty.
posted by tavella at 12:04 PM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by tavella at 12:04 PM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
THIS IS A SOVEREIGN MEFI THREAD!
Speaking of which, Michele Fiore lost her bid for a seat in the House of Representatives.
posted by peeedro at 12:12 PM on June 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
Speaking of which, Michele Fiore lost her bid for a seat in the House of Representatives.
posted by peeedro at 12:12 PM on June 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
If anyone has recommendations for good Twitters that bring in some diverse views without cheap rhetoric (or being too spammy), btw, feel free to MeMail me!
posted by tavella at 12:16 PM on June 17, 2016
posted by tavella at 12:16 PM on June 17, 2016
Speaking of which, Michele Fiore lost her bid for a seat in the House of Representatives.
Whoa:
Whoa:
Fiore also made headlines for her startling comments on gun rights.posted by zarq at 12:21 PM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
In December she offered to fly to Europe to shoot Syrian refugees in the head, and later that month sent out a Christmas card in which every member of her family, including her 5-year-old grandson, was armed with a gun.
Her suggestion that citizens can take aim at police as long as law enforcement draw their weapons first also drew censure from Nevada’s largest police union.
In a letter to Fiore, Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers Executive Director Rick McCann called her remarks “utterly irresponsible, an embarrassment to your District and our State, and they continue to demonstrate why you are unqualified to hold the position of United States Congresswoman."
Michele Fiore lost her bid for a seat in the House of Representatives.
She only got 18% of the vote, too. I wonder who the other 9% voted for.
posted by bardophile at 12:24 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
She only got 18% of the vote, too. I wonder who the other 9% voted for.
posted by bardophile at 12:24 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Speaking of which, Michele Fiore lost her bid for a seat in the House of Representatives.
Well, we all needed some happy news.
posted by Artw at 12:25 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, we all needed some happy news.
posted by Artw at 12:25 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
If we're talking about Sanders supporters who won't vote for Clinton, there's very little data on that, and what there is is very unreliable. In most exit polls I saw, usually about 15% of Sanders voters said they wouldn't vote for Clinton, and about 10% of Clinton voters said they wouldn't vote for Sanders. But we know that mostly these people are wrong in their predictions of their future behaviors: even among the die-hards, most would vote for the other candidate come November. There are of course a few Sanders supporters who are genuinely libertarians or Republicans or whatever, but these folks are few enough not to make any appreciable difference. This is why (a) Clinton et al aren't worried about Sanders too much going into the convention, and (b) why Sanders doesn't have very much leverage. They'll throw him a few bones so that he raises a bit more enthusiasm among some of his supporters, but mainly he can't do much, and Clinton doesn't have to do much. That's why this high-level negotiation and talk of official concessions doesn't make much difference.
Sanders definitely lost, but many if not most of his supporters are not particularly tied to the person. He won their support based on what he said, and when Warren or Booker or whoever says similar things, they get similar support. Like most candidacies, Sanders's run is unlikely to leave much of an institutionalized legacy, in part because the winning candidate's apparatus sweeps away everything else in the lead-up to the general election. But some of the obituary-style debate seems to be about what we should learn from this primary. My only point here has been that, win or lose, irrespective of Sanders himself, his leadership, and a large number / small percentage of pro-Sanders jerks on the internet, the largest piece of information has been to reveal just how many millions of Democrats support policies significantly to the left of the party center -- women, LGBT, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, poor, etc. Like Occupy, the man himself will be swept away by history, but the constituency it revealed -- the extent of support for issues which had never even been nationally polled before because they were considered too far left -- remains.
posted by chortly at 12:28 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sanders definitely lost, but many if not most of his supporters are not particularly tied to the person. He won their support based on what he said, and when Warren or Booker or whoever says similar things, they get similar support. Like most candidacies, Sanders's run is unlikely to leave much of an institutionalized legacy, in part because the winning candidate's apparatus sweeps away everything else in the lead-up to the general election. But some of the obituary-style debate seems to be about what we should learn from this primary. My only point here has been that, win or lose, irrespective of Sanders himself, his leadership, and a large number / small percentage of pro-Sanders jerks on the internet, the largest piece of information has been to reveal just how many millions of Democrats support policies significantly to the left of the party center -- women, LGBT, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, poor, etc. Like Occupy, the man himself will be swept away by history, but the constituency it revealed -- the extent of support for issues which had never even been nationally polled before because they were considered too far left -- remains.
posted by chortly at 12:28 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
the extent of support for issues which had never even been nationally polled before because they were considered too far left -- remains.
To specifically address this statement, most of the issues Sanders ran on have been polled nationally for years if not decades.
Gallup Historical Trends:
Affordable Health Care.
Immigration Reform.
Education.
Foreign Trade.
Work. Workplace. Wages. Job security, etc. Also see the Economy.
Congress, representation and politics.
Taxes. This topic and the Economy cover wealth distribution.
Business, including regulation of industry, influence of corporations, etc.
posted by zarq at 12:55 PM on June 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
To specifically address this statement, most of the issues Sanders ran on have been polled nationally for years if not decades.
Gallup Historical Trends:
Affordable Health Care.
Immigration Reform.
Education.
Foreign Trade.
Work. Workplace. Wages. Job security, etc. Also see the Economy.
Congress, representation and politics.
Taxes. This topic and the Economy cover wealth distribution.
Business, including regulation of industry, influence of corporations, etc.
posted by zarq at 12:55 PM on June 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
My only point here has been that, win or lose, irrespective of Sanders himself, his leadership, and a large number / small percentage of pro-Sanders jerks on the internet, the largest piece of information has been to reveal just how many millions of Democrats support policies significantly to the left of the party center -- women, LGBT, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, poor, etc. Like Occupy, the man himself will be swept away by history, but the constituency it revealed -- the extent of support for issues which had never even been nationally polled before because they were considered too far left -- remains.
Sure, Sanders deserves credit for raising issues, expanding the coalition, and moving the party leftward. But doesn't he also deserve some measure of blame for risking all of that progress this late in the game? Does the expected value of the progressive "nudges" you say he's looking for exceed the expected losses of some of the new voters he's brought into the tent being turned off by his refusal to support Hillary? I don't know the answer, but it seems to me that the last voters into the tent are going to be among the first ones out, so the more he plays this game without seeing any tangible evidence of his strategy working, the more nervous I get.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:03 PM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Sure, Sanders deserves credit for raising issues, expanding the coalition, and moving the party leftward. But doesn't he also deserve some measure of blame for risking all of that progress this late in the game? Does the expected value of the progressive "nudges" you say he's looking for exceed the expected losses of some of the new voters he's brought into the tent being turned off by his refusal to support Hillary? I don't know the answer, but it seems to me that the last voters into the tent are going to be among the first ones out, so the more he plays this game without seeing any tangible evidence of his strategy working, the more nervous I get.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:03 PM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Michele Fiore lost her bid for a seat in the House of Representatives.
She only got 18% of the vote, too. I wonder who the other 9% voted for.
It was a GOP primary. They voted for crazies too.
posted by Etrigan at 1:05 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
She only got 18% of the vote, too. I wonder who the other 9% voted for.
It was a GOP primary. They voted for crazies too.
posted by Etrigan at 1:05 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Miami Herald: Anti-Trump in living color, not to mention feces and pig noses
Though the 2008 presidential campaign was notable for artist Shepard Fairey’s iconic “Hope” poster featuring a wistful-looking Barack Obama, 2016 may be distinguished by its anti-Trump takes.posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:31 PM on June 17, 2016
Hillary Clinton has taken a few knocks and Bernie Sanders makes appearances. But it’s Trump who truly inspires: From the East Coast to the West and even overseas, the presumptive Republican nominee has been lampooned as a pile of excrement, a Hitler wannabe and a kissing cousin of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
As long as we're doing analogies for Sanders and his obnoxious refusal to do the right thing and concede rather than just fizzling out and squandering all the power and goodwill he gathered, here's mine:
In StarCraft there are two ways to win, you either destroy all of the structures your opponent has built, or your opponent surrenders.
Almost all games end with someone surrendering because typically **LONG** before all your structures are destroyed it is obvious that you've lost and there's no point in wasting your time and your opponent's time playing it out.
Every now and then things are very close and it isn't clear who actually will win so playing until all structure are destroyed makes sense.
But there are also jerks who, when they can tell they are losing, spend all of their remaining resources building structures all over the map, especially in difficult to reach areas, just to drag out the game and force the winner to run all over blowing stuff up.
A game that should last ten minutes can, with proper jerkiness from your opponent, sometimes stretch out to fifteen, and those last five minutes feel like years.
This is what Sanders is doing. Unlike in StarCraft where resources don't transfer from game to game so the only real cost of being a jerk is, well, being a jerk and becoming known as a jerk, in politics resources move around a lot, and by squandering them on extending his futile run he's costing the very causes he claims to champion those resources.
I was a Sanders supporter early on because I do think that the two party system is broken, and I do think we need some serious shaking up and I do think my goals and beliefs would be best served if the Democrats were directed less market liberal and more Leftist. But that opportunity has passed, if it ever really existed, and despite my not being on board with the market liberal parts of the Democratic party I'm in favor of 85% or so of what the Democrats stand for.
Worse, from a Leftist POV, Sanders is squandering his resources on spite and therefore we aren't getting the benefit of those resources pushing for a Leftist agenda. Right now, with Sanders having fizzled and his ability to get media attention all but vanished, any hope we had for him aggressively promoting our agenda has gone.
You do have to be seen as a threat to be taken seriously, and Sanders has moved from threat to joke, and in so doing has harmed the reputation and cause of Leftism significantly. It's possible we're actually going to wind up worse off than we were when he started.
I think, at this point, there's no deals he can seriously expect to cut. He wasted the opportunity to get policy concessions, and my donations are money I might as well have just thrown away for all the good I got from them.
posted by sotonohito at 1:40 PM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
In StarCraft there are two ways to win, you either destroy all of the structures your opponent has built, or your opponent surrenders.
Almost all games end with someone surrendering because typically **LONG** before all your structures are destroyed it is obvious that you've lost and there's no point in wasting your time and your opponent's time playing it out.
Every now and then things are very close and it isn't clear who actually will win so playing until all structure are destroyed makes sense.
But there are also jerks who, when they can tell they are losing, spend all of their remaining resources building structures all over the map, especially in difficult to reach areas, just to drag out the game and force the winner to run all over blowing stuff up.
A game that should last ten minutes can, with proper jerkiness from your opponent, sometimes stretch out to fifteen, and those last five minutes feel like years.
This is what Sanders is doing. Unlike in StarCraft where resources don't transfer from game to game so the only real cost of being a jerk is, well, being a jerk and becoming known as a jerk, in politics resources move around a lot, and by squandering them on extending his futile run he's costing the very causes he claims to champion those resources.
I was a Sanders supporter early on because I do think that the two party system is broken, and I do think we need some serious shaking up and I do think my goals and beliefs would be best served if the Democrats were directed less market liberal and more Leftist. But that opportunity has passed, if it ever really existed, and despite my not being on board with the market liberal parts of the Democratic party I'm in favor of 85% or so of what the Democrats stand for.
Worse, from a Leftist POV, Sanders is squandering his resources on spite and therefore we aren't getting the benefit of those resources pushing for a Leftist agenda. Right now, with Sanders having fizzled and his ability to get media attention all but vanished, any hope we had for him aggressively promoting our agenda has gone.
You do have to be seen as a threat to be taken seriously, and Sanders has moved from threat to joke, and in so doing has harmed the reputation and cause of Leftism significantly. It's possible we're actually going to wind up worse off than we were when he started.
I think, at this point, there's no deals he can seriously expect to cut. He wasted the opportunity to get policy concessions, and my donations are money I might as well have just thrown away for all the good I got from them.
posted by sotonohito at 1:40 PM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
Honestly, the most iconic image of this entire campaign season to me has been the hanksy trump turd, from that article.
It was up for an impressively long time, too. Might even still be.
posted by emptythought at 1:42 PM on June 17, 2016
It was up for an impressively long time, too. Might even still be.
posted by emptythought at 1:42 PM on June 17, 2016
Sure, Sanders deserves credit for raising issues, expanding the coalition, and moving the party leftward. But doesn't he also deserve some measure of blame for...
I guess my point is deciding whether to blame or credit this Sanders guy is not something I or even many of his supporters are very interested in, compared to the policy issues themselves. Did Sanders achieve the maximum possible effect given his successes in early 2016? Definitely not. But there are still many lasting effects, most importantly in revealing just how far left so many in the Democratic party are, even apart from the radical Occupy or BLM movements.
His main policies were, by all accounts, well to the left of Clinton. This is corroborated by DW-NOMINATE scores, but mainly is evident simply by looking at the policies they advocate and what is listed on their respective websites. Clinton is slightly to the left of her party, and Sanders is far to the left of it. Indeed, this claim -- that he was so far left as to be unrealistic and hopeless in his objectives -- was the main criticism made by the Clinton campaign. And it worked -- whether because of those arguments, or simply because he was too far to the left relative to the party, he lost, with 40% of the vote. But to claim that their positions -- on minimum wage, college tuition, bank reform, healthcare, or the environment -- were essentially identical is to fail to understand why those 40% -- particularly the women, LGBT, hispanics, African-Americans, poor, etc -- voted for him. It was because they saw his policies as very different from what Clinton was espousing. Perhaps they were misguided both in their perceptions and their judgments, but those many millions and their political views continue to exist, irrespective of Sanders and blame and concessions and elections.
Almost no one last year thought there was such support for (so-called) democratic socialism or the policies Sanders advocated, and most of us were wrong. That was obviously a failure of polling, and it wasn't due, eg, to misestimating the degree of misogyny among the millions of young female voters who supported Sanders. Gallup polls like the ones cited above, or the ANES poll, tend to ask fairly coarse questions -- more or less government spending, more or less taxes, more or less government control of healthcare -- that are decent at tracking overall national trends, but poor at capturing more specific policy differences within the parties. There have been very few polls on $15 vs $12 vs $10 minimum wage, eg; or single-payer vs ACA; or free college tuition vs discounted loans; or specific forms of bank reform -- especially prior to 2016. But it turns out these distinctions matter, particularly within the party. The reason the pundits got it so wrong is that they tend to look at these national polls and view the parties as fairly homogeneous, especially on the left. What this election demonstrated is that there is far more heterogeneity on the left, particularly the left half of the left, than the polling had led us to believe. Indeed, those people themselves are probably more aware of their beliefs than they were before the campaign. And those voters and their beliefs will remain after Sanders is gone and the complaints about his endgame forgotten.
[Ok, I think I've exceeded my three-post limit on making the same point, so I'll drop out here...]
posted by chortly at 1:51 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
I guess my point is deciding whether to blame or credit this Sanders guy is not something I or even many of his supporters are very interested in, compared to the policy issues themselves. Did Sanders achieve the maximum possible effect given his successes in early 2016? Definitely not. But there are still many lasting effects, most importantly in revealing just how far left so many in the Democratic party are, even apart from the radical Occupy or BLM movements.
His main policies were, by all accounts, well to the left of Clinton. This is corroborated by DW-NOMINATE scores, but mainly is evident simply by looking at the policies they advocate and what is listed on their respective websites. Clinton is slightly to the left of her party, and Sanders is far to the left of it. Indeed, this claim -- that he was so far left as to be unrealistic and hopeless in his objectives -- was the main criticism made by the Clinton campaign. And it worked -- whether because of those arguments, or simply because he was too far to the left relative to the party, he lost, with 40% of the vote. But to claim that their positions -- on minimum wage, college tuition, bank reform, healthcare, or the environment -- were essentially identical is to fail to understand why those 40% -- particularly the women, LGBT, hispanics, African-Americans, poor, etc -- voted for him. It was because they saw his policies as very different from what Clinton was espousing. Perhaps they were misguided both in their perceptions and their judgments, but those many millions and their political views continue to exist, irrespective of Sanders and blame and concessions and elections.
Almost no one last year thought there was such support for (so-called) democratic socialism or the policies Sanders advocated, and most of us were wrong. That was obviously a failure of polling, and it wasn't due, eg, to misestimating the degree of misogyny among the millions of young female voters who supported Sanders. Gallup polls like the ones cited above, or the ANES poll, tend to ask fairly coarse questions -- more or less government spending, more or less taxes, more or less government control of healthcare -- that are decent at tracking overall national trends, but poor at capturing more specific policy differences within the parties. There have been very few polls on $15 vs $12 vs $10 minimum wage, eg; or single-payer vs ACA; or free college tuition vs discounted loans; or specific forms of bank reform -- especially prior to 2016. But it turns out these distinctions matter, particularly within the party. The reason the pundits got it so wrong is that they tend to look at these national polls and view the parties as fairly homogeneous, especially on the left. What this election demonstrated is that there is far more heterogeneity on the left, particularly the left half of the left, than the polling had led us to believe. Indeed, those people themselves are probably more aware of their beliefs than they were before the campaign. And those voters and their beliefs will remain after Sanders is gone and the complaints about his endgame forgotten.
[Ok, I think I've exceeded my three-post limit on making the same point, so I'll drop out here...]
posted by chortly at 1:51 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
I wanted to share this post from the somethingawful politics forum, because I think it's the clearest explanation for Trump's baffling lack of ground-game I've read (bolding mine):
Trump will never build a real Presidential campaign, he will only create a cargo cult of a Presidential campaign, a crude facsimile that will perform about as well at its intended function as a pair of coconut shells perform as a radio headset. The sole purpose of Trump's presidential campaign is convince Donald J Trump that he is running a real Presidential campaign. And I expect it will be as successful at making him POTUS as a bamboo runway is at summoning American planes full of supplies.
Trump is an addict on a binge and only cares about getting his drug, nothing else. Ground staff do not result in cheering crowds whose adulation he can bask in, they just cost money. Trump will not waste his time on any effort that does not result in him getting more of his drug.
For example the rallies he is doing in Texas right now are because he has said he won't travel to a fundraiser unless he can also do a rally afterwards. So what you have right now is a pattern of Trump doing a fundraiser followed shortly by doing a rally because Trump needs his goddamn drug and won't even do fundraisers unless he gets his daily fix.
Trump has hired just enough staff to be able to do his rallies and is doing just enough fundraising to maintain doing his rallies. That is all Trump ever intends to do, and it is all he is capable of doing. Any attempt to do otherwise will require massive pressure from the RNC and will quickly fizzle. Just like having an addict in the family that promises to change whenever they get harassed enough but go back to using the very first moment they can.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:00 PM on June 17, 2016 [38 favorites]
Trump will never build a real Presidential campaign, he will only create a cargo cult of a Presidential campaign, a crude facsimile that will perform about as well at its intended function as a pair of coconut shells perform as a radio headset. The sole purpose of Trump's presidential campaign is convince Donald J Trump that he is running a real Presidential campaign. And I expect it will be as successful at making him POTUS as a bamboo runway is at summoning American planes full of supplies.
Trump is an addict on a binge and only cares about getting his drug, nothing else. Ground staff do not result in cheering crowds whose adulation he can bask in, they just cost money. Trump will not waste his time on any effort that does not result in him getting more of his drug.
For example the rallies he is doing in Texas right now are because he has said he won't travel to a fundraiser unless he can also do a rally afterwards. So what you have right now is a pattern of Trump doing a fundraiser followed shortly by doing a rally because Trump needs his goddamn drug and won't even do fundraisers unless he gets his daily fix.
Trump has hired just enough staff to be able to do his rallies and is doing just enough fundraising to maintain doing his rallies. That is all Trump ever intends to do, and it is all he is capable of doing. Any attempt to do otherwise will require massive pressure from the RNC and will quickly fizzle. Just like having an addict in the family that promises to change whenever they get harassed enough but go back to using the very first moment they can.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:00 PM on June 17, 2016 [38 favorites]
As long as we're doing analogies for Sanders and his obnoxious refusal to do the right thing and concede rather than just fizzling out and squandering all the power and goodwill he gathered, here's mine:
oh ok well mine is when you're doing Dark Souls PvP at Oolacile Township1 and your opponent2 is losing and instead of finishing the fight properly3 he strips off all his armor4 and goes Dark Wood Grain Ring-flipping5 down the stairs and over the catwalks past all the bloat-head zombies6 and so you go chasing after him since you don't want to just jump off the cliff and end the fight7 because you'd lose all your souls and humanity8 so you go hunt him down and when you finally find him in the room with all the sorcerers9 he's chugging estus10 and you're like fuck it I'm just gonna ignore him and go fight the Chained Prisoner11 while I'm down here and of course he sneaks up behind you for a backstab12 while you're doing that.
1California after the primary
2Bernie Sanders
3Conceding and endorsing
4Party-loyal Sanders supporters who will vote for Clinton in November
5Giving his stump speech and vowing to fight on
6Bernie-or-Busters
7Shut him out of the convention
8Alienate his die-hard supporters
9Philadelphia
10Empty reassurances from Jeff Weaver
11Donald Trump
12Endorses Jill Stein
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:02 PM on June 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
oh ok well mine is when you're doing Dark Souls PvP at Oolacile Township1 and your opponent2 is losing and instead of finishing the fight properly3 he strips off all his armor4 and goes Dark Wood Grain Ring-flipping5 down the stairs and over the catwalks past all the bloat-head zombies6 and so you go chasing after him since you don't want to just jump off the cliff and end the fight7 because you'd lose all your souls and humanity8 so you go hunt him down and when you finally find him in the room with all the sorcerers9 he's chugging estus10 and you're like fuck it I'm just gonna ignore him and go fight the Chained Prisoner11 while I'm down here and of course he sneaks up behind you for a backstab12 while you're doing that.
1California after the primary
2Bernie Sanders
3Conceding and endorsing
4Party-loyal Sanders supporters who will vote for Clinton in November
5Giving his stump speech and vowing to fight on
6Bernie-or-Busters
7Shut him out of the convention
8Alienate his die-hard supporters
9Philadelphia
10Empty reassurances from Jeff Weaver
11Donald Trump
12Endorses Jill Stein
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:02 PM on June 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
I always feel mean and cynical and like I'm raining on people's parades when I argue there's nothing really all that new about Sanders or his campaign, and that people who claim otherwise haven't been paying attention the past 30 years. I cant help but agree (though for different reasons) with the Republican strategists who say only Hillary could have had such a hard fight against a 74-year old self-proclaimed socialist (who really isn't actually a socialist and whose announcement speech was materially no different than Clinton's).
But it's also frustrating because keeping quiet means squashing a lot of observations about how far we still have to come as far as sexism and racism are concerned. And it's particularly lonely and disheartening to argue those points in my personal life with people who are ostensibly progressive, which is probably why I keep coming here to do it.
However that's me exceeding my threshold on making the same point 3 times in a thread, so I'll stop now too.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:15 PM on June 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
But it's also frustrating because keeping quiet means squashing a lot of observations about how far we still have to come as far as sexism and racism are concerned. And it's particularly lonely and disheartening to argue those points in my personal life with people who are ostensibly progressive, which is probably why I keep coming here to do it.
However that's me exceeding my threshold on making the same point 3 times in a thread, so I'll stop now too.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:15 PM on June 17, 2016 [13 favorites]
I don't think it's Sanders or his campaign that needs to be new. I think it's that we're living at the cusp of great economic turmoil, as income continues to be gathered into unprecedented heights of inequality, as technology and access to a global economy has reduced job security to unprecedented depths of uncertainty.
posted by Apocryphon at 2:31 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Apocryphon at 2:31 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Ooo.
Priebus probes state GOP leaders over anti-Trump push
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has been quietly having conversations with state party leaders to discuss the latest push by convention delegates to nominate anyone other than Donald Trump.
Priebus has spoken with GOP party chairmen in multiple states in recent days in part to get a better sense of how large the anti-Trump faction is among their convention delegations, according to two people familiar with the conversations.
While Priebus has made clear in these conversations that he is not spearheading the latest push for a coup, his involvement sends a signal that the RNC is taking this effort to dump Trump seriously even as other movements have fizzled.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:33 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Priebus probes state GOP leaders over anti-Trump push
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has been quietly having conversations with state party leaders to discuss the latest push by convention delegates to nominate anyone other than Donald Trump.
Priebus has spoken with GOP party chairmen in multiple states in recent days in part to get a better sense of how large the anti-Trump faction is among their convention delegations, according to two people familiar with the conversations.
While Priebus has made clear in these conversations that he is not spearheading the latest push for a coup, his involvement sends a signal that the RNC is taking this effort to dump Trump seriously even as other movements have fizzled.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:33 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I am sitting here literally eating popcorn right now (because I'm too sleep-deprived to do any real cooking), so here's Wonkette on the latest batch of anti-Trump ads. I think the tone, music, font and wit of the Clinton ads on Trump are perfect.
posted by maudlin at 2:37 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by maudlin at 2:37 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
New York Times: Donald Trump, Seeing Himself Behind in Polls, Says He Hasn’t ‘Started Yet’
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:42 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
“Certain of these senators you’re talking about are not doing well,” Mr. Trump said, referring to a group who are being aided by former President George W. Bush with fund-raising.2017 is going to be one big round of finger pointing and blame game.
“Then, if they lose they’ll pin it on Donald Trump,” he said. “But I don’t let that happen easily.”
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:42 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the tone, music, font and wit of the Clinton ads on Trump are perfect.
I love those. I love how it's just Trump's own words making the case against him. Because I'm petty, I love seeing him stumble over the LGBT acronym twice (even though I myself tend to do the exact same thing - my brain automatically goes for the B sound first). And I think the music is a really nice touch; his words are grotesque, but instead of going for a dire apocalypse theme, they chose a piece that plays up how ridiculous his "I'm the only true friend of the gays!" is.
Man, the next few months are going to have some awesome media. I can't wait.
posted by Salieri at 2:47 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I love those. I love how it's just Trump's own words making the case against him. Because I'm petty, I love seeing him stumble over the LGBT acronym twice (even though I myself tend to do the exact same thing - my brain automatically goes for the B sound first). And I think the music is a really nice touch; his words are grotesque, but instead of going for a dire apocalypse theme, they chose a piece that plays up how ridiculous his "I'm the only true friend of the gays!" is.
Man, the next few months are going to have some awesome media. I can't wait.
posted by Salieri at 2:47 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mashable: Celebrate Fathers Day with with these perfect parenting 'tips' from Donald Trump
The Florida Democratic Party is celebrating Father's Day this weekend by reminiscing about the awful things Donald Trump has said about women over the years.posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:48 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
In a series of four attack ads, the group spotlights some of the unsavory comments the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has said on the record about parenting and family life in various interviews and media appearances.
Yesterday was the Dallas Rally for Trump. If you're wondering how that went the Dallas Morning News has coverage.
TL: Don't want to read? Dumpster Fire. Or to quote the paper:
TL: Don't want to read? Dumpster Fire. Or to quote the paper:
that’s what a Donald Trump rally is: internet comments come to life, a string of hateful, hopeful, hurtful words hurled into the void and spraying the crowd. A veritable smorgasbord of disdain — something to hate for everyone! They’re pro-Trump, dump-Trump, never-Trump, “Tramps Against Trump.”No real violence but pushing, shoving and a LOT of expletives but that is probably because there was one police officer for every civilian. Which is a good thing because:
at one point, the long-rifle brigade — the dudes in camo, which is readily detectable against asphalt gray, wearing tees that read “111% United Patriots of Texas” — wound up among the anti-Trump-ers. I asked a Dallas police officer to identify their weapons for accuracy’s sake: “One’s an AR-15, the other’s an AK-47.” The officer did not appear to be impressed.posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:58 PM on June 17, 2016
Man, the next few months are going to have some awesome media. I can't wait.
On the one hand, I agree with this, and will watch every single sketch comedy bit I can. On the other, I really wish the national discourse through November wouldn’t just be the two minutes hate, ad infinitum. Given that Trump is such a nullity, it would be nice if we could go back to talking about actual politics. But of course we kind of can’t because a) that nullity still might win, and b) we don’t want to look away.
I’d love to get some perspective on how the press has covered inevitably doomed campaigns as they’ve progressed. Did Goldwater and McGovern disappear in the last days, or were they great for ratings? What about in other elections?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:04 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
On the one hand, I agree with this, and will watch every single sketch comedy bit I can. On the other, I really wish the national discourse through November wouldn’t just be the two minutes hate, ad infinitum. Given that Trump is such a nullity, it would be nice if we could go back to talking about actual politics. But of course we kind of can’t because a) that nullity still might win, and b) we don’t want to look away.
I’d love to get some perspective on how the press has covered inevitably doomed campaigns as they’ve progressed. Did Goldwater and McGovern disappear in the last days, or were they great for ratings? What about in other elections?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:04 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
111%
At first I thought that this was somebody who doesn't know much about the extreme right misreading a Roman numerals 3% sign but there's people online using 111% as a right wing kook signifier so idk
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:05 PM on June 17, 2016
At first I thought that this was somebody who doesn't know much about the extreme right misreading a Roman numerals 3% sign but there's people online using 111% as a right wing kook signifier so idk
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:05 PM on June 17, 2016
Bernie to his supporters: I’m not “the revolution”—you are
posted by Drinky Die at 3:31 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
But thanks to his quixotic campaign, Sanders has raised $207.7 million, the result of 2.7 million people giving an average of $27 apiece. His campaign has pulled in tens of millions of email addresses and fostered the growth of sprawling progressive social media networks. The volunteer masses he’s mustered have made 75 million phone calls, knocked on 5 million doors, and hosted 74,000 meetings, said Sanders in his speech. In other words, Sanders has built the mechanisms and amassed the funding to create what could become a progressive grassroots organization—one that operates outside the Democratic Party.That's super. But if he isn't really running then he should probably concede now.
Of course, this notion isn’t exactly new. Candidates like Howard Dean, Ron Paul, and Barack Obama used internet fundraising and organizing to challenge their parties’ establishments. But none built anything much off the grassroots scaffolding that survived their campaigns (though, to be fair, only Obama actually tried). Then again, these guys were all running for president. Bernie, maybe, never really was.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:31 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders has raised $207.7 million, the result of 2.7 million people giving an average of $27 apiece.
2.7 x 27 = 72.9
posted by Going To Maine at 3:33 PM on June 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
2.7 x 27 = 72.9
posted by Going To Maine at 3:33 PM on June 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
chortly: Indeed, this claim -- that he was so far left as to be unrealistic and hopeless in his objectives -- was the main criticism made by the Clinton campaign.
Some of his ideas are unrealistic. At least one of his proposed ideas is hopeless: Abruptly ending current energy subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuel companies would likely cause US gasoline and oil prices to skyrocket. Without alternative financial subsidies for working families or renewable energy-generating solutions for those who own homes and vehicles that run on those substances, that would turn into a huge burden for the end consumer. And let's note that the end consumer would be affected in every aspect of their lives, because the companies that sell them goods and services would have to raise their prices, either due to rising transportation costs, heating or cooling bills, electric bills, etc.
So let's say you're Joe P. Schmo. You've got a wife, two kids under the age of 12, a car and a house. You're a dual income household and you're getting by, but not living luxuriously.
Gas for your car suddenly doubles or triples in price. Okay, no big deal. Oil for your home does too. Well.... you think... I can manage the higher heating bill. I have no choice. Your gas bill goes way up. You sure can't afford to replace your stove, so... you'll just have to deal with the increase. And then you get your electric bill and it's three times what it was last month. You go to the supermarket, and the cost of basic groceries has also skyrocketed. Same with clothing. And that's just the basics! Shelter, clothing, food! Never mind everything else you have to buy from month to month or other bills. Now, any financial cushion you had from month to month will certainly evaporate. Assuming you had one. Anyone living paycheck to paycheck is certainly screwed.
Ending our dependence on fossil fuels is the end goal. Getting there without totally screwing ourselves in the process is the tricky part.
It's easy to be idealistic. It's easy to make promises. Much harder to have to think several steps ahead to assess possible consequences. Thinking in terms of how our complex economy is interconnected and the many aspects of people's lives that need to be considered if one crucial change is made. To understand that most of the country currently runs on those "dirty energy" sources and to correct that requires changing infrastructure, not focusing on tax breaks. If I had seen that sort of thinking from Sanders, I would have voted for him. But I didn't even hear a reasonable, coherent explanation of how he was going to make sure the bill got passed.
I was listening, too.
posted by zarq at 3:33 PM on June 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
Some of his ideas are unrealistic. At least one of his proposed ideas is hopeless: Abruptly ending current energy subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuel companies would likely cause US gasoline and oil prices to skyrocket. Without alternative financial subsidies for working families or renewable energy-generating solutions for those who own homes and vehicles that run on those substances, that would turn into a huge burden for the end consumer. And let's note that the end consumer would be affected in every aspect of their lives, because the companies that sell them goods and services would have to raise their prices, either due to rising transportation costs, heating or cooling bills, electric bills, etc.
So let's say you're Joe P. Schmo. You've got a wife, two kids under the age of 12, a car and a house. You're a dual income household and you're getting by, but not living luxuriously.
Gas for your car suddenly doubles or triples in price. Okay, no big deal. Oil for your home does too. Well.... you think... I can manage the higher heating bill. I have no choice. Your gas bill goes way up. You sure can't afford to replace your stove, so... you'll just have to deal with the increase. And then you get your electric bill and it's three times what it was last month. You go to the supermarket, and the cost of basic groceries has also skyrocketed. Same with clothing. And that's just the basics! Shelter, clothing, food! Never mind everything else you have to buy from month to month or other bills. Now, any financial cushion you had from month to month will certainly evaporate. Assuming you had one. Anyone living paycheck to paycheck is certainly screwed.
Ending our dependence on fossil fuels is the end goal. Getting there without totally screwing ourselves in the process is the tricky part.
It's easy to be idealistic. It's easy to make promises. Much harder to have to think several steps ahead to assess possible consequences. Thinking in terms of how our complex economy is interconnected and the many aspects of people's lives that need to be considered if one crucial change is made. To understand that most of the country currently runs on those "dirty energy" sources and to correct that requires changing infrastructure, not focusing on tax breaks. If I had seen that sort of thinking from Sanders, I would have voted for him. But I didn't even hear a reasonable, coherent explanation of how he was going to make sure the bill got passed.
I was listening, too.
posted by zarq at 3:33 PM on June 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
111%
That's the interest rate from Quicken Loans (sponsor of the hall the GOP convention is being held in)
I don't know if studying the media from the Goldwater and McGovern campaigns would provide anything relevant; The Media is so very different now than it was then. Even the "legacy media" (New York Times, CBS, etc.) have a much smaller influence and are much changed in the way they do business AND journalism.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:41 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's the interest rate from Quicken Loans (sponsor of the hall the GOP convention is being held in)
I don't know if studying the media from the Goldwater and McGovern campaigns would provide anything relevant; The Media is so very different now than it was then. Even the "legacy media" (New York Times, CBS, etc.) have a much smaller influence and are much changed in the way they do business AND journalism.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:41 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
A Westminster system sounds good, and fun.
Is that the part where the Congress (parliament) murmur-heckles every speech? That would be cool.
posted by msalt at 3:43 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is that the part where the Congress (parliament) murmur-heckles every speech? That would be cool.
posted by msalt at 3:43 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Thinking about how Sanders not getting the nom, or becoming president, allows him to remain pure. Thinking about the inevitability that when President Clinton has to compromise, or some thing doesn't work out how she or her constituents and supporters would have liked, that we will hear the refrain "if only it was Bernie..." Thinking about how he will never have to strike those compromises or navigate the absurd landscape a Democratic president has to, and how that will allow a lot of his supporters to avoid confronting the downsides of political purity.
When I think about that, and read revisionist statements that it was never about becoming president, it really bothers me. It seemed an awful lot all primary season like it was about becoming president. And a president, especially in this political climate, cannot remain pure—some pragmatism and compromise is necessary.
posted by defenestration at 3:45 PM on June 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
When I think about that, and read revisionist statements that it was never about becoming president, it really bothers me. It seemed an awful lot all primary season like it was about becoming president. And a president, especially in this political climate, cannot remain pure—some pragmatism and compromise is necessary.
posted by defenestration at 3:45 PM on June 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
Candidates like Howard Dean, Ron Paul, and Barack Obama used internet fundraising and organizing to challenge their parties’ establishments. But none built anything much off the grassroots scaffolding that survived their campaigns (though, to be fair, only Obama actually tried).
Obama's scaffolding turned into Revolution Messaging, the online-only media consultants who have powered Bernie Sanders' entire campaign (and have received at least $27 million of the $207 million he has collected).
He didn't create them, and they don't seem to be doing too terribly much to bring a "revolution," though they're making a hell of a lot of money for a firm that appears to have about 35 employees. I wonder if they'll work for Clinton in the general?
posted by msalt at 3:53 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Obama's scaffolding turned into Revolution Messaging, the online-only media consultants who have powered Bernie Sanders' entire campaign (and have received at least $27 million of the $207 million he has collected).
He didn't create them, and they don't seem to be doing too terribly much to bring a "revolution," though they're making a hell of a lot of money for a firm that appears to have about 35 employees. I wonder if they'll work for Clinton in the general?
posted by msalt at 3:53 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
(and have received at least $27 million of the $207 million he has collected).
This is just too many 2s and 7s.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:59 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is just too many 2s and 7s.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:59 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hopefully Revolution can get her out of the telemarketing room.
Sanders has raised almost all of his money online compared to more than half, just this year, for Clinton. He has no offline fundraising staff and has held a total of just nine traditional fundraisers, while Clinton exceeded that number during a week in February.
“He was able to do what we want our political leaders to do instead of being locked up in a little room for hours and then going to only meet the donor class instead of going to those rallies,” Scott Goodstein, Revolution Messaging’s CEO and founder.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:01 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders has raised almost all of his money online compared to more than half, just this year, for Clinton. He has no offline fundraising staff and has held a total of just nine traditional fundraisers, while Clinton exceeded that number during a week in February.
“He was able to do what we want our political leaders to do instead of being locked up in a little room for hours and then going to only meet the donor class instead of going to those rallies,” Scott Goodstein, Revolution Messaging’s CEO and founder.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:01 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
But didn't she raise and spend a lot less and win the primary? I don't think there will be a shortage of funding for her general election campaign.
posted by defenestration at 4:03 PM on June 17, 2016
posted by defenestration at 4:03 PM on June 17, 2016
But didn't she raise and spend a lot less and win the primary? I don't think there will be a shortage of funding for her general election campaign.
She was losing the fundraising war up until the March primaries and Bernie's fundraising started to dry up. She's outraised him from April onwards and also spent less. I think she still has something like 42 million in the bank as of the end of May and that's only expanded since the end of April when she had 30 million cash on hand.
posted by Talez at 4:13 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
She was losing the fundraising war up until the March primaries and Bernie's fundraising started to dry up. She's outraised him from April onwards and also spent less. I think she still has something like 42 million in the bank as of the end of May and that's only expanded since the end of April when she had 30 million cash on hand.
posted by Talez at 4:13 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thomas Beaumont and Steve Peoples at the Associated Press: “Trump battleground plan relies on skeptical GOP leaders”
posted by Going To Maine at 4:23 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Trump is largely outsourcing what's typically called a campaign’s ground game, which includes the labor-intensive jobs of identifying and contacting potential supporters. Ed Brookover, recently tapped to serve as Trump’s liaison to the RNC, says the campaign is making progress on adding its own staff in key states.
The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.
“There are some holes,” Brookover said. ”There are fewer holes than there were.”eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
posted by Going To Maine at 4:23 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
I can't wrap my head around how much resistance there is to the idea that the Democratic party is kindof a mess and Americans in general are fed up with politics for a specific, changeable set of reasons including/not limited to politicians who are neither financially nor ideologically bound to the representation of their constituencies.
The reason there is resistance to that is that most Democrats don't believe that. If they did, Bernie would have won. He is 3x further back than Hillary was in 2008. Its not that close, actually.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:39 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The reason there is resistance to that is that most Democrats don't believe that. If they did, Bernie would have won. He is 3x further back than Hillary was in 2008. Its not that close, actually.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:39 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows
posted by Drinky Die at 4:41 PM on June 17, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 4:41 PM on June 17, 2016
The campaign estimates it currently has about 30 paid staff on the ground across the country.
Like that's. That's insane. In case you're not clear on just HOW insane:
List of Barack Obama presidential campaign staff members, 2008
List of John McCain presidential campaign staff members, 2008
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:48 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Like that's. That's insane. In case you're not clear on just HOW insane:
List of Barack Obama presidential campaign staff members, 2008
List of John McCain presidential campaign staff members, 2008
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:48 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
When I think about that, and read revisionist statements that it was never about becoming president, it really bothers me. It seemed an awful lot all primary season like it was about becoming president. And a president, especially in this political climate, cannot remain pure—some pragmatism and compromise is necessary.
Honestly this gets my fucking goat too, and i'm going to bring it up to my friends tonight offline. Remember the interviews where he snarkily replies to silly questions saying his goal is to be the president? Like more than once?
That's intellectually dishonest, and you're absolutely right that i'm going to have to hear a bunch of buttheads go on for years about how ~pure~ he was.
I fully expected him to only be able to accomplish an Obama amount of his objectives. Maybe he'd get big education subsidies in place, but not free higher ed, etc. But a lot of people i know were fucking all about him revolutionizing the country.
They're never going to shut up.
posted by emptythought at 4:49 PM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Honestly this gets my fucking goat too, and i'm going to bring it up to my friends tonight offline. Remember the interviews where he snarkily replies to silly questions saying his goal is to be the president? Like more than once?
That's intellectually dishonest, and you're absolutely right that i'm going to have to hear a bunch of buttheads go on for years about how ~pure~ he was.
I fully expected him to only be able to accomplish an Obama amount of his objectives. Maybe he'd get big education subsidies in place, but not free higher ed, etc. But a lot of people i know were fucking all about him revolutionizing the country.
They're never going to shut up.
posted by emptythought at 4:49 PM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
I can't wrap my head around how much resistance there is to the idea that the Democratic party is kind of a mess and Americans in general are fed up with politics for a specific, changeable set of reasons including/not limited to politicians who are neither financially nor ideologically bound to the representation of their constituencies.
The reason there is resistance to that is that most Democrats don't believe that. If they did, Bernie would have won. He is 3x further back than Hillary was in 2008. Its not that close, actually.
It’s a big country and a big party. There are lots of people who are totally fed up with it and lots of people that think it’s just fine, all at the same time.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:53 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
The reason there is resistance to that is that most Democrats don't believe that. If they did, Bernie would have won. He is 3x further back than Hillary was in 2008. Its not that close, actually.
It’s a big country and a big party. There are lots of people who are totally fed up with it and lots of people that think it’s just fine, all at the same time.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:53 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Meet the Shock Troops of Trump's America
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:55 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:55 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
It’s a big country and a big party.
I've been thinking about this a lot recently - compared to when the US was founded, we have over a hundred times more people. 3 million then, 300 million+ now.
I think, as a country and a planet, we've only just begun to grapple with the fact that our institutions don't necessarily scale. Can you take the town charter of a town of 10,000 people and expect to run a city of a million people based on that?
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:05 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
I've been thinking about this a lot recently - compared to when the US was founded, we have over a hundred times more people. 3 million then, 300 million+ now.
I think, as a country and a planet, we've only just begun to grapple with the fact that our institutions don't necessarily scale. Can you take the town charter of a town of 10,000 people and expect to run a city of a million people based on that?
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:05 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
YG & Nipsey Hussle - Fuck Donald Trump (official video)
posted by chrchr at 5:07 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by chrchr at 5:07 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Meet the Shock Troops of Trump's America
christ, I remember when the Young Republicans had enough vestigial concern about appearances to couch their racism in euphemism
posted by murphy slaw at 5:14 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
christ, I remember when the Young Republicans had enough vestigial concern about appearances to couch their racism in euphemism
posted by murphy slaw at 5:14 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think, as a country and a planet, we've only just begun to grapple with the fact that our institutions don't necessarily scale. Can you take the town charter of a town of 10,000 people and expect to run a city of a million people based on that?
I think the anarchists would like a word…
posted by Going To Maine at 5:16 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the anarchists would like a word…
posted by Going To Maine at 5:16 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think, as a country and a planet, we've only just begun to grapple with the fact that our institutions don't necessarily scale. Can you take the town charter of a town of 10,000 people and expect to run a city of a million people based on that?
It kind of never worked from the start either to be honest. Took a civil war and a lot more strife of all kinds to get where we are today. Honestly I think we have gotten this far with a whole lot of luck too.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:20 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
It kind of never worked from the start either to be honest. Took a civil war and a lot more strife of all kinds to get where we are today. Honestly I think we have gotten this far with a whole lot of luck too.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:20 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Indeed, this claim -- that he was so far left as to be unrealistic and hopeless in his objectives -- was the main criticism made by the Clinton campaign.
This is less about 'how far left a plan was' than about 'how working with data has warped me into a wonky numbers obsessive', but I was quite put off by the mathematics of Sanders' initial health care plan, which projected, among other things, annual prescription drugs savings greater than total annual drug spending.
It is one thing for candidates' policy proposals to be unrealistic - after all, they are mostly implausible idealizations of what the candidate would like to accomplish in office. It is another thing for one candidate's proposal to be inconsistent with itself or to be actually impossible - as in, it is impossible to cut the nation's prescription drug spending to less than $0. Such obvious errors put supporters into an unfair position. Especially since there are always claims of unrealistic economics brought against a left-leaning politicians, it is even more important to make sure that the work isn't so credibly tarred as unrealistic.
posted by palindromic at 5:25 PM on June 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
This is less about 'how far left a plan was' than about 'how working with data has warped me into a wonky numbers obsessive', but I was quite put off by the mathematics of Sanders' initial health care plan, which projected, among other things, annual prescription drugs savings greater than total annual drug spending.
It is one thing for candidates' policy proposals to be unrealistic - after all, they are mostly implausible idealizations of what the candidate would like to accomplish in office. It is another thing for one candidate's proposal to be inconsistent with itself or to be actually impossible - as in, it is impossible to cut the nation's prescription drug spending to less than $0. Such obvious errors put supporters into an unfair position. Especially since there are always claims of unrealistic economics brought against a left-leaning politicians, it is even more important to make sure that the work isn't so credibly tarred as unrealistic.
posted by palindromic at 5:25 PM on June 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
Some of his ideas are unrealistic. At least one of his proposed ideas is hopeless: Abruptly ending current energy subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuel companies would likely cause US gasoline and oil prices to skyrocket. ... It's easy to be idealistic. It's easy to make promises. Much harder to have to think several steps ahead to assess possible consequences. Thinking in terms of how our complex economy is interconnected and the many aspects of people's lives that need to be considered if one crucial change is made. To understand that most of the country currently runs on those "dirty energy" sources and to correct that requires changing infrastructure, not focusing on tax breaks. If I had seen that sort of thinking from Sanders, I would have voted for him. But I didn't even hear a reasonable, coherent explanation of how he was going to make sure the bill got passed.
I think all of these points are solid and plausible, and perfectly consistent with my claim that the main objection to Sanders was that "he was so far left as to be unrealistic and hopeless in his objectives". I didn't mean to suggest this criticism wasn't without merits. Judging realism is hard, particularly because in the real world there are many perverse effects. Will raising the minimum wage too quickly cause job losses? Will pursing single-payer hurt the existing ACA? Should we bomb Assad, even if that kills more people in the short term? Will giving too much aid to the poor disincentivize them from working? Would banning fracking in fact lead to more coal use? Would X or Y policy program (single-payer, free college) cost so much that it ends up hurting the very people it seeks to help?
These are common arguments against Sanders's idealistic, unrealistic policies. Whether we agree with them or not, we mostly agree that this is the structure of the disagreement within the left. What many people on the Clinton side don't seem to want to acknowledge, though, is that this structure is what characterizes all (reasonable) right-left disagreements. The reasonable conservative (Jeb, Romney, Ryan, etc) argues against the left not so much on the grounds that they don't favor the poor, the environment, etc, but that the left is hopelessly idealistic in its efforts to solve these problems, and that that idealism tends to backfire: money for the poor causes dependency; fear of foreign action causes more death; cutting fracking hurts the economy and Americans; raising the minimum wage depresses jobs; spending billions on X or Y costs too much.
This is what right-left disagreement (not including the Trump loons) looks like. Realism vs idealism. It's rarely a disagreement about ends, or goals, but about whether the means of the left -- grand programs, big spending -- are feasible or realistic or reasonable. And many of them aren't! But many Clinton folks I've encountered refuse to accept that these arguments just mean that they are (somewhat) to the right of Sanders folks. They think that because they object on the grounds of realism, they are not engaged in ideology, and we are all on the same ideological page. But this "realism" objection is indeed ideological -- it is precisely what (reasonable) right-left disagreement usually looks like, whether across parties or within them.
posted by chortly at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
I think all of these points are solid and plausible, and perfectly consistent with my claim that the main objection to Sanders was that "he was so far left as to be unrealistic and hopeless in his objectives". I didn't mean to suggest this criticism wasn't without merits. Judging realism is hard, particularly because in the real world there are many perverse effects. Will raising the minimum wage too quickly cause job losses? Will pursing single-payer hurt the existing ACA? Should we bomb Assad, even if that kills more people in the short term? Will giving too much aid to the poor disincentivize them from working? Would banning fracking in fact lead to more coal use? Would X or Y policy program (single-payer, free college) cost so much that it ends up hurting the very people it seeks to help?
These are common arguments against Sanders's idealistic, unrealistic policies. Whether we agree with them or not, we mostly agree that this is the structure of the disagreement within the left. What many people on the Clinton side don't seem to want to acknowledge, though, is that this structure is what characterizes all (reasonable) right-left disagreements. The reasonable conservative (Jeb, Romney, Ryan, etc) argues against the left not so much on the grounds that they don't favor the poor, the environment, etc, but that the left is hopelessly idealistic in its efforts to solve these problems, and that that idealism tends to backfire: money for the poor causes dependency; fear of foreign action causes more death; cutting fracking hurts the economy and Americans; raising the minimum wage depresses jobs; spending billions on X or Y costs too much.
This is what right-left disagreement (not including the Trump loons) looks like. Realism vs idealism. It's rarely a disagreement about ends, or goals, but about whether the means of the left -- grand programs, big spending -- are feasible or realistic or reasonable. And many of them aren't! But many Clinton folks I've encountered refuse to accept that these arguments just mean that they are (somewhat) to the right of Sanders folks. They think that because they object on the grounds of realism, they are not engaged in ideology, and we are all on the same ideological page. But this "realism" objection is indeed ideological -- it is precisely what (reasonable) right-left disagreement usually looks like, whether across parties or within them.
posted by chortly at 5:27 PM on June 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
They think that because they object on the grounds of realism, they are not engaged in ideology
neoliberalism.txt
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:31 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
neoliberalism.txt
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:31 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well put, chortly, but there are also many left-right disagreements that are all about principle (gun control, abortion, gay rights) or flat out denial of a problem (climate change, tobacco use, oil dependency) for reasons that I see as pure self-interest affecting perception or honesty.
There are a lot of movement conservatives who think things like public schools, welfare and species protection are just absolute wrongs, regardless of how well they "work." They often adopt the language of effectiveness for strategic reasons but it doesn't take much digging to expose the falseness of that.
On the left, there are similar attitudes about drones and GMOs, for example.
posted by msalt at 5:44 PM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
There are a lot of movement conservatives who think things like public schools, welfare and species protection are just absolute wrongs, regardless of how well they "work." They often adopt the language of effectiveness for strategic reasons but it doesn't take much digging to expose the falseness of that.
On the left, there are similar attitudes about drones and GMOs, for example.
posted by msalt at 5:44 PM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
This is what right-left disagreement (not including the Trump loons) looks like. Realism vs idealism.
No. There’s nothing particularly “realistic” about Paul Ryan’s budget plans, and the issue of Republicans failing to come up with a market-based solution to Obamacare has nothing to do with such a solution necessarily being unrealistic. While the campaigns certainly painted the divide between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters as one of realism vs. idealism, let’s not confuse philosophical approaches to the role of government with beliefs in working towards a tangible goal.
It’s undeniably true that many Clinton supporters are to the right of Sanders supporters - after all, she successfully got the right wing of the party to support her. However, it’s also true that many Clinton supporters view her social policies as stepping stones towards a more left set of policies in general. Personally, given her work on healthcare back in the nineties, as well as her 2008 support for a public option, I’m inclined to think that she, too, looks at her positions as stepping stones.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:44 PM on June 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
No. There’s nothing particularly “realistic” about Paul Ryan’s budget plans, and the issue of Republicans failing to come up with a market-based solution to Obamacare has nothing to do with such a solution necessarily being unrealistic. While the campaigns certainly painted the divide between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters as one of realism vs. idealism, let’s not confuse philosophical approaches to the role of government with beliefs in working towards a tangible goal.
It’s undeniably true that many Clinton supporters are to the right of Sanders supporters - after all, she successfully got the right wing of the party to support her. However, it’s also true that many Clinton supporters view her social policies as stepping stones towards a more left set of policies in general. Personally, given her work on healthcare back in the nineties, as well as her 2008 support for a public option, I’m inclined to think that she, too, looks at her positions as stepping stones.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:44 PM on June 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
The reasonable conservative (Jeb, Romney, Ryan, etc) argues against the left not so much on the grounds that they don't favor the poor, the environment, etc, but that the left is hopelessly idealistic in its efforts to solve these problems
This is not how I see it. The left and the right absolutely disagree about the means. The Jebs/Romneys/Ryans aren't saying that e.g. food stamps aren't realistic. They think that they trap recipients in poverty. To the right, the way to end poverty is to eliminate government interventions and lower taxes so that there are more jobs, and so that people are motivated to work for money. In contrast, mainstream Democrats mostly believe that government aid programs can help people to climb out of poverty. It's not a difference of belief about what is realistic.
posted by chrchr at 5:45 PM on June 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
This is not how I see it. The left and the right absolutely disagree about the means. The Jebs/Romneys/Ryans aren't saying that e.g. food stamps aren't realistic. They think that they trap recipients in poverty. To the right, the way to end poverty is to eliminate government interventions and lower taxes so that there are more jobs, and so that people are motivated to work for money. In contrast, mainstream Democrats mostly believe that government aid programs can help people to climb out of poverty. It's not a difference of belief about what is realistic.
posted by chrchr at 5:45 PM on June 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
On the left, there are similar attitudes about drones and GMOs, for example.
Damn, want to click favorite for calling out GMO attitudes but disagree on drones.
/sweats
posted by Drinky Die at 5:47 PM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
Damn, want to click favorite for calling out GMO attitudes but disagree on drones.
/sweats
posted by Drinky Die at 5:47 PM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
christ, I remember when the Young Republicans had enough vestigial concern about appearances to couch their racism in euphemism
That's because the Young Republicans were originally Eisenhowerites although eventually they did start to become Reaganauts. Moderate Republicans are Democrats now.
posted by Talez at 5:55 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's because the Young Republicans were originally Eisenhowerites although eventually they did start to become Reaganauts. Moderate Republicans are Democrats now.
posted by Talez at 5:55 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
To the right, the way to end poverty...
No, to a lot of 'the right', ENDING poverty is never the goal, the goal is to ensure that all those in poverty "Deserve it" by their moral standards. And for another segment, the only goal is "I got mine and I'm getting more". (Meanwhile, for a segment of 'the left', trying to end poverty, even ineffectively, is a way to assuage their guilt over "having mine")
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:57 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
No, to a lot of 'the right', ENDING poverty is never the goal, the goal is to ensure that all those in poverty "Deserve it" by their moral standards. And for another segment, the only goal is "I got mine and I'm getting more". (Meanwhile, for a segment of 'the left', trying to end poverty, even ineffectively, is a way to assuage their guilt over "having mine")
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:57 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
On the left, there are similar attitudes about drones and GMOs, for example.Damn, want to click favorite for calling out GMO attitudes but disagree on drones.
/sweats
Actually, despite being a common both-sides example, there is little to no evidence that attitudes towards GMOs are correlated with ideology.
posted by chortly at 6:02 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
They think that because they object on the grounds of realism, they are not engaged in ideology
But there are two flavors of realism
One is: it's not realistic to expect the US will ever have free college, we're just not that kind of country.
The other is: this particular plan will not get us free college
I can see how the first is ideological.
But if you object to the second on the grounds of ideology you're opening yourself up to all kinds of problems. In that case, no plan can be objected to -- person A can suggest we solve income inequality by printing and handing out money, but if person B thinks there are better ways to solve income inequality, he's automatically to the political right of person A.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 6:03 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
But there are two flavors of realism
One is: it's not realistic to expect the US will ever have free college, we're just not that kind of country.
The other is: this particular plan will not get us free college
I can see how the first is ideological.
But if you object to the second on the grounds of ideology you're opening yourself up to all kinds of problems. In that case, no plan can be objected to -- person A can suggest we solve income inequality by printing and handing out money, but if person B thinks there are better ways to solve income inequality, he's automatically to the political right of person A.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 6:03 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
That III% is a roman numeral, the symbol of the "three-percenters", a far-right subset. The number comes from the (inaccurate) idea that only 3% of Americans served in the Revolutionary War. Three-percenters were around during the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation. Or at least, three-percenter clothing was. I think it's more of a brand than a movement.
posted by fitnr at 6:04 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by fitnr at 6:04 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Free college isn't super useful for families who live in areas where the grammar schools and high schools are under performing in a big way. What percentage of people who aren't going to college support Bernie?
posted by puddledork at 6:08 PM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by puddledork at 6:08 PM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
One of these days, god willing, we'll get a person who is a social democrat AND a policy wonk into the White House. And the influence Sanders has had will probably make it happen sooner, which is why despite all the angst I'm very glad he ran. But given that we had to choose between the more centrist policy wonk and the social democrat idealist, I'm glad the wonk won.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:16 PM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:16 PM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
That III% is a roman numeral, the symbol of the "three-percenters", a far-right subset. The number comes from the (inaccurate) idea that only 3% of Americans served in the Revolutionary War. Three-percenters were around during the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation. Or at least, three-percenter clothing was. I think it's more of a brand than a movement.
That's what I thought, but there's also folks on the internet also using 111% (rather than III%) which makes me think either it's a legit psuedofash thing or just the general massive illiteracy of right-wing extremists striking again.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:16 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's what I thought, but there's also folks on the internet also using 111% (rather than III%) which makes me think either it's a legit psuedofash thing or just the general massive illiteracy of right-wing extremists striking again.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:16 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary won 63.3% to 35.2% among those with high school or less education. She won 53% to 45.2% among college graduates. She won 59.9% to 39.2% among people with post-graduate education.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:19 PM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:19 PM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
the general massive illiteracy of right-wing extremists
Innummeracy. Same thing that drives the "I'll just save for my OWN retirement" argument.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:19 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Innummeracy. Same thing that drives the "I'll just save for my OWN retirement" argument.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:19 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
What percentage of people who aren't going to college support Bernie?Hillary won 63.3% to 35.2% among those with high school or less education...
Of course, a lot of those people don't vote, especially in primaries, so it sort of depends on what question we're answering. Of those with HS or less who voted, Hillary won 63%. But of all Democrats with HS or less who expressed a preference for one candidate or the other in these polls, it's currently about 49%, and including independents, it's about 42%. So if we want to know what percentage of primary voters with no college support Sanders, it's about 35%. But if we care about the non-primary voters (some of whom may vote in the general, but many of whom probably won't), it's maybe 51-58%. (And that's not even getting into the question of whether we should control for race or age...)
posted by chortly at 6:44 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hillary won 63.3% to 35.2% among those with high school or less education. She won 53% to 45.2% among college graduates. She won 59.9% to 39.2% among people with post-graduate education.
Ha, this several times niw I've wondered "how did Clinton do with [the subgroups of a certain bloc]?" only to see someone post data that shows "oh, she won all of them"
posted by EatTheWeek at 6:45 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ha, this several times niw I've wondered "how did Clinton do with [the subgroups of a certain bloc]?" only to see someone post data that shows "oh, she won all of them"
posted by EatTheWeek at 6:45 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
But of all Democrats with HS or less who expressed a preference for one candidate or the other in these polls, it's currently about 49%...
This is interesting, especially if it scales across other demographics, because one private hunch I've had through the entire primary process has been that while it felt like Bernie was more popular, I also saw a lot of indications that people who were supporting him didn't entirely understand that there was a voting component of it.
I've also wondered if this wasn't why so many Bernie supporters felt so disenfranchised, and why so many believe that massive voter fraud is what prevented Bernie from winning. All these people at these rallies, sharing these memes on social media, with the stickers on their cars have to actually VOTE. Just preferring a candidate or even speaking up in favor of a candidate isn't enough.
posted by Sara C. at 6:52 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is interesting, especially if it scales across other demographics, because one private hunch I've had through the entire primary process has been that while it felt like Bernie was more popular, I also saw a lot of indications that people who were supporting him didn't entirely understand that there was a voting component of it.
I've also wondered if this wasn't why so many Bernie supporters felt so disenfranchised, and why so many believe that massive voter fraud is what prevented Bernie from winning. All these people at these rallies, sharing these memes on social media, with the stickers on their cars have to actually VOTE. Just preferring a candidate or even speaking up in favor of a candidate isn't enough.
posted by Sara C. at 6:52 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
...and then there are people who don't go to rallies, share on social media or put stickers on their cars, they JUST VOTE. And that's enough.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:03 PM on June 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:03 PM on June 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
What do you mean the side which shares the most memes on Tumblr doesn't win?
posted by Justinian at 7:07 PM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 7:07 PM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
What do you mean the side which shares the most memes on Tumblr doesn't win?
Actually, this raises an interesting point... on a site like Tumblr, a huge chunk of the userbase is under 18. I wonder what the proportion of 14-to-18-year-olds who backed Sanders vs. Clinton was. They might have been visible yet literally unable to vote. And those kids will all be voting in the next election... (Some might scoff at the idea of a 14-year-old who is politically engaged enough to have a preferred candidate, but I definitely remember caring A LOT about the elections that took place while I was in high school.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:19 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Actually, this raises an interesting point... on a site like Tumblr, a huge chunk of the userbase is under 18. I wonder what the proportion of 14-to-18-year-olds who backed Sanders vs. Clinton was. They might have been visible yet literally unable to vote. And those kids will all be voting in the next election... (Some might scoff at the idea of a 14-year-old who is politically engaged enough to have a preferred candidate, but I definitely remember caring A LOT about the elections that took place while I was in high school.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:19 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
, - ~ ~ ~ - ,
, ' ' ,
, I ,
, RETWEETED ,
, TODAY ,
, ,
, ,
, DID ,
, YOU? ,
, , '
' - , _ _ _ , '
posted by tonycpsu at 7:22 PM on June 17, 2016 [17 favorites] And they won't get off my lawn! *resumes shopping for belt onions on Amazon*
posted by Drinky Die at 7:23 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:23 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dozens of GOP delegates launch new push to halt Donald Trump.
I'm wondering how these people think this would work. Even if they change the rules to free up delegates on the first ballot, Trump has 65% of delegates and all of his opponents combined have only 35%.
Now, Trump's 65% aren't just randomly selected delegates. In most states each candidate gets to select their own slate of delegates. Presumably Trump's campaign directors in each state have selected delegates to represent him based on their loyalty to Trump. So the only way to overturn the results is if they can somehow persuade roughly 25% of Trump's hand-selected rabidly loyal delegates to betray him. How likely is that?
Changing the first ballot rules to release delegates only helps the 35% of divided opponent delegates unite around one candidate (Ted Cruz). It still doesn't get them anywhere near to 50%.
posted by JackFlash at 7:23 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm wondering how these people think this would work. Even if they change the rules to free up delegates on the first ballot, Trump has 65% of delegates and all of his opponents combined have only 35%.
Now, Trump's 65% aren't just randomly selected delegates. In most states each candidate gets to select their own slate of delegates. Presumably Trump's campaign directors in each state have selected delegates to represent him based on their loyalty to Trump. So the only way to overturn the results is if they can somehow persuade roughly 25% of Trump's hand-selected rabidly loyal delegates to betray him. How likely is that?
Changing the first ballot rules to release delegates only helps the 35% of divided opponent delegates unite around one candidate (Ted Cruz). It still doesn't get them anywhere near to 50%.
posted by JackFlash at 7:23 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
showbiz_liz:
> List of Barack Obama presidential campaign staff members, 2008
> List of John McCain presidential campaign staff members, 2008
Oh, Wikipedia. I could not have imagined, before this comment, that lists of campaign staff from 2008 were available to me for the clicking.
And yeah, in that context, "30 paid staffers" does seem rather insane, doesn't it?
posted by RedOrGreen at 7:28 PM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
> List of Barack Obama presidential campaign staff members, 2008
> List of John McCain presidential campaign staff members, 2008
Oh, Wikipedia. I could not have imagined, before this comment, that lists of campaign staff from 2008 were available to me for the clicking.
And yeah, in that context, "30 paid staffers" does seem rather insane, doesn't it?
posted by RedOrGreen at 7:28 PM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
JackFlash: Trump's 65% aren't just randomly selected delegates. [...] Presumably Trump's campaign directors in each state have selected delegates to represent him based on their loyalty to Trump.
Actually, in one of those previous interminable primary threads, someone (corb?) pointed out that the disorganization of the Trump campaign led to many hard core Cruz loyalists being elected as Trump delegates. This was part of Cruz's too-clever-for-his-own-good push to win on later ballots, back when a contested convention seemed like a distinct possibility.
Now, though - if something like that goes down, Cleveland will burn, and so will the Republican party. Trump owns the nomination fair and square.
posted by RedOrGreen at 7:32 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Actually, in one of those previous interminable primary threads, someone (corb?) pointed out that the disorganization of the Trump campaign led to many hard core Cruz loyalists being elected as Trump delegates. This was part of Cruz's too-clever-for-his-own-good push to win on later ballots, back when a contested convention seemed like a distinct possibility.
Now, though - if something like that goes down, Cleveland will burn, and so will the Republican party. Trump owns the nomination fair and square.
posted by RedOrGreen at 7:32 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
someone (corb?) pointed out that the disorganization of the Trump campaign led to many hard core Cruz loyalists being elected as Trump delegates.
That might be the case in a caucus state like Washington where delegates are selected by multiple rounds of conventions, but there aren't that many caucus delegates to make a difference.
posted by JackFlash at 7:38 PM on June 17, 2016
That might be the case in a caucus state like Washington where delegates are selected by multiple rounds of conventions, but there aren't that many caucus delegates to make a difference.
posted by JackFlash at 7:38 PM on June 17, 2016
a cargo cult of a Presidential campaign
That's absolutely the best analogy of his campaign I've come across. Right before returning to this thread I read this NYTMag piece about his campaign - and yes, that's exactly what it looks like, something with the outward appearance of a campaign but not the internal infrastructure, including the intellectual infrastructure, of an actual campaign.
posted by Miko at 7:49 PM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's absolutely the best analogy of his campaign I've come across. Right before returning to this thread I read this NYTMag piece about his campaign - and yes, that's exactly what it looks like, something with the outward appearance of a campaign but not the internal infrastructure, including the intellectual infrastructure, of an actual campaign.
posted by Miko at 7:49 PM on June 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
>>On the left, there are similar attitudes about drones and GMOs, for example.
>Damn, want to click favorite for calling out GMO attitudes but disagree on drones. /sweats
Ha! Nothing wrong about being against things on principle. I'd be suspicious of anyone who isn't; the dark self-congratulatory evil of realpolitik lies that way.
Eugenics and slavery are two easy examples of absolute wrongs. I don't really care how efficient or effective they might be, and I certainly don't want anyone doing studies to find out. Those are absolute wrongs.
I do prefer people to be honest about their absolutes though, and don't try to argue that, say, science disproves climate change, or that drones kill more innocent people than bombers or military invasions though.
posted by msalt at 8:04 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
>Damn, want to click favorite for calling out GMO attitudes but disagree on drones. /sweats
Ha! Nothing wrong about being against things on principle. I'd be suspicious of anyone who isn't; the dark self-congratulatory evil of realpolitik lies that way.
Eugenics and slavery are two easy examples of absolute wrongs. I don't really care how efficient or effective they might be, and I certainly don't want anyone doing studies to find out. Those are absolute wrongs.
I do prefer people to be honest about their absolutes though, and don't try to argue that, say, science disproves climate change, or that drones kill more innocent people than bombers or military invasions though.
posted by msalt at 8:04 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, and side note, there's an anti-science argument against GMOs, but there's also a pro-Commons, anti-intellectual property argument against GMOs, and it's unfair to conflate them, as one is legitimately a seriously left-friendly, populist/pro-Commons argument, where another is a shaky anti-science argument. There are real reasons to oppose GMOs that have a lot more to do with protecting global vernacular collective DNA heritage than with fears of Frankenfoods.
posted by Miko at 8:07 PM on June 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Miko at 8:07 PM on June 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
(Some might scoff at the idea of a 14-year-old who is politically engaged enough to have a preferred candidate, but I definitely remember caring A LOT about the elections that took place while I was in high school.)
In elementary school, I was quite strongly for George Bush pere because of his anti-broccoli stance.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:08 PM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
In elementary school, I was quite strongly for George Bush pere because of his anti-broccoli stance.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:08 PM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
I was definitely fundamentally unprepared for politics at age 14. I think there was a time I thought I was pro-life.
posted by Miko at 8:11 PM on June 17, 2016
posted by Miko at 8:11 PM on June 17, 2016
A bit off topic, but my Official Hillary for America Woman Card finally arrived, and I couldn't be more pleased. And I didn't even know there was a back to it!
On the reverse:
posted by Salieri at 8:14 PM on June 17, 2016 [45 favorites]
On the reverse:
Here are some of the perks your Woman Card gets you:I love this thing so much.
Lower wages! - 79 cents or less for every dollar a man makes.
No paid family leave! - 25% of women in America return to work within 10 days of having a child.
Limited access! to making your own reproductive health care decisions. (Varies by state.)
Power! to head to the polls and elect our first woman president.
posted by Salieri at 8:14 PM on June 17, 2016 [45 favorites]
I got my woman card today, too! I intend to play it at every opportunity.
posted by Superplin at 8:17 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 8:17 PM on June 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I remember getting into arguments with my best friend during the '72 election. He was all in for Nixon and I was a McGovernite. I would have been eight that year. We were odd kids.
posted by octothorpe at 8:17 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:17 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I was one of 2 or 3 Clinton stans in my middle school, when I was thirteen. I had a lot of good ideas, but mainly, although I didn't understand it then, I perceived that everyone else in school laughed at Democrats for the same reasons they laughed at me. Sadly, I think this is the driving force behind a lot of Americans' political attitudes throughout their lives. If FB is any indication, those kids have not changed their minds much.
posted by Countess Elena at 8:18 PM on June 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 8:18 PM on June 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yeah, and side note, there's an anti-science argument against GMOs, but there's also a pro-Commons, anti-intellectual property argument against GMOs, and it's unfair to conflate them, as one is legitimately a seriously left-friendly, populist/pro-Commons argument, where another is a shaky anti-science argument. There are real reasons to oppose GMOs that have a lot more to do with protecting global vernacular collective DNA heritage than with fears of Frankenfoods.
I honestly think that the framing of the issue as "idiots who think GMOs cause cancer" was a deliberate (and successful) attempt to obscure the more reasonable objections to loosely-restricted and loosely-regulated use of GMOs. The loss of genetic diversity in food crops is another one. I'd never be like "ban all GMOs," they're miraculous, but there are also issues with them that get utterly brushed aside along with the nutty "GMOs cause cancer" stuff.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:20 PM on June 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
I honestly think that the framing of the issue as "idiots who think GMOs cause cancer" was a deliberate (and successful) attempt to obscure the more reasonable objections to loosely-restricted and loosely-regulated use of GMOs. The loss of genetic diversity in food crops is another one. I'd never be like "ban all GMOs," they're miraculous, but there are also issues with them that get utterly brushed aside along with the nutty "GMOs cause cancer" stuff.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:20 PM on June 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
Maybe not the GMO derail in here?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:21 PM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 8:21 PM on June 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
Heh. Me too, on Bush Sr and broccoli. But my preference for Democrats was born when I read Iacocca - An Autobiography at age 10. True fact.
posted by bardophile at 8:21 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bardophile at 8:21 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe not the GMO derail in here?
Sorry!
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:22 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sorry!
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:22 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not willing to concede the right/left assignments to Sanders' chosen framing. Sanders is only left of Clinton if you think that (a certain subset of) economic policies count but basic human rights (abortion, and he actually endorsed a pro life congresswoman) and gun control do not count.
At this point it is really not obvious to me who is 'more left' by some global measure, nor that that matters so much. What matters is what will effectively move our society in a more progressive direction.
posted by Salamandrous at 8:24 PM on June 17, 2016 [30 favorites]
At this point it is really not obvious to me who is 'more left' by some global measure, nor that that matters so much. What matters is what will effectively move our society in a more progressive direction.
posted by Salamandrous at 8:24 PM on June 17, 2016 [30 favorites]
Where do you get a Woman Card?
25% of women in America return to work within 10 days of having a child.
Damn.
posted by Miko at 8:36 PM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
25% of women in America return to work within 10 days of having a child.
Damn.
posted by Miko at 8:36 PM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Donate to Hillary, get a Woman Card
TPM on the literal Woman Cards
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:39 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
TPM on the literal Woman Cards
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:39 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
At this point it is really not obvious to me who is 'more left' by some global measure, nor that that matters so much. What matters is what will effectively move our society in a more progressive direction.
I largely agree with this. However, there's a dimension that this reading doesn't cover, which is long term vs short term gains on progressive goals. I think the real disagreement between sensible progressive Sanders supporters and sensible progressive Clinton supporters lay in whether they thought that the Democrats have negotiated themselves out of their own political positions (I think they have) so much so that without big idealistic goalsetting, long term progressive goals would be structurally impossible to achieve.
I also think that the Sanders campaign, coupled with the Trump campaign, has left Clinton with the room to run more in line with her own progressive inclinations. Which suggests to me that Sanders being in the race right till the end (where end means Jun 7, or even 14) was important for the effective pursuit of progressive goals, but him being president was not.
posted by bardophile at 8:40 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I largely agree with this. However, there's a dimension that this reading doesn't cover, which is long term vs short term gains on progressive goals. I think the real disagreement between sensible progressive Sanders supporters and sensible progressive Clinton supporters lay in whether they thought that the Democrats have negotiated themselves out of their own political positions (I think they have) so much so that without big idealistic goalsetting, long term progressive goals would be structurally impossible to achieve.
I also think that the Sanders campaign, coupled with the Trump campaign, has left Clinton with the room to run more in line with her own progressive inclinations. Which suggests to me that Sanders being in the race right till the end (where end means Jun 7, or even 14) was important for the effective pursuit of progressive goals, but him being president was not.
posted by bardophile at 8:40 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
People4Bernie: What do we want? Political revolution! If we don't get it? Shut it down!
That's helpful...
posted by zachlipton at 8:44 PM on June 17, 2016
That's helpful...
posted by zachlipton at 8:44 PM on June 17, 2016
So if we want to know what percentage of primary voters with no college support Sanders, it's about 35%. But if we care about the non-primary voters (some of whom may vote in the general, but many of whom probably won't), it's maybe 51-58%.
To my eye, these kind of extrapolations are largely meaningless, though. I've this kind of reasoning on usuncut.com and other Bernie outlets; superdelegates should support Bernie because of some contorted mathematics about poll numbers and presumed voters in the general. I mean, we can hypothesize that there's a great untapped voter pool for Bernie that will come out in force in the general, but there's so many assumptions in that statement. And the logic works two ways: Bernie won the Washington caucuses with 72.7% of the vote (230,000 voters), but Clinton won the (nonbinding) primary vote with 54% of a much larger turnout (1.3M, of which we might assume somewhere between 40% to 60% are Democratic).
posted by Existential Dread at 8:47 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
To my eye, these kind of extrapolations are largely meaningless, though. I've this kind of reasoning on usuncut.com and other Bernie outlets; superdelegates should support Bernie because of some contorted mathematics about poll numbers and presumed voters in the general. I mean, we can hypothesize that there's a great untapped voter pool for Bernie that will come out in force in the general, but there's so many assumptions in that statement. And the logic works two ways: Bernie won the Washington caucuses with 72.7% of the vote (230,000 voters), but Clinton won the (nonbinding) primary vote with 54% of a much larger turnout (1.3M, of which we might assume somewhere between 40% to 60% are Democratic).
posted by Existential Dread at 8:47 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
People4Bernie: What do we want? Political revolution! If we don't get it? Shut it down!
some serious Ted Cruz fans there...
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:51 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
some serious Ted Cruz fans there...
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:51 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
: What do we want? Political revolution! If we don't get it? Shut it down!
some serious Ted Cruz fans there..
Or Todd Akin
posted by bardophile at 9:04 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
some serious Ted Cruz fans there..
Or Todd Akin
posted by bardophile at 9:04 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
People4Bernie: What do we want? Political revolution! If we don't get it? Shut it down!
Will this be like the Oakland general strike where everyone clogged the port for the day, fucked the truckers and then went home satisfied they made a difference?
posted by Talez at 9:14 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Will this be like the Oakland general strike where everyone clogged the port for the day, fucked the truckers and then went home satisfied they made a difference?
posted by Talez at 9:14 PM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
It will be like the PUMA crowd in 2008, but less so because there are fewer Bernie supporters who say they won't vote for the nominee.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:20 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:20 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Some of my Sanders loving pals have spent today sharing videos about how he will ultimately win California one all the ballots are counted and about how every single stare needs to be recounted because Sanders won all of them and Clinton stole all of them.
I keep singing "I Won't Back Down" to myself with sad irony on their behalf. They're helping lay the foundation for four more years of the opposition party claiming the president is illegitimate. They'll claim that anyways but is a pisser to see progressives taking the lend in discrediting a candidate with falsehoods.
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:25 PM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
I keep singing "I Won't Back Down" to myself with sad irony on their behalf. They're helping lay the foundation for four more years of the opposition party claiming the president is illegitimate. They'll claim that anyways but is a pisser to see progressives taking the lend in discrediting a candidate with falsehoods.
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:25 PM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Mod note: Don't be jerks to each other. (Be excellent to each other.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 9:40 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 9:40 PM on June 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
When I was 14 I was a total goober, going to city planning commission meetings for fun. My dream job was political pundit. or succeeding Kolchak the Night Stalker. But those were crazy times.
My first presidential campaign, barely aware, I shook Bobby Kennedy's hand a couple days before he was assassinated. In my second, my glorious lefty candidate collapsed and was crushed by Satan himself. Then Satan was forced to resign in disgrace a couple years later.
So at 14 I was watching Jimmy Carter vs. Gerald Ford develop and thinking, "This is the boringest election EVER." And that was the year that invented the Iowa caucus a a thing.
posted by msalt at 9:41 PM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
My first presidential campaign, barely aware, I shook Bobby Kennedy's hand a couple days before he was assassinated. In my second, my glorious lefty candidate collapsed and was crushed by Satan himself. Then Satan was forced to resign in disgrace a couple years later.
So at 14 I was watching Jimmy Carter vs. Gerald Ford develop and thinking, "This is the boringest election EVER." And that was the year that invented the Iowa caucus a a thing.
posted by msalt at 9:41 PM on June 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
In my previous comment, please read "one" as "once." Also, read "stare" as "state." Finally, remind me to use my glasses and to proof read my comments when I post. Thank you.
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:06 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 10:06 PM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm confused about why we're still debating Clinton vs Sanders polls when everyone's already voted and we know the outcome. Are we going to debate the odds on who will win the last World Series too?
posted by bongo_x at 1:13 AM on June 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by bongo_x at 1:13 AM on June 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
The World Series isn't over until it's over. Who can forget the 1979 Cubs comeback when they were down 4 games to 2 and eventually pulled off the upset in game 9?
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:29 AM on June 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:29 AM on June 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Guardian: Hillary Clinton in charge is OK, but Elizabeth Warren, too? That’s pushing it
Concern about women’s reproductive organs has long been the excuse for banning women from all manner of things, from marathons to pole vaulting, by men who apparently don’t realise that they have internal organs, too. This kind of essentialist biological baloney is frowned upon today. But honestly, I might prefer it to what has taken its place.posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:53 AM on June 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
Now, when people say, “But can a woman do x, y, z,”, they don’t mean, “Can a woman physically do this without stabbing herself in the ovaries?” They mean, “Can I bear to watch a woman do this without my testes crawling back up inside my body?” No longer do we have the polite pretence of concern for a woman’s physical wellbeing; we just have straight-up, unapologetic misogyny.
Made for History: A limited-edition collection from fashion's biggest names, designed to help elect the first woman president of the United States, and Democrats from coast to coast.
Indulge the youngish guy: is this typical? Did Obama sell t-shirts by Marc Jacobs too?
posted by rorgy at 4:58 AM on June 18, 2016
Indulge the youngish guy: is this typical? Did Obama sell t-shirts by Marc Jacobs too?
posted by rorgy at 4:58 AM on June 18, 2016
The Telegraph: Me vs Trump: How I got under The Donald's skin
“OK,” I say. “You’re basically alone. Your wife is still asleep” – he was then married to his second wife, Marla Maples – “you’re in the bathroom shaving and you see yourself in the mirror. What are you thinking?”posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:02 AM on June 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
From Trump, a look of incomprehension.
“I mean, are you looking at yourself and thinking, ‘Wow. I’m Donald Trump’?”
Trump remains puzzled.
“OK, I guess I’m asking, do you consider yourself ideal company?”
At the time, I deemed Trump’s reply unprintable. But that was then. Trump says: “You really want to know what I consider ideal company?”
Me: “Yes.”
Trump: “A total piece of ass.”
A similar link was posted above, but this exchange just blew my mind. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I wonder if Ryan is getting behind Trump just so he can stab him in the back:
Ryan: Republicans Should 'Absolutely' Follow Their Conscience On Trump
This is not a Trump supporter, and I think he must have some game plan. I hope it's dumping Trump - and from reports of the size of Donald'sfingerscampaign team, the Republicans can't lose by dumping him. But otherwise, Ryan must think that his own position is improved by sounding half-hearted about Trump. So even if Ryan expects Trump to retain his position, he doesn't believe that Trump's followers are in a position to hurt him.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:07 AM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ryan: Republicans Should 'Absolutely' Follow Their Conscience On Trump
"Absolutely," he told NBC's "Meet the Press." "The last thing I would do is tell anybody to do something that's contrary to their conscience. Of course I wouldn't do that."That question should have been a gimme. Ryan is a politician, he knows how to answer questions like that. For instance, he could have gone on the attack: "Vote their conscience? I hope they do vote their conscience! The democrat nominee is an awful, power-hungry, establishment liar. She is a meanie and smells. We need to make America great again." Or he could have denied that conscience is an issue: "We are a vast and great party that is uniting behind Donald Trump like never before. Of course you can find a few contrarians in a party this size ..." He could have even defended The Donald. But what does he do? He simpers! "Oh, yes, conscience is so important! Don't vote for our nominee if you feel troubled!"
Ryan has endorsed Trump for president, and is the chair of this year's Republican National Convention.
This is not a Trump supporter, and I think he must have some game plan. I hope it's dumping Trump - and from reports of the size of Donald's
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:07 AM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Right before returning to this thread I read this NYTMag piece about his campaign - and yes, that's exactly what it looks like, something with the outward appearance of a campaign but not the internal infrastructure, including the intellectual infrastructure, of an actual campaign.
posted by Miko at 10:49 PM on June 17
I went back and re-read that piece (such a fascinating look inside his campaign) and I was struck by this poster: http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/donald-trump-vote-art-poster.jpg that is all over his headquarters. Why does he have black hair in that poster? I know it is meant to be arip off of homage to the Shepard Fairey Obama poster but the excessive shading of his hair kept catching my eye. Trump has never had dark hair-- even in his youth he was a blonde but this poster makes him look like a young man with black hair. Sad.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:12 AM on June 18, 2016
posted by Miko at 10:49 PM on June 17
I went back and re-read that piece (such a fascinating look inside his campaign) and I was struck by this poster: http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/donald-trump-vote-art-poster.jpg that is all over his headquarters. Why does he have black hair in that poster? I know it is meant to be a
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:12 AM on June 18, 2016
Indulge the youngish guy: is this typical? Did Obama sell t-shirts by Marc Jacobs too?
Rorgy, there's still a shop at barackobama.com that sells Ts and stuff. As far as celebrity designers, apparently Anna Wintour asked her pals (including Marc Jacobs) to design items as a fundraiser for the Obama campaign in 2012: "In addition to Beyoncé, Diddy and hip-hip impresario Russell Simmons, others who’ve thrown in include First Lady Michelle Obama fave designer Jason Wu, as well as Rachel Roy, Narciso Rodriguez, Marc Jacobs, Diane Von Furstenberg, rag & bone, Altuzarra, Alexander Wang, Tory Burch and Tracy Reese."
posted by taz at 5:55 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Rorgy, there's still a shop at barackobama.com that sells Ts and stuff. As far as celebrity designers, apparently Anna Wintour asked her pals (including Marc Jacobs) to design items as a fundraiser for the Obama campaign in 2012: "In addition to Beyoncé, Diddy and hip-hip impresario Russell Simmons, others who’ve thrown in include First Lady Michelle Obama fave designer Jason Wu, as well as Rachel Roy, Narciso Rodriguez, Marc Jacobs, Diane Von Furstenberg, rag & bone, Altuzarra, Alexander Wang, Tory Burch and Tracy Reese."
posted by taz at 5:55 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
bongo_x: "I'm confused about why we're still debating Clinton vs Sanders polls when everyone's already voted and we know the outcome. Are we going to debate the odds on who will win the last World Series too?"
It is getting tedious. The republicans have nominated the worst candidate in living history and we're still here debating the primaries that have effectively been over for months.
posted by octothorpe at 5:57 AM on June 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
It is getting tedious. The republicans have nominated the worst candidate in living history and we're still here debating the primaries that have effectively been over for months.
posted by octothorpe at 5:57 AM on June 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
What's this new BS being spread by BernieBros about guccifer 2.0s documents showing collusion between the dnc and the media not to support Bernie? I need retorts to these loons. Ffs, these are people I genuinely respected before they started sharing nonsense. Then they start posting things from these conspiracy theory nonsense sites.
Example 1
Example 2
posted by Twain Device at 5:59 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Example 1
Example 2
posted by Twain Device at 5:59 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The guccifer2 email is shady as hell not only for its purported origins. Leaving aside that "here's a picture of a purported email" is not exactly what you'd call conclusive proof of anything, there's also:
- The From field has been cropped out in order to put the DNC at the top of the image (implying that they're who it's from if you're not looking closely/critically)- look at how many people are attributing the contents of that email, which was addressed to the DNC, to the DNC.
- As such, we have no idea who it's from- Matt Haughey could've sent that email for all we can tell from looking at that picture, or I could have.
- There's no proof that the email in the picture is actually real- where's the headers? Where's the actual email? Why should anybody believe that this wasn't put together in Word?
Why would you even need to respond to folks that post silliness like that? Do you think that you'll bring them around?
posted by octothorpe at 6:21 AM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:21 AM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Because it's disappointing to see intelligent friends fall down into a pit of stupidity and one wants to rescue them?
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:23 AM on June 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:23 AM on June 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also, look at the date- Sanders was polling at like 10% at that point and wasn't really considered a serious candidate yet. So even if the email is real (I'm skeptical) and the DNC and their interlocutor (the DNC didn't send that email, remember) was ignoring him and focusing on Hillary (at the time the only serious candidate- what, they should've given a shit about O'Malley?), at worst they were ignoring the possibility of a fringe candidate who looked no more viable than O'Malley, Chaffee, or Webb becoming a serious contender.
If anything, that's actually a point in favor of the email being a real thing- if you were dishonestly trying to stir up shit, you'd surely come up with something that shows actual malice, and not in the Bernie-or-Buster "the DNC owes Sanders the nomination and any other action is <Ruxin>COLLUSION</Ruxin>!" mode.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:29 AM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
If anything, that's actually a point in favor of the email being a real thing- if you were dishonestly trying to stir up shit, you'd surely come up with something that shows actual malice, and not in the Bernie-or-Buster "the DNC owes Sanders the nomination and any other action is <Ruxin>COLLUSION</Ruxin>!" mode.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:29 AM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm confused about why we're still debating Clinton vs Sanders polls when everyone's already voted and we know the outcome. Are we going to debate the odds on who will win the last World Series too?
Well, complaining about biased referees in the basketball championships can get you a $25000 fine, but complaining about about politics is still free! (yippee?)
posted by puddledork at 6:49 AM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, complaining about biased referees in the basketball championships can get you a $25000 fine, but complaining about about politics is still free! (yippee?)
posted by puddledork at 6:49 AM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Paraphrasing:
"We're sitting in here, and I'm supposed to be the candidate, and we in here talking about primaries. I mean, listen, we're talking about primaries, not a general, not a general, not a general, we talking about primaries. Not a general. Not, not … Not the general that I go out there and die for and play every general like it's my last. Not the general, but we're talking about primaries, man. I mean, how silly is that? … And we talking about primaries. I know I supposed to be there. I know I'm supposed to lead by example... I know that... And I'm not.. I'm not shoving it aside, you know, like it don't mean anything.
"I know it's important, I do. I honestly do... But we're talking about primaries man. What are we talking about? primaries? We're talking about primaries, man. [laughter from the media crowd] We're talking about primaries. We're talking about primaries. We ain't talking about the general. [more laughter] We're talking about primaries, man. When you come to the campaign, and you see me speak, you see me speak don't you? You've seen me give everything I've got, right? But we're talking about primaries right now."
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:57 AM on June 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
"We're sitting in here, and I'm supposed to be the candidate, and we in here talking about primaries. I mean, listen, we're talking about primaries, not a general, not a general, not a general, we talking about primaries. Not a general. Not, not … Not the general that I go out there and die for and play every general like it's my last. Not the general, but we're talking about primaries, man. I mean, how silly is that? … And we talking about primaries. I know I supposed to be there. I know I'm supposed to lead by example... I know that... And I'm not.. I'm not shoving it aside, you know, like it don't mean anything.
"I know it's important, I do. I honestly do... But we're talking about primaries man. What are we talking about? primaries? We're talking about primaries, man. [laughter from the media crowd] We're talking about primaries. We're talking about primaries. We ain't talking about the general. [more laughter] We're talking about primaries, man. When you come to the campaign, and you see me speak, you see me speak don't you? You've seen me give everything I've got, right? But we're talking about primaries right now."
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:57 AM on June 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Darwin Awards is a popular website that “commemorates individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives... I’d like to nominate a certain political party for one. It should win hands down.The Self-Immolation of the Republican Party
The competition is tough. “All human races, cultures, and socioeconomic groups are eligible,” according to the contest rules. Though these rules do not specifically mention political institutions, the Republican Party, founded in 1854, meets the criteria for entry. No doubt about it...
This is not a good man. This is not a stable man. It is in the self-interest of no rational person to have him near the situation room...
The election isn’t until November 8. Where will Trump’s unfavorable rating be then? 85 percent? 90? He’ll make the record books all right—as the most reviled nominee in U.S. history...
It’s a joke. All of it: his candidacy, the apparatus of propaganda and grift surrounding it, the failures of governance and education and culture that have brought us to this place. What disturbs me most is the prospect that Donald Trump is what a very large number of Republican voters want: not a wonk, not an orator, not a statesman, not even a leader, really, if by leader you mean someone who persuades and inspires and manages a team to pursue a common good. They just want a man who vents their anger at targets above and below their status.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity. It’s what one expects of teenagers, artists, bloggers, pajama boys—immature, peevish, radical, self-destructive behavior. If that is how Republican voters would like to end their days, in a defensive posture of suspicion and loathing of this big crazy wonderful country that has made them literally the wealthiest and most entitled generation of human beings in the history of the world, well, that’s their right as Americans, I suppose. Best of luck. The Darwin Award will be ready for you November 9.
posted by y2karl at 7:50 AM on June 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
But Really, How Does Trump Get Away with All This Sh*t?
posted by octothorpe at 7:58 AM on June 18, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 7:58 AM on June 18, 2016
Trump Argues Polls Are Inaccurate Because His Supporters are "Embarrassed." A Reverse Bradley Effect, if you will.
posted by zakur at 8:13 AM on June 18, 2016
posted by zakur at 8:13 AM on June 18, 2016
Gosh Donald, why would your supporters possibly be embarrassed?
posted by dersins at 8:23 AM on June 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dersins at 8:23 AM on June 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
The polls were awesome and good in the primaries. But now the polls are dumb and bad in the general.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:25 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:25 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The poll unskewing season is starting early this year.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:33 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:33 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump Argues Polls Are Inaccurate Because His Supporters are "Embarrassed." A Reverse Bradley Effect, if you will.
It is possible that he's right. But even the Shy Tory effect isn't that substantial. I mean, assume he's polling 5 points too low -- that puts him at 42-47%. He still loses most polls, especially likely voter polls.
And 5 points is generous. I think the true Shy Tory effect was more like 2-3%.
posted by dw at 8:35 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is possible that he's right. But even the Shy Tory effect isn't that substantial. I mean, assume he's polling 5 points too low -- that puts him at 42-47%. He still loses most polls, especially likely voter polls.
And 5 points is generous. I think the true Shy Tory effect was more like 2-3%.
posted by dw at 8:35 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Plenty of what?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:38 AM on June 18, 2016
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:38 AM on June 18, 2016
And looking at these Guccifer emails, Pope Guilty is right: Where are the headers? Why is it set in Century Schoolbook, a serif font, when every email reader uses sans serif fonts by default? Why is the writing so clumsy? (Look at how there's something missing after "Ultimately, we need to" in the second para.) The rest of it reads like someone didn't proofread it -- and seriously, if you're going to send it out from the "Democratic National Committee" as an official edict, wouldn't you proofread the damn thing at least twice?
This is a hoax, and it's a pretty obvious one. I smell 4chan.
posted by dw at 8:50 AM on June 18, 2016
This is a hoax, and it's a pretty obvious one. I smell 4chan.
posted by dw at 8:50 AM on June 18, 2016
What's a pajama boy? It sounds intriguing.
posted by museum of fire ants at 9:06 AM on June 18, 2016
posted by museum of fire ants at 9:06 AM on June 18, 2016
There's no proof that the email in the picture is actually real- where's the headers? Where's the actual email? Why should anybody believe that this wasn't put together in Word?
I've always wondered about this. How can we trust that any email leak is not a forgery? I guess the Clinton emails came right off her server, but even then, there's basically nothing preventing someone with access from untraceably placing forged emails in that database. This is even more ridiculously difficult to verify.
And someone please explain to me why politicos don't encrypt all their communications?
posted by dis_integration at 9:06 AM on June 18, 2016
I've always wondered about this. How can we trust that any email leak is not a forgery? I guess the Clinton emails came right off her server, but even then, there's basically nothing preventing someone with access from untraceably placing forged emails in that database. This is even more ridiculously difficult to verify.
And someone please explain to me why politicos don't encrypt all their communications?
posted by dis_integration at 9:06 AM on June 18, 2016
The poll unskewing season is starting early this year.
Well it used to be that the stupid season in politics didn't start until mid-July-ish. Came about eight months early this cycle.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:24 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well it used to be that the stupid season in politics didn't start until mid-July-ish. Came about eight months early this cycle.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:24 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, honestly, it doesn't even matter whether the emails are real, or who they are from.
The great "revelations" that have the Berners all agog and a-Twitter are, like pretty much everything else that has had them agog and-Twitter this cycle, the things that every national campaign and national party of any significance has been doing for decades: they have a comms department whose job is to try to get the media to do what they want, to try to get the media amplify the message they want.
All the internet brouhaha is either fauxtrage from people who know better but want to perform being shocked, shocked there's gambling going on in here, or is coming from people who just started paying attention to politics like eight minutes ago and have zero understanding of how any of this actually works.
posted by dersins at 9:25 AM on June 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
The great "revelations" that have the Berners all agog and a-Twitter are, like pretty much everything else that has had them agog and-Twitter this cycle, the things that every national campaign and national party of any significance has been doing for decades: they have a comms department whose job is to try to get the media to do what they want, to try to get the media amplify the message they want.
All the internet brouhaha is either fauxtrage from people who know better but want to perform being shocked, shocked there's gambling going on in here, or is coming from people who just started paying attention to politics like eight minutes ago and have zero understanding of how any of this actually works.
posted by dersins at 9:25 AM on June 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
why politicos don't encrypt all their communications
wasn't there a thing about how encryption was evil and terrorist-enabling?
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:25 AM on June 18, 2016
wasn't there a thing about how encryption was evil and terrorist-enabling?
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:25 AM on June 18, 2016
I disagree with the thesis that just because you are a realist that you are to the right of idealists.
Some idealists are fascists and some realists are Marxists.
Just because you are willing to accept compromise doesn't make you right leaning it means that you understand that the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
I prefer single payer but I also think ACA made some improvements for people. Yadaa Yadaa
posted by vuron at 10:05 AM on June 18, 2016 [29 favorites]
Some idealists are fascists and some realists are Marxists.
Just because you are willing to accept compromise doesn't make you right leaning it means that you understand that the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
I prefer single payer but I also think ACA made some improvements for people. Yadaa Yadaa
posted by vuron at 10:05 AM on June 18, 2016 [29 favorites]
Quite. I believe strongly in single-payer (improved Medicare for all, or a state-by-state single payer solution), and also my day job for the last three years has been implementing the ACA. There's not a contradiction.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:27 AM on June 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:27 AM on June 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
What's a pajama boy ? It sounds intriguing.
Good question -- it was a term with which I was unfamiliar as well.
But now, after looking it up, all I can say is Ooh! Sick burn! -- considering it is a wingnut meme in origin.
posted by y2karl at 11:03 AM on June 18, 2016
Good question -- it was a term with which I was unfamiliar as well.
But now, after looking it up, all I can say is Ooh! Sick burn! -- considering it is a wingnut meme in origin.
posted by y2karl at 11:03 AM on June 18, 2016
Would Donald Trump really drop out for $150 million?
Trump’s Embarrassing VP Short List Leaks And It Completely Reeks Of Failure
many offered to pitch in themselves. "If you're taking up a collection..." tweeted conservative Iowa radio host Steve Deace, who backed Ted Cruz in the primary.Bill Kristol loves the idea so I guess that means it is a doomed venture.
One nationally known and well-connected investor told POLITICO that the idea was attractive, despite the practical hurdles. “There are any number of both Republican and Democratic donors who would” put up money, the investor wrote. “But the coordination (donor side) and ego (candidate) side seem overwhelming.” The investor suggested that donors might induce Trump to take a deal by offering to fund his reported ambitions to start his own media company.
Trump’s Embarrassing VP Short List Leaks And It Completely Reeks Of Failure
Trump VP List as of now, sources tell @politico:posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:31 AM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
1)Chris Christie
2)Newt Gingrich
3)Jeff Sessions
4)Mary Fallin
There is not a single top Republican in the party on that list. Chris Christie is wildly unpopular, both nationally, and in New Jersey. If Trump selects Christie, he may make the Republican Party even more reviled than it currently is. Newt Gingrich would be the perfect match for Trump. Both men are serial adulterers and pathological liars with boundless amounts of ego. Jeff Sessions would do nothing for the Trump ticket as Trump could win Alabama in November with an old pair of socks as his running mate, and Mary Fallin looks to be the token woman on the list. If Trump did choose Fallin, he would not help his ticket as the red state governor is unknown outside of Oklahoma.
Holy shit what if it's Newt
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:37 AM on June 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:37 AM on June 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, though... Trump and Newt are peas in a pod but I think there's an argument to be made that Trump would prefer a Wormtongue-esque toady to another Media Personality type. So I'm ramping up for Christiementum 2.0
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:40 AM on June 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:40 AM on June 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Then we're gonna have the best moon base ever! It'll be huge. And full of classy people!
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:40 AM on June 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:40 AM on June 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
With Chris Christie, I'm reminded of nothing so much as Sir Thomas More addressing Richard Rich in A Man for All Seasons:
"Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?"posted by Salieri at 11:42 AM on June 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
How would a Trump-Gingrich ticket even work? Is that much ego and hubris even allowed on a single ticket?
I think it's going to be Fallin, and it's not about winning Oklahoma, it's about her being Sarah Palin without any of the Sarah Palin baggage.
Chris Christie... he's the Theon Grayjoy of the campaign, I tell ya.
posted by dw at 11:44 AM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it's going to be Fallin, and it's not about winning Oklahoma, it's about her being Sarah Palin without any of the Sarah Palin baggage.
Chris Christie... he's the Theon Grayjoy of the campaign, I tell ya.
posted by dw at 11:44 AM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Chris Christie... he's the Theon Grayjoy of the campaign, I tell ya.
If Cruz actually stages an anti-Trump coup in Cleveland, it shall be known as the Battle of the Bastards
posted by saturday_morning at 11:47 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Cruz actually stages an anti-Trump coup in Cleveland, it shall be known as the Battle of the Bastards
posted by saturday_morning at 11:47 AM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
He won't even pick a Grima Wormtongue, he'll only tolerate a totally sycophantic enforcer.
He's only stringing Christie along for maximum humiliation factor. I think it'll be his most loyal "operative"-slash-henchperson of the campaign, Lewandowski. You heard it here first.
posted by chimaera at 11:48 AM on June 18, 2016
He's only stringing Christie along for maximum humiliation factor. I think it'll be his most loyal "operative"-slash-henchperson of the campaign, Lewandowski. You heard it here first.
posted by chimaera at 11:48 AM on June 18, 2016
Today is the fund raiser in Barry Goldwater's old home followed by a rally in Phoenix at the state fairgrounds. Goldwater's widow says ‘yuck’ to Trump fundraiser at their old Arizona home
Chris Christie... he's the Theon Grayjoy of the campaign, I tell ya
Eeewww. Has anyone seen Trump eating sausages?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:49 AM on June 18, 2016
In 1998, two years after Goldwater passed away, the family sold the home to Karen and Robert Hobbs.Another tepid supporter, 'Although Hobbs doesn’t know Trump and he isn’t sure that Trump is conservative, “he’s who our nominee is.”' Also love how Goldwater's widow's opion about her husband is less trustworthy because she was his second wife. Unfortunately for Robert Hobbes, Barry Goldwater, Jr. is on record saying he will not vote for Trump and neither would his father.
Robert Hobbs told the Post that he was approached by Trump’s team and asked to host the fundraiser. Although Hobbs doesn’t know Trump and he isn’t sure that Trump is conservative, “he’s who our nominee is.”
Hobbs also implied that Levine’s opinion about Trump and the fundraiser are less important because she was his second wife.
“She was his second wife; she’s not his first wife,” he said to the Post. “So she came along later in life…. She’s entitled to her opinion, but Barry was a Republican and Donald Trump’s a Republican, and we’re going to support whoever the Republican nominee is.”
Chris Christie... he's the Theon Grayjoy of the campaign, I tell ya
Eeewww. Has anyone seen Trump eating sausages?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:49 AM on June 18, 2016
I think it'll be his most loyal "operative"-slash-henchperson of the campaign, Lewandowski. You heard it here first.
Interesting idea except that Trump has already said he needs someone who knows how to govern so that the VP can do the day to day stuff and He, Trump, can kick back and relax.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:52 AM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Interesting idea except that Trump has already said he needs someone who knows how to govern so that the VP can do the day to day stuff and He, Trump, can kick back and relax.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:52 AM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
He's only stringing Christie along for maximum humiliation factor.
"Everybody loves a fat guy. People will watch if you have a funny fat guy around. Trust me, it’s good for ratings."
posted by peeedro at 11:54 AM on June 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Everybody loves a fat guy. People will watch if you have a funny fat guy around. Trust me, it’s good for ratings."
posted by peeedro at 11:54 AM on June 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Chelsea Clinton had a boy. Aidan Clinton Mezvinsky
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:02 PM on June 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:02 PM on June 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think you're right, Lewandowski is going to be more of a Doug Stamper, only without the competence. And perhaps without the nagging conscience.
posted by chimaera at 12:03 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by chimaera at 12:03 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's going to be Fallin, and it's not about winning Oklahoma, it's about her being Sarah Palin without any of the Sarah Palin baggage.
Oh, Fallin's got plenty of baggage. I'll leave it up to any Oklahomans(sp?) in the thread to give the full rundown.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:05 PM on June 18, 2016
Oh, Fallin's got plenty of baggage. I'll leave it up to any Oklahomans(sp?) in the thread to give the full rundown.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:05 PM on June 18, 2016
It’s a joke. All of it: his candidacy, the apparatus of propaganda and grift surrounding it, the failures of governance and education and culture that have brought us to this place. What disturbs me most is the prospect that Donald Trump is what a very large number of Republican voters want: not a wonk, not an orator, not a statesman, not even a leader, really, if by leader you mean someone who persuades and inspires and manages a team to pursue a common good. They just want a man who vents their anger at targets above and below their status.
I was reading the comments on another site - fark, or lgm, or something, and one stuck with me (paraphrased)
REPUBLICAN MODERATE, circa 1999-2015:
"Why do we have to run a politician, some washington insider, somone beholden to the big donors? Why can't we have someone who speaks his mind, none of that double-talk? Why not a businessman, someone who can get things done, someone who can jettison all that Evangelical religious nonsense and represent middle-class Americans, small-business owners, veterans, with common sense?
Oh hey, what's this monkey's-paw?"
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:12 PM on June 18, 2016 [34 favorites]
From peeedro's link:
Meanwhile, elsewhere on NBC (the network that gave us "Apprentice" AND is fully owned by Comcast, who would LOVE an asshole like Trump appointing FCC commissioners), Seth Meyers has apparently gotten a feud going with His Network's Greatest Monster and made him an intriguing offer.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:19 PM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bill Pruitt, producer on Seasons 1 and 2 of The Apprentice, and later a producer on the reality shows The Amazing Race and Deadliest Catch:Yes, Mr. Pruitt, you share some of the blame for how "Reality TV" (can you even use that oxymoronic term with a straight face when you right there have admitted it's NOT reality?) has ruined America, of which the Trump candidacy is only the most obvious symptom.
“I’ve been struggling with the whole experience of watching Trump go from punch line to GOP nominee, because of how it reflects on reality TV, which is the work I’ve been dedicating my life to for the last 10 years. The associations are glaring. Those in our business who hadn’t already taken stock of what we wrought, we’re doing it now. I might have signed an NDA back in the day that would allow someone to come after me, but I feel almost a patriotic duty to talk about this.
“Those of us involved in the show are proud of our work. But we might have given the guy a platform and created this candidate. It’s guys like him, narcissists with dark Machiavellian traits, who dominate in our culture, on TV, and in the political realm. It can be dangerous when we confuse stories we’re told with reality. We need to wake up—and that’s from someone who helped tell these stories.”
Meanwhile, elsewhere on NBC (the network that gave us "Apprentice" AND is fully owned by Comcast, who would LOVE an asshole like Trump appointing FCC commissioners), Seth Meyers has apparently gotten a feud going with His Network's Greatest Monster and made him an intriguing offer.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:19 PM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Apple won't aid GOP convention over Trump
Apple has told Republican leaders it will not provide funding or other support for the party’s 2016 presidential convention, as it's done in the past, citing Donald Trump’s controversial comments about women, immigrants and minorities.posted by tonycpsu at 12:23 PM on June 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
who's donating the teleprompters though
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:29 PM on June 18, 2016
posted by tivalasvegas at 12:29 PM on June 18, 2016
That's telepromters in Cleveland this July.
posted by bardophile at 12:31 PM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 12:31 PM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'll just repeat that Trump doesn't dare choose anyone minimally competent - or likeable - as a running mate, because it would make it so easy for Republicans sick of his sh!t to impeach him. Unless, again theorizing the inner mind and soul of a man who possesses neither, he really doesn't want to be President.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:41 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:41 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Okay, but if he doesn't pick Chris Christie, what are the odds on Christie just having a screaming shitfit where he spews all the Trump campaign's dirty secrets?
posted by yasaman at 12:46 PM on June 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by yasaman at 12:46 PM on June 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
World’s Largest ‘Fart-In’ Is Planned for Hillary Clinton’s Acceptance Speech in Philadelphia
posted by Cookiebastard at 12:48 PM on June 18, 2016
posted by Cookiebastard at 12:48 PM on June 18, 2016
That's overthinking a plate of...waitaminute.
posted by Salieri at 12:49 PM on June 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Salieri at 12:49 PM on June 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
What are the odds on Christie just having a screaming shitfit where he spews all the Trump campaign's dirty secrets?
I suspect he's held at such arm length that he doesn't really know the deep dark secrets.
posted by chimaera at 12:52 PM on June 18, 2016
I suspect he's held at such arm length that he doesn't really know the deep dark secrets.
posted by chimaera at 12:52 PM on June 18, 2016
Okay, but if he doesn't pick Chris Christie, what are the odds on Christie just having a screaming shitfit where he spews all the Trump campaign's dirty secrets?
This is why Trump took Christie's tongue.
posted by dersins at 12:53 PM on June 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
This is why Trump took Christie's tongue.
posted by dersins at 12:53 PM on June 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
World’s Largest ‘Fart-In’ Is Planned for Hillary Clinton’s Acceptance Speech in Philadelphia
Oh good. And here I was worried about Sanders' supporters doing something childish.
posted by EatTheWeek at 12:54 PM on June 18, 2016 [29 favorites]
Oh good. And here I was worried about Sanders' supporters doing something childish.
posted by EatTheWeek at 12:54 PM on June 18, 2016 [29 favorites]
God, I cannot wait for the inevitable tell-alls that will be written about this primary season, especially on the Republican side. I want to jump ahead in time a few years to read them all now.
posted by Salieri at 12:55 PM on June 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Salieri at 12:55 PM on June 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Isn't Trump spewing all of the Trump campaign's dirty secrets on a daily basis?
posted by Etrigan at 12:55 PM on June 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 12:55 PM on June 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
The argument against Gingrich is that he's a big enough deal in his own right that he'd distract from Trump. Christie would be safe because he's already been whipped and bent the knee.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:57 PM on June 18, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 12:57 PM on June 18, 2016
Reading about the Trump campaign, I find my both my hope and anxiety multiplied.
Hope, because it really seems like Clinton could defeat these clowns even if all she does for the rest of her campaign events is drink bourbon on stage and smirk knowingly.
Anxiety, because Jesus Christ if these people win it means that the United States is fucking over.
posted by murphy slaw at 12:59 PM on June 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
Hope, because it really seems like Clinton could defeat these clowns even if all she does for the rest of her campaign events is drink bourbon on stage and smirk knowingly.
Anxiety, because Jesus Christ if these people win it means that the United States is fucking over.
posted by murphy slaw at 12:59 PM on June 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
I'll just repeat that Trump doesn't dare choose anyone minimally competent - or likeable - as a running mate, because it would make it so easy for Republicans sick of his sh!t to impeach him. Unless, again theorizing the inner mind and soul of a man who possesses neither, he really doesn't want to be President.
I don't believe he thinks this strategically (or, well, realistically). In his mind, the presidency is like being CEO of a private company. He will be able to do whatever he wants. He will be the boss of everyone. He wouldn't feel threatened by having a conventional pol to be his workhorse as VP, although he might feel threatened by someone flashy enough to steal some of his glory.
He wouldn't want to be President if he understood what it actually entails (and the immense and complicated restraints on presidential power). But for him it's a bauble, a bully pulpit. It's the top of the hill and he's going to be king.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:00 PM on June 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
I don't believe he thinks this strategically (or, well, realistically). In his mind, the presidency is like being CEO of a private company. He will be able to do whatever he wants. He will be the boss of everyone. He wouldn't feel threatened by having a conventional pol to be his workhorse as VP, although he might feel threatened by someone flashy enough to steal some of his glory.
He wouldn't want to be President if he understood what it actually entails (and the immense and complicated restraints on presidential power). But for him it's a bauble, a bully pulpit. It's the top of the hill and he's going to be king.
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:00 PM on June 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
God, I cannot wait for the inevitable tell-alls that will be written about this primary season, especially on the Republican side. I want to jump ahead in time a few years to read them all now.
This election's equivalent of Game Change is going to be a fucking page turner.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:03 PM on June 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
This election's equivalent of Game Change is going to be a fucking page turner.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:03 PM on June 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Oh good. And here I was worried about Sanders' supporters doing something childish.
oh no someone is doing something a little childish in our political process this is a disgrace to our dignified and representative system of elections
posted by entropicamericana at 1:05 PM on June 18, 2016
oh no someone is doing something a little childish in our political process this is a disgrace to our dignified and representative system of elections
posted by entropicamericana at 1:05 PM on June 18, 2016
I'll leave it up to any Oklahomans(sp?) in the thread to give the full rundown.
Hi.
But the point I'm making is she doesn't have Palin's negatives. Trust me, they nominate her and we'll get to hear all about her ridiculous tax cuts, the massive hole in the budget from the oil price crash, cutting off Medicare and Medicaid to seniors in nursing homes, the utter implosion of the public schools, and oh, that absolutely insanity around lethal injection where they gave the executed guy took hours to die because no seriously she wants them to execute the guy so just run with the drug cocktail you've managed to cook up.
But she's a party loyalist and she'll not be in Trump's shadow at all.
posted by dw at 1:07 PM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hi.
But the point I'm making is she doesn't have Palin's negatives. Trust me, they nominate her and we'll get to hear all about her ridiculous tax cuts, the massive hole in the budget from the oil price crash, cutting off Medicare and Medicaid to seniors in nursing homes, the utter implosion of the public schools, and oh, that absolutely insanity around lethal injection where they gave the executed guy took hours to die because no seriously she wants them to execute the guy so just run with the drug cocktail you've managed to cook up.
But she's a party loyalist and she'll not be in Trump's shadow at all.
posted by dw at 1:07 PM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity. It’s what one expects of teenagers, artists, bloggers, pajama boys—immature, peevish, radical, self-destructive behavior.
Hey, leave artists out of this, thanks.
posted by jokeefe at 1:08 PM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hey, leave artists out of this, thanks.
posted by jokeefe at 1:08 PM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
oh no someone is doing something a little childish in our political process this is a disgrace to our dignified and representative system of elections
Yes, but can't we just let Trump be the one doing it?
posted by dw at 1:09 PM on June 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yes, but can't we just let Trump be the one doing it?
posted by dw at 1:09 PM on June 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
I still believe Trump will want someone equally or even (if remotely possible) LESS palatable as himself for the VP slot. He'll want to hold that out as a dare against impeachment. "You want President Palin? Because that's how you get President Palin!"
So on that level, both Christie and Fallin seem like serious possibilities. (Also Palin, who is unlisted but I can't see Trump not at least considering it.) Gingrich seems less likely since a lot of Republicans would probably still be happy to have him in the White House -- and he sure as hell ain't ever gonna win a general election on his own. So unless Trump's real plan is to get elected and resign purely for the purposes of winning an election for Gingrich, I don't see it happening.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:19 PM on June 18, 2016
So on that level, both Christie and Fallin seem like serious possibilities. (Also Palin, who is unlisted but I can't see Trump not at least considering it.) Gingrich seems less likely since a lot of Republicans would probably still be happy to have him in the White House -- and he sure as hell ain't ever gonna win a general election on his own. So unless Trump's real plan is to get elected and resign purely for the purposes of winning an election for Gingrich, I don't see it happening.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:19 PM on June 18, 2016
But the point I'm making is she doesn't have Palin's negatives. Trust me, they nominate her and we'll get to hear all about her ridiculous tax cuts, the massive hole in the budget from the oil price crash, cutting off Medicare and Medicaid to seniors in nursing homes, the utter implosion of the public schools, and oh, that absolutely insanity around lethal injection where they gave the executed guy took hours to die because no seriously she wants them to execute the guy so just run with the drug cocktail you've managed to cook up.
Yeah - one of the lessons of the past few years is that there are negatives and there are NEGATIVES.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:22 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah - one of the lessons of the past few years is that there are negatives and there are NEGATIVES.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:22 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't believe how little work I've been getting done. This political season has been hell on my productivity, and every bit of information that trickles out just makes it worse.
Need moar info about Trump's complete lack of ground game and funding meltdowns, plz.
I don't know if my sanity can take much more.
posted by Salieri at 1:24 PM on June 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Need moar info about Trump's complete lack of ground game and funding meltdowns, plz.
I don't know if my sanity can take much more.
posted by Salieri at 1:24 PM on June 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Huh - r/s4p has been set to private, with this comment:
Democrats have one outstanding candidate deserving of their support: Hillary Clinton.
No other candidate can match the depth or breadth of her knowledge and experience.
The Hillary Clinton supporters are at /r/hillaryclinton
posted by Going To Maine at 1:24 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Democrats have one outstanding candidate deserving of their support: Hillary Clinton.
No other candidate can match the depth or breadth of her knowledge and experience.
The Hillary Clinton supporters are at /r/hillaryclinton
posted by Going To Maine at 1:24 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Business increasingly understands toxic politics is bad business and for a very image conscious brand even the slightest chance of the brand being diminished is something to be avoided.
posted by vuron at 1:25 PM on June 18, 2016
posted by vuron at 1:25 PM on June 18, 2016
Huh - r/s4p has been set to private, with this comment
Sounds like one of the mods has gone rogue.
posted by murphy slaw at 1:27 PM on June 18, 2016
Sounds like one of the mods has gone rogue.
posted by murphy slaw at 1:27 PM on June 18, 2016
Sounds like one of the mods has gone rogue.
Or it could be a troll, intending to keep out all but the hardcore.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:30 PM on June 18, 2016
Or it could be a troll, intending to keep out all but the hardcore.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:30 PM on June 18, 2016
Phew. Back from doing four-and-a-half hours of voter registration at Pride. I was a little nervous about hostile Bernie supporters, but I've got to say that I didn't see any evidence of it. I had a bunch of people come over and ask me for Hillary stickers and tell me that she wasn't their first choice but they're totally supporting her now. We had lots of people sign up to volunteer. There was one kid who said something snide, but he looked to be about 14 and was harmless. Seriously: it was probably the easiest political campaigning I've ever done, although now I really need to re-hydrate.
Bernie had a table there. No idea what they were doing: the Hillary people were registering voters and recruiting volunteers.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:37 PM on June 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
Bernie had a table there. No idea what they were doing: the Hillary people were registering voters and recruiting volunteers.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:37 PM on June 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
/r/S4P isn't a real sub and never has been. Just the Reddit equivalent of domain squatting. /r/SandersForPresident is the actual sub. /r/HillaryClinton is a nice contrast. Usually completely sane, and relatively reasonable with few of the usual reddit stereotypes. So reasonable that I'd sometimes pop-in, while self-identified as a Bernie supporter, just for the conversation since the Sanders sub was absolutely pointless.
posted by honestcoyote at 1:44 PM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by honestcoyote at 1:44 PM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
The biggest shit show is r/politics with a mix /pol/tards and clueless r/sfp types going full tinfoil hat.
Anything that isn't rabidly anti Clinton gets buried and all the conspiracy theories and easily debunked infowars propaganda gets massive upvotes.
Basically people are trolling for karma posting crazy shit.
posted by vuron at 1:45 PM on June 18, 2016
Anything that isn't rabidly anti Clinton gets buried and all the conspiracy theories and easily debunked infowars propaganda gets massive upvotes.
Basically people are trolling for karma posting crazy shit.
posted by vuron at 1:45 PM on June 18, 2016
Lord, r/S4P is an unholy trainwreck at the moment. From what I can tell, solidly half the posts are people with zero legal education saying "I found an obscure law, and it clearly says we can sue and win this thing!". I never stopped in before the Sanders campaign imploded completely; has it alway been this young and naive from the start?
Yes. I would periodically read /r/politics and /r/sandersforpresident during the campaign. They were, from the start, a mixture of naivety, absurd conspiracy theories, and misogyny. I have never seen a more perfect example of Poe's Law in action. For example a few days ago there was a thread about how Clinton won California because of fraud. And someone replied that s/he (probably he) thought that Michigan should be audited as well because he thought it was also stolen by corruption in Detroit. After all, he said, look at the discrepancy between the results in Western Michigan with those in the Detroit area.
I... is he serious? Trolling? I have no idea.
posted by Justinian at 3:09 PM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes. I would periodically read /r/politics and /r/sandersforpresident during the campaign. They were, from the start, a mixture of naivety, absurd conspiracy theories, and misogyny. I have never seen a more perfect example of Poe's Law in action. For example a few days ago there was a thread about how Clinton won California because of fraud. And someone replied that s/he (probably he) thought that Michigan should be audited as well because he thought it was also stolen by corruption in Detroit. After all, he said, look at the discrepancy between the results in Western Michigan with those in the Detroit area.
I... is he serious? Trolling? I have no idea.
posted by Justinian at 3:09 PM on June 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you really want to get into the weeds on the /r/SandersForPresident drama, here you go. But remember, some rabbitholes aren't worth falling into.
posted by dis_integration at 3:26 PM on June 18, 2016
posted by dis_integration at 3:26 PM on June 18, 2016
Stupidity, bigotry and assholery have always been a part of the American Experience. The Internet has given them all far more visibility than ever before, but (I hope) not a significantly greater influence. But that influence is there, maybe more than you always recognized. Yes, Donald Trump being the Poster Boy for Success Through Stupidity, Bigotry and Assholery has brought many out of the shadows and convinced some others that you need to Embrace the Dark Side and do so very publicly. But there's a feeling for me in the BernieOrBusters that they're just thinking "Well, it worked for Trumpy, maybe we just should've embraced it earlier... let's double down."
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:41 PM on June 18, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:41 PM on June 18, 2016
I've always thought well of Cheri Honkala, but thanks to onomatopoeia, I will always associate her name with the Fart-In now.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:57 PM on June 18, 2016
posted by Countess Elena at 4:57 PM on June 18, 2016
@DrJillStein: "Awesome turn out to gather signatures to #GetJillOnTheBallot 🗳 in Pennsylvania at Philly's #Juneteenth festival!"
Picture she attaches shows maybe two dozen people in a room. Not one person of color.
I really wish the Greens actually ran a credible candidate.
posted by dw at 5:11 PM on June 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Picture she attaches shows maybe two dozen people in a room. Not one person of color.
I really wish the Greens actually ran a credible candidate.
posted by dw at 5:11 PM on June 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Let's face it, Ralph Nader was the best candidate the U.S. Green Party ever had, and he was rapidly declining into in-credible-ness by election day (setting a standard that Jill Stein AND Bernie Sanders have already exceeded ... sigh).
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:18 PM on June 18, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:18 PM on June 18, 2016
Wow, yeah, to claim a room full of white folks is part of Philadelphia's (or, really, any city's) Juneteenth festival is somewhere between utterly tone deaf and overtly fucked up.
posted by dersins at 5:18 PM on June 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dersins at 5:18 PM on June 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Stein's twitter is interesting - at first glance, more anti-Hillary stuff than anti-Trump stuff. I guess that sort of makes sense if you think that disaffected Democrats are where you're expecting to draw most of your support. Still, zero respect for the whole "Hillary and Donald are equally bad," vibe.
posted by Salieri at 5:28 PM on June 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Salieri at 5:28 PM on June 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also...
I can't tell if anyone in this line is farting
... a "hassle line"? Please tell me that's not what it sounds like. I mean, it's a joke, right?
Because if not, I agree with the tone of the responses:
@the_dol: "@DemSpring Consider the optics of white douche bros harassing POC Hillary delegates (esp women) as they try to enter the convention."
posted by Salieri at 5:40 PM on June 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I can't tell if anyone in this line is farting
... a "hassle line"? Please tell me that's not what it sounds like. I mean, it's a joke, right?
Because if not, I agree with the tone of the responses:
@the_dol: "@DemSpring Consider the optics of white douche bros harassing POC Hillary delegates (esp women) as they try to enter the convention."
posted by Salieri at 5:40 PM on June 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wow, that Juneteenth thing is *fascinatingly* tone deaf. Like, you have to work pretty hard to fuck up that badly.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:03 PM on June 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:03 PM on June 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hassle lines are a role playing exercise used to give people experience with one to one conflicts in noisy, chaotic activism situations. In other words, it teaches people how to get up in another person's face and tell them how wrong they are without violence and without being distracted.
Whether that's what those folks are doing or if they are planning to actually line up and hassle people walking down a hall, who knows. It does mean they are planning on having one to one conflicts with people, since that's what the exercise is designed to teach.
posted by Orb at 6:05 PM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whether that's what those folks are doing or if they are planning to actually line up and hassle people walking down a hall, who knows. It does mean they are planning on having one to one conflicts with people, since that's what the exercise is designed to teach.
posted by Orb at 6:05 PM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
do they know that hassling people isn't going to make sanders the nominee?
someone should tell them
posted by ryanrs at 7:05 PM on June 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
someone should tell them
posted by ryanrs at 7:05 PM on June 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
So the plan is to yell at delegates to make them vote for Sanders instead of Clinton?
posted by octothorpe at 7:14 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 7:14 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
So the plan is to yell at delegates to make them vote for Sanders instead of Clinton?
I believe their argument is "stop killing democracy and listen to the 150 of us!"
posted by Talez at 7:16 PM on June 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
I believe their argument is "stop killing democracy and listen to the 150 of us!"
posted by Talez at 7:16 PM on June 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
It does mean they are planning on having one to one conflicts with people
*Sigh*
You know, there's a long, proud tradition of civil disobedience in this country, so a part of me admires their passion even though I think their targets are completely misguided. But I can't overlook the way in which Democrats - women in particular - have been harassed the past few months. The actions of this group can't be separated from the larger picture.
At this point I'm pretty much just giving the patented Steve Rogers look of I Am Very Disappointed In You and saying, "Son...just don't."
posted by Salieri at 7:20 PM on June 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
*Sigh*
You know, there's a long, proud tradition of civil disobedience in this country, so a part of me admires their passion even though I think their targets are completely misguided. But I can't overlook the way in which Democrats - women in particular - have been harassed the past few months. The actions of this group can't be separated from the larger picture.
At this point I'm pretty much just giving the patented Steve Rogers look of I Am Very Disappointed In You and saying, "Son...just don't."
posted by Salieri at 7:20 PM on June 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
I mostly think it's strategically dumb. They want to make sure that Bernie's voters get represented, but I don't know that most of Bernie's voters are going to feel represented by these kind of confrontational tactics, and I think they may end up killing their credibility with the people who have been their supporters, rather than maintaining or increasing their influence. If the goal is to turn their campaign into a lasting grass-roots movement, I don't know that this is a good way to do it.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:36 PM on June 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:36 PM on June 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Any possibility that the Jill Stein tweet is a mistake, maybe an intern misnamed a file or something? It also doesn't look like a photo of people getting signatures, it looks like an outtake from a stump speech or fundraiser.
posted by Sara C. at 8:25 PM on June 18, 2016
posted by Sara C. at 8:25 PM on June 18, 2016
My guess is they're volunteers, and she's talking to them before they go out and get signatures at Juneteenth. Rallying the troops, as it were.
posted by dersins at 9:32 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dersins at 9:32 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
CNN:
Libertarian presidential hopeful Gary Johnson is sticking up for marijuana after 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney last week said smoking the drug "makes people stupid."posted by Drinky Die at 9:47 PM on June 18, 2016
"I do not agree with that," Johnson told CNN's Erin Burnett in an interview scheduled to air Sunday on "OutFront." "As someone who has used marijuana, I do not agree with that."
Johnson, who was the governor of New Mexico from 1994-2003, has been an advocate for legalizing marijuana since 1999. In his interview with Burnett, he suggested that marijuana "competes with legal prescription painkillers and drugs that statistically kill 100,000 people a year."
Gotta side with Romney on this one. Being stoned does in fact make you stupid. Not permanently, but the immediate effects aren't particularly subtle.
posted by ryanrs at 10:31 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ryanrs at 10:31 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I should mention that I'm in favor of legalization, even if stoned people act sort of stupid. So I disagree with Romney's larger point. (As a general rule, I don't take drug policy advice from Mormons.)
posted by ryanrs at 10:36 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ryanrs at 10:36 PM on June 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
... because dope can mean a syrupy liquid which is how opiates used to be administered. So dope came to mean opiates, then drugs in general, then the mary jane in particular through a process I don't really know.
posted by Justinian at 4:12 AM on June 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:12 AM on June 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
Exactly.
posted by Floydd at 4:18 AM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Floydd at 4:18 AM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Marijuana, like most mind-altering drugs, has the power to unlock certain mental processes or modes of perception, and can, with the right sensitivity on the part of its imbiber, yield a deeper understanding of consciousness and of one's relationship to their own body/mind or to the world around them.
Many (NOT all or even most) stoners tout this fact the way particularly sad adults tout their high school GPAs: as proof that they, at one point, knew they had it in 'em. The part after that they find harder to reflect upon or be profound about.
The irony here, I think, is that Mitt Romney almost certainly would have benefitted a lot from a year of getting stoned off his gourd.
posted by rorgy at 4:58 AM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Many (NOT all or even most) stoners tout this fact the way particularly sad adults tout their high school GPAs: as proof that they, at one point, knew they had it in 'em. The part after that they find harder to reflect upon or be profound about.
The irony here, I think, is that Mitt Romney almost certainly would have benefitted a lot from a year of getting stoned off his gourd.
posted by rorgy at 4:58 AM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Good News Dept: RedState has their weekly poll round up. Reuters, for example, has Clinton up by a very comfortable 10 point lead even if you throw Gary Johnston into the mix. I read elsewhere that split ticket voting has become more rare so if the Democrats have more than an 8 point lead, Republicans need to start worrying about retaining The House. Expect to see more ads supporting downhill races.
Old Business Dept: In a previous election thread I speculated that since Donald Trump loaned his campaign $50 million he might expect to be paid back with interest. It turns out this really is a thing and the (West Virginian) Charleston Gazette Mail has an article on West Virginian Pols who have done this. The interest charged ranges from 3% to 7% with not all of the Pols expecting to be paid back. The most striking example though comes from California:
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:43 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Old Business Dept: In a previous election thread I speculated that since Donald Trump loaned his campaign $50 million he might expect to be paid back with interest. It turns out this really is a thing and the (West Virginian) Charleston Gazette Mail has an article on West Virginian Pols who have done this. The interest charged ranges from 3% to 7% with not all of the Pols expecting to be paid back. The most striking example though comes from California:
Rep. Grace Napolitano, a Democrat from California, loaned her campaign $150,000 when she first ran for Congress in 1998. She charged her campaign 18 percent interest and collected at least $158,000 in personal income over the next 10 years.Hillary Clinton Swag Dept: She Knows has a round-up of some of the strangest Clinton products out there (mostly Etsy) The $10.00 earrings look pretty sweet and the Saint Hillary candle would make a nice gift for the most devoted fan. The punching bag, on the other hand...
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:43 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
The brutal numbers behind a very bad month for Donald Trump
Not only are Trump's poll numbers slipping, they are at a low that no one, Republican or Democrat, has seen in the past three election cycles. Looking at the window of time between 200 and 100 days before each of those elections, you can see that Trump has consistently polled worse than George W. Bush in 2004, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. He caught up briefly after clinching the GOP nomination — and then sank again.posted by octothorpe at 7:43 AM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
The brutal numbers behind a very bad month for Donald Trump
You missed the money shot.
posted by Talez at 7:54 AM on June 19, 2016
You missed the money shot.
The current gap in ad spending exists because Trump can't or won't spend money on ads, just as he can't or won't spend money on staff. He will probably trail Clinton in fundraising even if he were to focus on it, and he has said in the past that he didn't need to spend because he got so much free media.Say an outrageous thing, stay in the news cycle. I don't know whether he expects to schedule an event for five minutes after the start of a Hillary speech from now until the election but I'm glad it's failing hard in the election.
posted by Talez at 7:54 AM on June 19, 2016
Being stoned does in fact make you stupid.
No. People who are stoned can play chess and do calculus problems and write computer code which are all not-stupid activities. Being stoned makes you spacey or distractable, which the ignorant may describe as stupid. Stupid is an imprecise adjective.
You might notice I described your statement as ignorant, not stupid!
posted by bukvich at 8:00 AM on June 19, 2016 [23 favorites]
No. People who are stoned can play chess and do calculus problems and write computer code which are all not-stupid activities. Being stoned makes you spacey or distractable, which the ignorant may describe as stupid. Stupid is an imprecise adjective.
You might notice I described your statement as ignorant, not stupid!
posted by bukvich at 8:00 AM on June 19, 2016 [23 favorites]
I guess that, while I could make a case either for or against marijuana legalization, it strikes me as really bizarre that it would be anyone's deal-breaker issue in this election. But I guess I'm also not a Mormon baby-boomer, so maybe I shouldn't expect to be able to understand where Mitt Romney is coming from.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:13 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:13 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
World’s Largest ‘Fart-In’ Is Planned for Hillary Clinton’s Acceptance Speech in Philadelphia
Am late to this, but: Nothing says "take my concerns seriously" like a fart-in.
posted by GrammarMoses at 8:37 AM on June 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Am late to this, but: Nothing says "take my concerns seriously" like a fart-in.
posted by GrammarMoses at 8:37 AM on June 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Trump is considering not showing up to his own convention, maybe the SuperPAC dedicated to making fun of his tiny hands is getting to him.
posted by Skorgu at 8:43 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Skorgu at 8:43 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm sort of blown away by the fact that Trump thinks that he can run a national election campaign with 30 staffers. Has he ever seen a campaign?
posted by octothorpe at 8:47 AM on June 19, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 8:47 AM on June 19, 2016
Mod note: Official end of pot derail.
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 8:48 AM on June 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee (staff) at 8:48 AM on June 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
From Skorgu's first link: "Hey, by the way, excuse me!" Trump said. "We went to a place called Indiana and Bobby Knight endorsed me. Boy, did that happen! Right? So many of the great people. We have such unbelievable endorsements ... winners, they're winners! There aren't many winners. But you take these winners, and we're gonna have them speak."
I feel so bad for the people who have to transcribe his "speeches" into something resembling printed English.
posted by octothorpe at 8:51 AM on June 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
I feel so bad for the people who have to transcribe his "speeches" into something resembling printed English.
posted by octothorpe at 8:51 AM on June 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
A breakdown of TV ad spending by presidential campaigns and surrogates, June 2012 vs June 2016.
Words cannot express the lols.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:45 AM on June 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
Words cannot express the lols.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:45 AM on June 19, 2016 [16 favorites]
I'm sort of blown away by the fact that Trump thinks that he can run a national election campaign with 30 staffers.
This WashPo article is about trying to use the Donald effect to get out the Hispanic vote in Arizona. It mentions the Clinton Campaign have 70 staffers in the state, but "...a visit last week to Trump headquarters in Mesa revealed little evidence of an active campaign. There was one worker eating lunch at his desk, a roomful of empty cubicles and, other than a small pile of plastic yard signs, no Trump paraphernalia, brochures or fliers. The GOP’s coordinated campaign has only one staffer..." Rut-ro.
Also, this article says that Sanders' Secret Security detail stays with him until he officially suspends his campaign. This costs taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $38000 per day, so that's a million dollars wasted if he keeps doing whatever it is he's doing until the convention. I expect that point will enter Trump's rambling speeches soon.
posted by peeedro at 10:13 AM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
This WashPo article is about trying to use the Donald effect to get out the Hispanic vote in Arizona. It mentions the Clinton Campaign have 70 staffers in the state, but "...a visit last week to Trump headquarters in Mesa revealed little evidence of an active campaign. There was one worker eating lunch at his desk, a roomful of empty cubicles and, other than a small pile of plastic yard signs, no Trump paraphernalia, brochures or fliers. The GOP’s coordinated campaign has only one staffer..." Rut-ro.
Also, this article says that Sanders' Secret Security detail stays with him until he officially suspends his campaign. This costs taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $38000 per day, so that's a million dollars wasted if he keeps doing whatever it is he's doing until the convention. I expect that point will enter Trump's rambling speeches soon.
posted by peeedro at 10:13 AM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
This costs taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $38000 per day, so that's a million dollars wasted if he keeps doing whatever it is he's doing until the convention.
This is an outrage, with all that money, we could have built .005 miles of interstate highways!
posted by entropicamericana at 10:36 AM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is an outrage, with all that money, we could have built .005 miles of interstate highways!
posted by entropicamericana at 10:36 AM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hey, a million dollars is a lot of money to a thousandaire like Trump!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:49 AM on June 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:49 AM on June 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
Trump says U.S. should consider racial profiling
posted by Talez at 10:53 AM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
"I think profiling is something that we're going to have to start thinking about as a country," Trump said when asked on CBS whether he supported more profiling of Muslims in America.We're back on racial profiling folks. The 14th amendment wasn't a real amendment, right?
"You look at Israel and you look at others, and they do it and they do it successfully. And you know, I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense," he added.
posted by Talez at 10:53 AM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump is a TV Personality. It is one of the few things he does well. (But the article I quoted from earlier questions whether a Trump show without Mark Burnett and his producers would have been minimally watchable and I don't see anybody from that show working on the Trump Party Convention.) Political conventions ARE our longest-running (in terms of both history and individual duration), and a massive change in the way one is staged would be a historical ratings bonanza (but the networks showing it would have virtually zero opportunity to benefit by selling commercials). But what everyone will be watching is whether it would give the candidate more than the usual "2-to-3-percent convention bounce" in the polls. If not, it could finally put to rest any delusions that "the Trump Way" of campaigning could succeed in the General Election (at least to anyone except the deeply delusional candidate himself).
One of the most important "lessons" from this genuinely weird election year will be the true value of throwing money at a campaign, which right now, between Trump's cheap campaign and Sanders' impressive-but-not-totally-successful grassroots fundraising, is a very confused message.
(It is starting to puzzle me how a con man best known for getting others to pay his signature projects isn't having more success at it for this, his biggest con.)
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:56 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
One of the most important "lessons" from this genuinely weird election year will be the true value of throwing money at a campaign, which right now, between Trump's cheap campaign and Sanders' impressive-but-not-totally-successful grassroots fundraising, is a very confused message.
(It is starting to puzzle me how a con man best known for getting others to pay his signature projects isn't having more success at it for this, his biggest con.)
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:56 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
‘Could he actually win?’ Dave Eggers at a Donald Trump rally
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:00 AM on June 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:00 AM on June 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
"And you know, I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense," he added.
We're back on racial profiling folks. The 14th amendment wasn't a real amendment, right?
Well, Constitutional Amendments aren't necessarily based on common sense (it they were, the Equal Rights Amendment wouldn't have withered on the vine), and the 14th wasn't taken very seriously for over a century after it was passed (and is still ignored in many jurisdictions).
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:01 AM on June 19, 2016
We're back on racial profiling folks. The 14th amendment wasn't a real amendment, right?
Well, Constitutional Amendments aren't necessarily based on common sense (it they were, the Equal Rights Amendment wouldn't have withered on the vine), and the 14th wasn't taken very seriously for over a century after it was passed (and is still ignored in many jurisdictions).
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:01 AM on June 19, 2016
a massive change in the way one is staged would be a historical ratings bonanza (but the networks showing it would have virtually zero opportunity to benefit by selling commercials).
If ABC and CBS can sell "Battle of the Network Stars" and "Circus of the Stars" respectively then I'm sure FOX can turn the conventions into a reboot of Gladiators.
posted by Talez at 11:11 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
If ABC and CBS can sell "Battle of the Network Stars" and "Circus of the Stars" respectively then I'm sure FOX can turn the conventions into a reboot of Gladiators.
posted by Talez at 11:11 AM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I loved that Dave Eggars piece. For one thing, it's far less horrifying about my fellow Americans than some of the other reports from Trump rallies. For another, I like the argument that Trump's fans are just that: fans rather than followers. They like the entertainment he provides, but are less interested than one might expect in the actual politics.
Gives me some hope.
posted by suelac at 11:12 AM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Gives me some hope.
posted by suelac at 11:12 AM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
World’s Largest ‘Fart-In’ Is Planned for Hillary Clinton’s Acceptance Speech in Philadelphia
The Wall Street Journal's Ben Zimmer points out that this is probably an attempt to copy Saul Alinsky, who planned both a fart-in and a shit-in back in the day.
Thankfully neither actually happened. At least the shit-in was a good pun (h/t Paul Krassner).
posted by msalt at 11:20 AM on June 19, 2016
The Wall Street Journal's Ben Zimmer points out that this is probably an attempt to copy Saul Alinsky, who planned both a fart-in and a shit-in back in the day.
Thankfully neither actually happened. At least the shit-in was a good pun (h/t Paul Krassner).
posted by msalt at 11:20 AM on June 19, 2016
I like the argument that Trump's fans are just that: fans rather than followers. They like the entertainment he provides, but are less interested than one might expect in the actual politics.
I think this is why political rallies, like lawn signs, are not good indicators of a candidate's actual strength. And it's just as true for Bernie Sanders as Trump. A rally is a show and Bernie puts on a great show, uplifting and exciting, while Trump puts on a live reality TV show, complete with the OMG idiocy that made that genre popular. (Something everyone can feel superior to.)
I'm not a fan of either candidate but I tried to go to each of their rallies when they came through town.
posted by msalt at 11:24 AM on June 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think this is why political rallies, like lawn signs, are not good indicators of a candidate's actual strength. And it's just as true for Bernie Sanders as Trump. A rally is a show and Bernie puts on a great show, uplifting and exciting, while Trump puts on a live reality TV show, complete with the OMG idiocy that made that genre popular. (Something everyone can feel superior to.)
I'm not a fan of either candidate but I tried to go to each of their rallies when they came through town.
posted by msalt at 11:24 AM on June 19, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm sure FOX can turn the conventions into a reboot of Gladiators.
That's American Gladiators. So, yeah.
posted by Etrigan at 11:29 AM on June 19, 2016
That's American Gladiators. So, yeah.
posted by Etrigan at 11:29 AM on June 19, 2016
I don't know; if Trump put on armor and fought live tigers at the football stadium, I would watch that.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:33 AM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:33 AM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm sort of blown away by the fact that Trump thinks that he can run a national election campaign with 30 staffers ...
A breakdown of TV ad spending by presidential campaigns and surrogates, June 2012 vs June 2016.
Words cannot express the lols.
LOL all you want. The amazing thing is that Trump will likely pull 45% of the vote even if he doesn't spend a dime. Campaigns spend a ridiculous amount of money just to court a few percent of "undecideds".
posted by JackFlash at 11:48 AM on June 19, 2016
A breakdown of TV ad spending by presidential campaigns and surrogates, June 2012 vs June 2016.
Words cannot express the lols.
LOL all you want. The amazing thing is that Trump will likely pull 45% of the vote even if he doesn't spend a dime. Campaigns spend a ridiculous amount of money just to court a few percent of "undecideds".
posted by JackFlash at 11:48 AM on June 19, 2016
I don't know; if Trump put on armor and fought live tigers at the football stadium, I would watch that.
I gotta be honest... I would be even more likely to watch if they were undead tigers.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:52 AM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
I gotta be honest... I would be even more likely to watch if they were undead tigers.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:52 AM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Great, six months more waiting to see who the undead tigers eat.
posted by Etrigan at 12:05 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 12:05 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Campaigns spend a ridiculous amount of money just to court a few percent of "undecideds".
That's kind of a myth - very few people are genuinely 'undecided' in the sense of having no preference. Turnout of people who kinda care one way or the other but may or may not be bothered to vote is much more important. It's apathy among your own supporters that you have to really worry about.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:06 PM on June 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
That's kind of a myth - very few people are genuinely 'undecided' in the sense of having no preference. Turnout of people who kinda care one way or the other but may or may not be bothered to vote is much more important. It's apathy among your own supporters that you have to really worry about.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:06 PM on June 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
re: The Fart-in. If I was Hillary I would run with it.
The first thing I would say when I got up on stage would be "I hear there's a planned fart-in. I'd like them to stand up and make our nation proud with their freedom of speech right now. I know how excited people are about Senator Sanders and although he didn't win, Bernie is a great man and has spent his life in public service devoted to those who don't have a voice."
posted by Talez at 12:12 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
The first thing I would say when I got up on stage would be "I hear there's a planned fart-in. I'd like them to stand up and make our nation proud with their freedom of speech right now. I know how excited people are about Senator Sanders and although he didn't win, Bernie is a great man and has spent his life in public service devoted to those who don't have a voice."
posted by Talez at 12:12 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Campaigns spend a ridiculous amount of money just to court a few percent of "undecideds".
Well, it's mostly about turnout rather than persuasion, but, yeah, they do spend a ton of money on a few percentage points of voters because the difference between 1% of the vote and 49% is negligible in terms of outcome, whereas the difference in outcome between 49.9% and 50.1% is essentially infinite.
Look at it this way: in 2012, Jill Stein won the same percentage of the actual presidency as Mitt Romney did.
posted by dersins at 12:14 PM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, it's mostly about turnout rather than persuasion, but, yeah, they do spend a ton of money on a few percentage points of voters because the difference between 1% of the vote and 49% is negligible in terms of outcome, whereas the difference in outcome between 49.9% and 50.1% is essentially infinite.
Look at it this way: in 2012, Jill Stein won the same percentage of the actual presidency as Mitt Romney did.
posted by dersins at 12:14 PM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Justice Clarence Thomas retiring??"
Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:21 PM on June 19, 2016 [28 favorites]
Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:21 PM on June 19, 2016 [28 favorites]
I like the argument that Trump's fans are just that: fans rather than followers. They like the entertainment he provides, but are less interested than one might expect in the actual politics.
I loved the writing of that Eggars piece as well, but I'm afraid it just left me more depressed.
And even assuming his fans don't necessarily agree with all of the racist, misogynist garbage he puts out and just want a spectacle to entertain them...well, that doesn't make it any better. Real people are still being affected by this trash, and those nice Americans who come for the show and buy the t-shirts and are very polite to the protestors are still playing a part in the huge coarsening of the discourse we've seen lately. If they're not interested in his actual policies, then there's no convincing them out of the role they've chosen to take and the groups they've chosen to align with.
How do you argue about the things he says when his fans don't give a shit what comes out of his mouth from one day to the next? These people can't be persuaded because none of this is real. It's all just reality television come to life.
posted by Salieri at 12:21 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
I loved the writing of that Eggars piece as well, but I'm afraid it just left me more depressed.
His supporters are not really listening to anything he says. They cheer when he says he’ll help the veterans, they cheer when he says he’ll build a wall, but ultimately they do not care what he says. They don’t care if he actually will build a wall. If Trump decided, tomorrow, to reverse himself on the idea of building a wall, his supporters would shrug and their support would not waver....Eggars' idea is that people will get bored and disappear once Trump stops saying crazy shit. The problem is, he seems to have an unlimited supply of the stuff.
Americans who have voted for Trump in the primaries have done so not because they agree with all, or any, of his statements or promises, but because he is an entertainment. He is a loud, captivating distraction and a very good comedian. His appeal is aided by these rallies, and by media coverage, and both are fuelled not by substance but by his willingness to say crazy shit.
And even assuming his fans don't necessarily agree with all of the racist, misogynist garbage he puts out and just want a spectacle to entertain them...well, that doesn't make it any better. Real people are still being affected by this trash, and those nice Americans who come for the show and buy the t-shirts and are very polite to the protestors are still playing a part in the huge coarsening of the discourse we've seen lately. If they're not interested in his actual policies, then there's no convincing them out of the role they've chosen to take and the groups they've chosen to align with.
How do you argue about the things he says when his fans don't give a shit what comes out of his mouth from one day to the next? These people can't be persuaded because none of this is real. It's all just reality television come to life.
posted by Salieri at 12:21 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Justice Clarence Thomas retiring??
Well, how is he supposed to know what opinion to have now that Scalia's gone? There's really no point in sticking around, at this juncture.
posted by Superplin at 12:27 PM on June 19, 2016 [24 favorites]
Well, how is he supposed to know what opinion to have now that Scalia's gone? There's really no point in sticking around, at this juncture.
posted by Superplin at 12:27 PM on June 19, 2016 [24 favorites]
The idea of a 7-2 liberal court, or a 7-2 court in either direction, that is relatively young is pretty interesting. When was the last time a presidential election was pretty clearly not going to have any potential to swing the court?
posted by snofoam at 12:47 PM on June 19, 2016
posted by snofoam at 12:47 PM on June 19, 2016
Justice Clarence Thomas retiring??
So far this is being reported by the Examiner and NewsMax and exactly nobody else. I think I'm going to want to see confirmation from an actual, y'know, journalist before I take it too seriously.
posted by dersins at 12:49 PM on June 19, 2016 [15 favorites]
So far this is being reported by the Examiner and NewsMax and exactly nobody else. I think I'm going to want to see confirmation from an actual, y'know, journalist before I take it too seriously.
posted by dersins at 12:49 PM on June 19, 2016 [15 favorites]
Yep, this is coming from the "we gotta come up with some reason why our readership HAS TO vote for Trump" media...
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:51 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:51 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I WANT TO BELIEVE
posted by ryanrs at 12:52 PM on June 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 12:52 PM on June 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
So far this is being reported by the Examiner and NewsMax and exactly nobody else. I think I'm going to want to see confirmation from an actual, y'know, journalist before I take it too seriously.
Okay, but hypothetically, what if the entire Supreme Court stepped down and a group of high school kids were in DC at the same time for some kind of model Supreme Court thing for school and then they went through the wrong door or something and accidentally got sworn in as the new Supreme Court?
posted by snofoam at 12:57 PM on June 19, 2016 [19 favorites]
Okay, but hypothetically, what if the entire Supreme Court stepped down and a group of high school kids were in DC at the same time for some kind of model Supreme Court thing for school and then they went through the wrong door or something and accidentally got sworn in as the new Supreme Court?
posted by snofoam at 12:57 PM on June 19, 2016 [19 favorites]
If Hillary wins, can she demote John Roberts to just another Justice and appoint a new Chief Justice? Or are we stuck with him for 50 years or whatever?
posted by msalt at 12:57 PM on June 19, 2016
posted by msalt at 12:57 PM on June 19, 2016
Nope he is chief until he retires. It doesn't mean much though as they all have equal votes.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:00 PM on June 19, 2016
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:00 PM on June 19, 2016
Okay, but hypothetically, what if the entire Supreme Court stepped down and a group of high school kids were in DC at the same time for some kind of model Supreme Court thing for school and then they went through the wrong door or something and accidentally got sworn in as the new Supreme Court?
AND EVERYBODY LEARNS A VALUABLE LESSON ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY AND HUMANITY ROLL CREDITS
posted by dersins at 1:00 PM on June 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
AND EVERYBODY LEARNS A VALUABLE LESSON ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY AND HUMANITY ROLL CREDITS
posted by dersins at 1:00 PM on June 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think you get Chief Justice when you replace the old one and it never changes, but I don't think the position is more powerful than that of any of the other justices, so it doesn't really matter.
posted by snofoam at 1:00 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by snofoam at 1:00 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Imagine an autopsy that concludes the cause of death was a drug overdose. After the funeral, distraught family members assemble to talk about how they could have prevented such a senseless tragedy. Then, after brief reflection, they all decide to start mainlining heroin.Breaking Mad
That, in a nutshell, is the history of the Republican Party over the past half-century.
The GOP is addicted to whiteness, a psychological drug it started ingesting in the early 1960s with the encouragement of Goldwater conservatives, who argued that the party could win over the traditionally Democratic white South by resisting the civil rights movement. Richard Nixon was one of the Republicans who initially had trepidations. “If Goldwater wins his fight,” he told Ebony magazine in 1962, “our party would eventually become the first major all-white political party. And that isn’t good. That would be a violation of GOP principles.”
...Come November, Republicans may discover that it’s too late to give up on whiteness. Because this time, it won’t just cost them an election. It may finally kill the party.
posted by y2karl at 1:03 PM on June 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
Okay, but hypothetically, what if the entire Supreme Court stepped down and a group of high school kids were in DC at the same time for some kind of model Supreme Court thing for school and then they went through the wrong door or something and accidentally got sworn in as the new Supreme Court?
There's no rule stating that a dog can't be Chief Justice!
THE RIGHT HONORABLE BUD
posted by murphy slaw at 1:06 PM on June 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
There's no rule stating that a dog can't be Chief Justice!
THE RIGHT HONORABLE BUD
posted by murphy slaw at 1:06 PM on June 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
There's no rule stating that a dog can't be Chief Justice!
It was a normal swearing in of the next Supreme Court justice when Roberts made a slight error...
"...faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me Dog."
At that very moment lightning struck and that mistake changed the DNA of Roberts forever to...
THE RIGHT HONORABLE BUD!
Coming only to theaters July 2017.
posted by Talez at 1:11 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
It was a normal swearing in of the next Supreme Court justice when Roberts made a slight error...
"...faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me Dog."
At that very moment lightning struck and that mistake changed the DNA of Roberts forever to...
THE RIGHT HONORABLE BUD!
Coming only to theaters July 2017.
posted by Talez at 1:11 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Chief Justice sets the agenda for meetings to decide which cases to hear. Other justices can append to it, but he gets to set the initial one. If he's in the majority, he gets to assign who writes the opinion (but if he's in the minority, he has no say), which can be powerful in deciding which is the main official argument of the court. These two powers, while subtle, can and do influence the direction of the Court and the law. But in general he is "first among equals" and has little power if opposed by a majority who can append infinite items to the agenda and set their own opinion writers. Roberts has been pretty respectful of the history and traditions of the court and hasn't (as far as reported) tried to use his position to silence or overrule his liberal colleagues but has restricted himself primarily to a collegial decision-making style in keeping with the equality of the justices. He seems very mindful that the Court has to appear non-partisan and fair to maintain its influence and has avoided very overtly political maneuvering as CJ. I do not like his legal positions (for the most part), but I respect how he's managed the Court -- especially as the unspoken traditions of Congress that allow it to function have been breaking down like crazy in favor of hyper-partisanism, and there's a lot of pressure on Roberts to allow that in the Court as well.
(The Chief Justice also administers the presidential oath of office, presides over presidential impeachments, technically submit's the Court's budget to Congress, and has some minor management tasks w/r/t the federal judiciary. But those aren't generally considered to influence the direction of the Court.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:11 PM on June 19, 2016 [19 favorites]
(The Chief Justice also administers the presidential oath of office, presides over presidential impeachments, technically submit's the Court's budget to Congress, and has some minor management tasks w/r/t the federal judiciary. But those aren't generally considered to influence the direction of the Court.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:11 PM on June 19, 2016 [19 favorites]
Justice Clarence Thomas retiring??
If there is anything to this rumor (regardless of whether it is true), I wonder if it's being put out now as an attempt to boost support for the republican nominee by putting more on the line for conservatives? Or to boost democratic turnout? It seems like such a weird time to leak a rumor like this one that there must be some agenda.
posted by Salamandrous at 1:43 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
If there is anything to this rumor (regardless of whether it is true), I wonder if it's being put out now as an attempt to boost support for the republican nominee by putting more on the line for conservatives? Or to boost democratic turnout? It seems like such a weird time to leak a rumor like this one that there must be some agenda.
posted by Salamandrous at 1:43 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83
Anthony Kennedy is 79
Stephen Breyer is 77
Clarence Thomas is 67
Samuel Alito is 66
John Roberts is 61
Sonia Sotomayor is also 61
Elena Kagan is 56
Trumpo delenda est.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:55 PM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
Anthony Kennedy is 79
Stephen Breyer is 77
Clarence Thomas is 67
Samuel Alito is 66
John Roberts is 61
Sonia Sotomayor is also 61
Elena Kagan is 56
Trumpo delenda est.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:55 PM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's about four months too early to be seeding crazy rumors to boost turnout.
posted by ryanrs at 1:56 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 1:56 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's never too early for the Right Wing Wacko Media.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:02 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:02 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Remember the wishful thinking that maybe Trump would realize he didn't want to be president and drop out?
So I'm reading the stories about how Trump isn't building up staff, and is barely fundraising. What if Trump has realized that he doesn't want to be president, but doesn't drop out? Just sort of phones it in and lets everything flop. Because it's sort of looking like that.
posted by ryanrs at 2:05 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
So I'm reading the stories about how Trump isn't building up staff, and is barely fundraising. What if Trump has realized that he doesn't want to be president, but doesn't drop out? Just sort of phones it in and lets everything flop. Because it's sort of looking like that.
posted by ryanrs at 2:05 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
i think trump drops out. just a suspicion.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 2:07 PM on June 19, 2016
posted by fingers_of_fire at 2:07 PM on June 19, 2016
It seems much more likely that Thomas is doing what Sandra Day O'Connor did a decade or so ago and sort of strategically decided that it would be better to retire if Dubya was elected to a second term, so she could make sure and clear out during a Republican administration. So if Trump is elected, Clarence Thomas would retire, but if not, he's probably young enough to outlast 4 years of Clinton. Especially since it seems like Clinton is unlikely as a 2-term president anyway due to her age.
posted by Sara C. at 2:08 PM on June 19, 2016
posted by Sara C. at 2:08 PM on June 19, 2016
It could be that his goal at this point is two-fold (1) bask in as much adoration as he can attract (the reason he won't attend fund-raisers unless he can go directly to a Rally before or after), and (2) get back the loans he made to his campaign - with interest (so he's not going to spend diddly).
It is ironic that Thomas may be considering retiring IF Trump wins, since Trump has declared him to be his favorite Supreme Court Justice. Probably because of the extreme intellectual laziness they share.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:12 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is ironic that Thomas may be considering retiring IF Trump wins, since Trump has declared him to be his favorite Supreme Court Justice. Probably because of the extreme intellectual laziness they share.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:12 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Especially since it seems like Clinton is unlikely as a 2-term president anyway due to her age.
She's younger than Reagan was at his election, and mentally very sharp. Plus women in the US tend to outlive men. I don't see why her age would preclude her from a second term.
posted by Ruki at 2:35 PM on June 19, 2016 [39 favorites]
She's younger than Reagan was at his election, and mentally very sharp. Plus women in the US tend to outlive men. I don't see why her age would preclude her from a second term.
posted by Ruki at 2:35 PM on June 19, 2016 [39 favorites]
Especially since it seems like Clinton is unlikely as a 2-term president anyway due to her age.
Do people really think this? She'd be 77 at the end of her 2nd term. Reagan was 78 at the end of his. There was a lot of talk about Reagan going senile, but (a) he got shot and (b) men age more poorly than women do. If HRC wins, she's going for two terms, I have no doubt about that. She might not win, but if age factors into that then it's pure sexism.
posted by dis_integration at 2:36 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Do people really think this? She'd be 77 at the end of her 2nd term. Reagan was 78 at the end of his. There was a lot of talk about Reagan going senile, but (a) he got shot and (b) men age more poorly than women do. If HRC wins, she's going for two terms, I have no doubt about that. She might not win, but if age factors into that then it's pure sexism.
posted by dis_integration at 2:36 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
See also the 83 year old Notorious RBG.
posted by Ruki at 2:36 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Ruki at 2:36 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hillary C. would still be younger after one term than Bernie S. OR Joe B. are right now.
Still, the shortage of top tier Democrats under 60 is mildly disturbing right now.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:41 PM on June 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Still, the shortage of top tier Democrats under 60 is mildly disturbing right now.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:41 PM on June 19, 2016 [13 favorites]
Maybe Trump is going to select a VP and delegate running the campaign org to them, heh.
posted by ryanrs at 2:41 PM on June 19, 2016
posted by ryanrs at 2:41 PM on June 19, 2016
Maybe the VP selection should be relegated to a reality show, like The Apprentice. That would give him both the free air time he craves and a V.P. Bingo!
posted by readery at 2:51 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by readery at 2:51 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
the shortage of top tier Democrats under 60
What about this guy?
posted by dersins at 2:53 PM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
What about this guy?
posted by dersins at 2:53 PM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
"...a visit last week to Trump headquarters in Mesa revealed... one worker eating lunch at his desk, a roomful of empty cubicles and, other than a small pile of plastic yard signs, no Trump paraphernalia, brochures or fliers."
Oh god. I'm not reading that article, because I don't want to spoil the image in my head:
"Okay. You caught me. I'm not doin' anything. Seriously, I'm sittin' here all day eating a sandwich and watching Netflix and cat videos. The guy ain't gonna win. He just ain't. So I figured, what the hell, it's a paycheck for some temp work 'til early November, right?
"I get one email every couple days straight from the Orange Asshole himself where he tells me how to outreach to Latinos. And he doesn't want anyone changin' his message, right? So, what do I do? I forward it on to some folks. I post it on Twitter or Tumblr or wherever and I let people get pissed off. I figure the best thing I can do for America is to let Cheeto Jesus hang himself, so I'm here to help make sure that happens. And then I go back to surfing Pornhub.
"...What? Oh don't look at me like that. Chrissakes, as much of a shitshow as this campaign is, you think anyone's gonna bat an eye at campaign staffers watching porn at work? Seriously?"
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:02 PM on June 19, 2016 [17 favorites]
Oh god. I'm not reading that article, because I don't want to spoil the image in my head:
"Okay. You caught me. I'm not doin' anything. Seriously, I'm sittin' here all day eating a sandwich and watching Netflix and cat videos. The guy ain't gonna win. He just ain't. So I figured, what the hell, it's a paycheck for some temp work 'til early November, right?
"I get one email every couple days straight from the Orange Asshole himself where he tells me how to outreach to Latinos. And he doesn't want anyone changin' his message, right? So, what do I do? I forward it on to some folks. I post it on Twitter or Tumblr or wherever and I let people get pissed off. I figure the best thing I can do for America is to let Cheeto Jesus hang himself, so I'm here to help make sure that happens. And then I go back to surfing Pornhub.
"...What? Oh don't look at me like that. Chrissakes, as much of a shitshow as this campaign is, you think anyone's gonna bat an eye at campaign staffers watching porn at work? Seriously?"
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:02 PM on June 19, 2016 [17 favorites]
What about this guy?
He's done his job, don't keep leaning on him. But he hasn't exactly brought the rest of his generation up with him. I suspected that choosing "Old Joe" as his running mate was his first mistake...
Sigh. I'd thoroughly expected George Bush Jr. to be the LAST President in my lifetime older than I am. American Politics Disappointment #738.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:04 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's done his job, don't keep leaning on him. But he hasn't exactly brought the rest of his generation up with him. I suspected that choosing "Old Joe" as his running mate was his first mistake...
Sigh. I'd thoroughly expected George Bush Jr. to be the LAST President in my lifetime older than I am. American Politics Disappointment #738.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:04 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd thoroughly expected George Bush Jr. to be the LAST President in my lifetime older than I am
Well if it makes you feel better he can still be the last MALE president older than you are. At least by my personal standards, I think we are far from saturated on the older and old high profile influential and respected women count.
posted by Salamandrous at 3:11 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well if it makes you feel better he can still be the last MALE president older than you are. At least by my personal standards, I think we are far from saturated on the older and old high profile influential and respected women count.
posted by Salamandrous at 3:11 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
...and Sarah Palin has done a lot to discredit the generation of women younger... Double Sigh.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:15 PM on June 19, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:15 PM on June 19, 2016
Speaking of viable Dems under 60, Gina Raimundo was mentioned earlier in the thread. She is very fiscally conservative, as said, although she is a compelling speaker. I saw her when she was on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, and she came across as warm and funny. However, I don't think her fiscal policies and ties to Wall Street (pension reform via hedge funds?) will endear her to younger voters on the national stage. Especially when you compare her to Elizabeth Warren, who is universally beloved by progressive Dems, I think she'll fall short as a national candidate. (Disclaimer: I work in finance, want to see huge industry reforms, and think putting pension money in a hedge fund is fiscally irresponsible.)
posted by Ruki at 3:22 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Ruki at 3:22 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
OK, pure spitballing here. But I think there are three things that I believe could happen as part of this Trump end-game:
1. The GOP somehow, some way, pushes Trump out at the convention and throws up... Cruz. Or Portman. Or Romney. This happens because the polls numbers now continue to stay this bad or erode even more. (That said, I think Hillary is getting the same bump that Trump got post-Indiana, so eventually this will settle back into the 4-6 point range.) Switching out candidates gets the GOP a significant bump that turns it back into a competitive race. Ultimately, Hillary still wins, but the GOP keeps the Senate.
2. Trump DOES get nominated, and the cold blast of water that comes from that FINALLY gets him thinking about assembling a real campaign... but given Hillary's running head start all it does is create a narrative that this is a competitive race. GOP loses the Senate but keeps the House while everyone is shocked Hillary gets 380 EVs. (This is also REALLY unlikely unless the GOP finds someone who can real-talk him, and they haven't so far.)
3. The GOP essentially disowns their own presidential candidate in a desperate effort to keep at least the House. Surrogates like Cruz and Romney hit the trail to do the work Trump is supposed to do. In some cases, it works, but it also sows some confusion in states where there's high affinity for Trump but close races (Nevada comes to mind).
As for Hillary, she has two things to be afraid of: A brand-new scandal popping up out of nowhere (because, honestly, the email scandal is turning into Travelgate Mk 2, and no one remembers Travelgate except a handful of conservative writers), or this sluggish economy turning south, fast, into recession. If Brexit happens next week, it could wreck the economy something fierce (as everyone shuffles money out of the UK) and turn what already is a shaky late-stage growth period into a recession. Ditto the long-expected reckoning coming to China.
We are a LONG way from November, still. Hillary has the advantage, and no matter what the Sanders supporters do, she's the nominee and holding a 4-6 point advantage. But 4-6 point advantages can fade within weeks. Here's hoping it holds together.
posted by dw at 3:36 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
1. The GOP somehow, some way, pushes Trump out at the convention and throws up... Cruz. Or Portman. Or Romney. This happens because the polls numbers now continue to stay this bad or erode even more. (That said, I think Hillary is getting the same bump that Trump got post-Indiana, so eventually this will settle back into the 4-6 point range.) Switching out candidates gets the GOP a significant bump that turns it back into a competitive race. Ultimately, Hillary still wins, but the GOP keeps the Senate.
2. Trump DOES get nominated, and the cold blast of water that comes from that FINALLY gets him thinking about assembling a real campaign... but given Hillary's running head start all it does is create a narrative that this is a competitive race. GOP loses the Senate but keeps the House while everyone is shocked Hillary gets 380 EVs. (This is also REALLY unlikely unless the GOP finds someone who can real-talk him, and they haven't so far.)
3. The GOP essentially disowns their own presidential candidate in a desperate effort to keep at least the House. Surrogates like Cruz and Romney hit the trail to do the work Trump is supposed to do. In some cases, it works, but it also sows some confusion in states where there's high affinity for Trump but close races (Nevada comes to mind).
As for Hillary, she has two things to be afraid of: A brand-new scandal popping up out of nowhere (because, honestly, the email scandal is turning into Travelgate Mk 2, and no one remembers Travelgate except a handful of conservative writers), or this sluggish economy turning south, fast, into recession. If Brexit happens next week, it could wreck the economy something fierce (as everyone shuffles money out of the UK) and turn what already is a shaky late-stage growth period into a recession. Ditto the long-expected reckoning coming to China.
We are a LONG way from November, still. Hillary has the advantage, and no matter what the Sanders supporters do, she's the nominee and holding a 4-6 point advantage. But 4-6 point advantages can fade within weeks. Here's hoping it holds together.
posted by dw at 3:36 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
In the Democratic Rising Stars category, Senator Amy Klobuchar is 56 and probably the single most popular politician in the state of Minnesota (she won reelection in 2012 with over 65% of the vote).
posted by nicepersonality at 3:42 PM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by nicepersonality at 3:42 PM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
CNN has a nice breakdown of who exactly has donated to Trump's campaign.
To begin with 76% is loans to himself but of the 24% donated to him:
Only 28% are women
Only 3 % are liberal
31% are retired
12% live in California
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:14 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
To begin with 76% is loans to himself but of the 24% donated to him:
Only 28% are women
Only 3 % are liberal
31% are retired
12% live in California
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:14 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
3 % are liberal very confused and or stupid
fixed &c.
posted by dersins at 4:30 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
fixed &c.
posted by dersins at 4:30 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
(though I suspect the % of Trump donors who are very confused and or stupid is actually quite a bit higher)
posted by dersins at 4:31 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dersins at 4:31 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK, pure spitballing here. But I think there are three things that I believe could happen as part of this Trump end-game...
As a potential #4, remember that thing McCain did, where when he was way down in the polls after picking Palin, he "suspended his campaign" to go back to Washington to work on the bailout bill? Basically conceding without formally conceding. That was in September, but what if Trump does something similar in more like August? "Oh, it's very vital that I tend to [XYZ overstated priority] right now, but will be back on the campaign trail right away"? And of course it would put him in a poll / vote deficit that he could never possibly recover from, but the media would keep up with the horse-race coverage anyway, because what else are they going to do in the autumn of an election year.
So basically the outcome would be a foregone conclusion within weeks of the conventions, but we'd continue to run the simulacrum of a campaign because no one knows what else to do.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 4:34 PM on June 19, 2016
As a potential #4, remember that thing McCain did, where when he was way down in the polls after picking Palin, he "suspended his campaign" to go back to Washington to work on the bailout bill? Basically conceding without formally conceding. That was in September, but what if Trump does something similar in more like August? "Oh, it's very vital that I tend to [XYZ overstated priority] right now, but will be back on the campaign trail right away"? And of course it would put him in a poll / vote deficit that he could never possibly recover from, but the media would keep up with the horse-race coverage anyway, because what else are they going to do in the autumn of an election year.
So basically the outcome would be a foregone conclusion within weeks of the conventions, but we'd continue to run the simulacrum of a campaign because no one knows what else to do.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 4:34 PM on June 19, 2016
The day after the Brexit vote, Trump is flying to Scotland
On Friday, Trump will hold a press conference at 10 a.m., followed by a photo opportunity at Turnberry Lighthouse at 11:30 a.m.posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:41 PM on June 19, 2016
Trump will have a ceremonial ribbon cutting at 11 a.m. to celebrate the opening of the newly renovated Trump Turnberry Resort.
Well, they say a victory for Brexit would cause trouble to the whole world economy, and economic trouble is one of the few things that would help Trump... (If Brexit succeeds, could Trumpit be far behind?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:50 PM on June 19, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:50 PM on June 19, 2016
Trump's entrance music is "Tiny Dancer"?
"Yellow man, he makes his stand, in the auditorium."
You can't make this shit up.
posted by wallabear at 4:51 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
"Yellow man, he makes his stand, in the auditorium."
You can't make this shit up.
posted by wallabear at 4:51 PM on June 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
He, Trump has said he believes that Britain should leave because "there would be less bureaucracy."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:58 PM on June 19, 2016
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:58 PM on June 19, 2016
...and Sarah Palin has done a lot to discredit the generation of women younger... Double Sigh.
What?
How on earth could Sarah Palin possibly discredit a whole generation of women across the political spectrum? In whose eyes? Is this a real thing? It seems incredibly disheartening and sexist and tokenism and I don't even know what else-ist.
posted by Salamandrous at 5:10 PM on June 19, 2016 [22 favorites]
What?
How on earth could Sarah Palin possibly discredit a whole generation of women across the political spectrum? In whose eyes? Is this a real thing? It seems incredibly disheartening and sexist and tokenism and I don't even know what else-ist.
posted by Salamandrous at 5:10 PM on June 19, 2016 [22 favorites]
Pretty sure Palin just discredited McCain, not other women.
posted by ryanrs at 5:44 PM on June 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 5:44 PM on June 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
And maybe Alaska.
posted by ryanrs at 5:45 PM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 5:45 PM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think Palin makes it harder for Republicans to run a youngish female candidate with kids on a combination family values/working-mom-just-like-you sort of brand. Because they failed spectacularly trying to do that with her, so if they trot the same thing out again, the general public will wonder whether this is just another Palin.
I don't think she discredits an entire generation of women in politics, though, nor do I think she has any impact on Democrats. Also give it a couple electoral cycles and she'll be forgotten; then even the Rs can trot out an identical candidate with the same message and nobody will even make the connection.
posted by Sara C. at 5:49 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think she discredits an entire generation of women in politics, though, nor do I think she has any impact on Democrats. Also give it a couple electoral cycles and she'll be forgotten; then even the Rs can trot out an identical candidate with the same message and nobody will even make the connection.
posted by Sara C. at 5:49 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
I know Republicans who still adore Palin. Trump trotted her out for a reason. I think liberals should be wary of dismissing her as a discredit to the GOP, because it feeds into the sense of smug intellectualism. I say this not to defend her, but I think we (meaning liberals) should be generally cautious of our rhetoric during this particular political season (and probably always, but especially now) because it reinforces some of the beliefs of the Trump true believers. I don't to rile up his supporters, is all.
posted by Ruki at 6:03 PM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Ruki at 6:03 PM on June 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is a side of the whole superdelegate issue I wasn't familiar with:
The Congressional Black Caucus 'vehemently' opposes Sanders' call to abolish superdelegates.
The Congressional Black Caucus 'vehemently' opposes Sanders' call to abolish superdelegates.
In a letter sent to both the Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns, the CBC is expressing its resolute opposition to two key reforms demanded by Sanders in the run-up to the Democratic convention: abolishing the party’s superdelegate system and opening Democratic primaries up to independents and Republicans.posted by Salieri at 6:13 PM on June 19, 2016 [23 favorites]
...
Cleaver added that the CBC would not be swayed on the superdelegate issue.
"The black caucus is immovable on this subject because our number one concern is going to be an always be the highest level of minority participation as possible at the convention," Cleaver said.
Ruki, Palin basically lost the 2008 election for the Republicans. Yes, some people in the base like her. But Republicans failed utterly at selling her to mainstream America.
posted by Sara C. at 6:18 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sara C. at 6:18 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
On the list of things that lost the 2008 election, Palin isn't even in the top five. Anyone turned off by her was casting about for a reason not to vote for McCain anyway.
posted by Etrigan at 6:27 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Etrigan at 6:27 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Conservatives pull out Palin as a way of discrediting liberals because if liberals attack a female politician like Palin who pulls out the standard family first rhetoric they feel like liberals can't attack Palin without appearing sexist or showing that liberals don't support traditional family values.
Thus the idea is that you can pull out any number of female pundits or politicians and have them say all sorts of crazy shit and they can get by with it. Because more than a few people hide their misogyny behind a veneer of chivalry and people of a certain age and social background expect faux chivalry it seems like to a degree it is a functional strategy.
So you get a bunch of conservatives who really really support Palin because she believes similar things to them and because Palin was so easy to parody they can say that hollywood liberals and east coast liberal journalists don't value what they value. It plays into a culture of victimization.
Fox News and talk shows like the View have been doing this sort of framing for ages because they basically put some extremely attractive (typically blonde) young female who no doubt comes from a privileged background and then they can more or less get by with saying all sorts of crazy shit because apparently liberals are to PC to police women I guess.
Same thing happens when some of the Republican PoCs become media figures. Many seem to be willing to more or less take all sorts of completely sketchy things and then dial them up to 11 and because the messenger is Black or Latino we are supposed to accept it.
posted by vuron at 6:37 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Thus the idea is that you can pull out any number of female pundits or politicians and have them say all sorts of crazy shit and they can get by with it. Because more than a few people hide their misogyny behind a veneer of chivalry and people of a certain age and social background expect faux chivalry it seems like to a degree it is a functional strategy.
So you get a bunch of conservatives who really really support Palin because she believes similar things to them and because Palin was so easy to parody they can say that hollywood liberals and east coast liberal journalists don't value what they value. It plays into a culture of victimization.
Fox News and talk shows like the View have been doing this sort of framing for ages because they basically put some extremely attractive (typically blonde) young female who no doubt comes from a privileged background and then they can more or less get by with saying all sorts of crazy shit because apparently liberals are to PC to police women I guess.
Same thing happens when some of the Republican PoCs become media figures. Many seem to be willing to more or less take all sorts of completely sketchy things and then dial them up to 11 and because the messenger is Black or Latino we are supposed to accept it.
posted by vuron at 6:37 PM on June 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
I apologize for bringing up Palin as "representative of her generation" without a [sarcasm] tag.
I'll go sit in the corner now.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:51 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'll go sit in the corner now.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:51 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Putting Palin aside, I stand by the rest of my comment. The Republicans lost control of their base a while ago. That's how we ended up with the Tea Party and now Trump. Part of Trump's popularity is due to a segment of the GOP base realizing how they've been played. When Trump supporters praise Trump for "saying it how it is," there's a genuine sentiment behind that. And yes, there are people who rejoice in the chance of getting to be openly racist, but I'm not talking about them. I've been thinking a lot about how the Dems can reach those people who genuinely feel disillusioned by the GOP. I've been thinking about my parents, who flirted with Trumpism because they really thought, in the early stages of his campaign, that it was refreshing that he wasn't a typical politician. It's really, really easy to be contemptuous and talk of yams and seeing Russia from my house. I know, I've done it. But I think the Dems, not only the candidates but the voters, are missing an opportunity. Not every right-leaning person is a virulent racist, or stupid, or whatever other negative quality. We (and again, generally speaking of liberals) often talk about how some GOP voters are voting against their best interests. And while that may true sometimes, it really does come across as smug, especially when it's not followed up with a genuine interest in why and how to address the feelings behind it. So in that Venn overlap of people not voting in their best interests and feeling disillusioned by the GOP, why aren't we reaching out to them? I just get this sense of lolRepublicans sometimes, and I think we can do better. (I also don't want to incite that other segment that has shown to be prone to violence.)
posted by Ruki at 6:55 PM on June 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Ruki at 6:55 PM on June 19, 2016 [10 favorites]
Palin was a strategic decision mainly because there was a belief based upon the number of PUMAs that were really angry immediately around Obama locking up the nomination. Republicans felt like a female VP selection would enable McCain to peel away some of the female demographic (which has increasingly voted for Democrats in recent elections) who might've been angry about Obama and would see that the Republicans were suddenly progressive enough to put up a woman VP.
The reality of course was that the number of PUMAs in reality were actually pretty small. People might've had a preference for Hillary but Obama was acceptable especially after Hillary made moves to smooth over differences. I think there was some thought as well that Hillary should've been VP and Palin was intended to highlight that.
However Palin quickly proved that she was in no ways ready for the national spotlight and her interview with Couric and the Tina Fey parody of course caused her to become basically a national joke and an embarassment to McCain who was largely basing his campaign on the idea that Obama was too immature to be president in many ways. Palin wasn't what doomed McCain (he was going to lose regardless) but it basically destroyed credibility in the campaign during a pretty critical time when Obama was still trying to forge a consensus within the Democratic party.
The weird thing of course is that there are lots of other Palin figures in the republican ranks some of which are serving as state governors and increasingly there will be pressure on republicans to put up these individuals as VPs in order to grow their base. There is some doubt whether the Republican base will actually be willing to put anything other than a white guy as President (Cruz and Ruboto crashed and burned more or less destroying their young Latino male gambit) so there will be pressure by consultants who want to avoid confirming to voters that the Republican party = white males by putting up female VPs (preferably PoC but White is acceptable).
So it's quite likely that the Republicans will float a lot of names like Fannin and Haley among governors and Ayotte and maybe even Ernst among female senators. Basically the Republican belief is that they can somehow indicate that liberals are hypocritical because they don't really support women and that of course using a female candidate will somehow show that they aren't more of less waging war on women.
posted by vuron at 7:01 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
The reality of course was that the number of PUMAs in reality were actually pretty small. People might've had a preference for Hillary but Obama was acceptable especially after Hillary made moves to smooth over differences. I think there was some thought as well that Hillary should've been VP and Palin was intended to highlight that.
However Palin quickly proved that she was in no ways ready for the national spotlight and her interview with Couric and the Tina Fey parody of course caused her to become basically a national joke and an embarassment to McCain who was largely basing his campaign on the idea that Obama was too immature to be president in many ways. Palin wasn't what doomed McCain (he was going to lose regardless) but it basically destroyed credibility in the campaign during a pretty critical time when Obama was still trying to forge a consensus within the Democratic party.
The weird thing of course is that there are lots of other Palin figures in the republican ranks some of which are serving as state governors and increasingly there will be pressure on republicans to put up these individuals as VPs in order to grow their base. There is some doubt whether the Republican base will actually be willing to put anything other than a white guy as President (Cruz and Ruboto crashed and burned more or less destroying their young Latino male gambit) so there will be pressure by consultants who want to avoid confirming to voters that the Republican party = white males by putting up female VPs (preferably PoC but White is acceptable).
So it's quite likely that the Republicans will float a lot of names like Fannin and Haley among governors and Ayotte and maybe even Ernst among female senators. Basically the Republican belief is that they can somehow indicate that liberals are hypocritical because they don't really support women and that of course using a female candidate will somehow show that they aren't more of less waging war on women.
posted by vuron at 7:01 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ruki, Palin basically lost the 2008 election for the Republicans.
With the state of the economy in late 2008, the GOP could have nominated some sort of Voltron made out of Reagan and Lincoln and Washington and, sure why not, Jesus and been soundly beaten by an unhousebroken dachshund with a (D) next to its name.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:31 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
With the state of the economy in late 2008, the GOP could have nominated some sort of Voltron made out of Reagan and Lincoln and Washington and, sure why not, Jesus and been soundly beaten by an unhousebroken dachshund with a (D) next to its name.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:31 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is a Venn diagram of people that should be open to economically liberal (in terms of feeling like more should be open to doing stuff to fight corporate power) and populist ideals who are also beginning to feel like they have been basically used by Republican elites for GotV strategies and once Republicans get elected there is only lip service payed to the social issues they want action on and most of the Republican efforts are dedicated to achieving the economic goals of the elites.
So yeah there is a growing population of disaffected Republicans that are potentially ripe for conversion but there are some caveats.
Democrats demographic advantages in terms of the national elections are pretty significant. Basically the idea is that Democrats don't need to actually grow the party they need turnout and turnout especially among younger voters requires enthusiasm. So if you go with very centrist rhetoric you might pick up some moderate Republicans but you might lose turnout among liberals.
This becomes interesting political calculus because a voter who actually crosses over basically counts double as you get one additional vote and your opponent gets one less vote. This is typically why there is so much effort to attract the undecideds in battleground states. However if you make a strong push to get a certain demographic sector to jump ship it might not pay off in terms of actual votes.
The other thing is that until fairly recently when analytic tools have become more and more commonplace in national campaigns there was a tendency to more or less treat demographic groups pretty similar because it was next to impossible to engage in microtargeting strategies with any degree of predictablity. That and there just wasn't an appreciation that there are elements of some demographic groups like white evangelicals that might open to various arguments.
So right now we have an interesting phenomenon going on where younger white evangelicals are potentially something where Democrats can actually make some inroads on converting over to some level of being open to voting Democratic.
Most of the research I've seen seems to suggest the following about younger white evangelicals-
Less concerned about homosexuality
More willing to accept family structures deviating from the husband provider and wife caregiver model
Less overtly racist (although still receptive to arguments about illegal aliens doing economic damage)
Much more open to environmental concerns (the evangelical movement has seen a rise of environmentalism and evangelical christianity built around the idea that god expects us to maintain his earthly paradise rather than the older christian model that more or less preached natural resource exploitation being expected).
More concerned about the ascendancy of corporations
More concerned about social issues like poverty and homelessness
So there is some room to talk to evangelical Christians about social issues because there is less hellfire and brimstone and more brother's keeper sermons in most churches and let's be honest the sermons of Jesus of Nazareth tend to be pretty liberal in terms of social justice issues and even economic issues.
However there are still some key problems with appealing to this demographic. Abortion is still a massive hot button issue among Evangelicals and there are lots of single issue voters that will decide almost exclusively on the abortion issue. So while there are some pro-life Democrats who have been able to reach out to these voters the vast majority of Democratic politicians tend to be more or less pro-choice. Do you abandon the pro-choice platform (I sure as hell hope not) in order to chase evangelical whites? Thus far most Democrats have avoided doing that because it could cause decreased enthusiasm among the base.
Separation of Church and State and religious exemptions to government rules and regulations are also an area where Republicans have traditionally been able to create laws that will cause big GotV among evangelicals and thus far it's not really been worth it for Democrats to really soften their stance on opposing many religious exemptions in order to appeal to Evangelicals.
posted by vuron at 7:33 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
So yeah there is a growing population of disaffected Republicans that are potentially ripe for conversion but there are some caveats.
Democrats demographic advantages in terms of the national elections are pretty significant. Basically the idea is that Democrats don't need to actually grow the party they need turnout and turnout especially among younger voters requires enthusiasm. So if you go with very centrist rhetoric you might pick up some moderate Republicans but you might lose turnout among liberals.
This becomes interesting political calculus because a voter who actually crosses over basically counts double as you get one additional vote and your opponent gets one less vote. This is typically why there is so much effort to attract the undecideds in battleground states. However if you make a strong push to get a certain demographic sector to jump ship it might not pay off in terms of actual votes.
The other thing is that until fairly recently when analytic tools have become more and more commonplace in national campaigns there was a tendency to more or less treat demographic groups pretty similar because it was next to impossible to engage in microtargeting strategies with any degree of predictablity. That and there just wasn't an appreciation that there are elements of some demographic groups like white evangelicals that might open to various arguments.
So right now we have an interesting phenomenon going on where younger white evangelicals are potentially something where Democrats can actually make some inroads on converting over to some level of being open to voting Democratic.
Most of the research I've seen seems to suggest the following about younger white evangelicals-
Less concerned about homosexuality
More willing to accept family structures deviating from the husband provider and wife caregiver model
Less overtly racist (although still receptive to arguments about illegal aliens doing economic damage)
Much more open to environmental concerns (the evangelical movement has seen a rise of environmentalism and evangelical christianity built around the idea that god expects us to maintain his earthly paradise rather than the older christian model that more or less preached natural resource exploitation being expected).
More concerned about the ascendancy of corporations
More concerned about social issues like poverty and homelessness
So there is some room to talk to evangelical Christians about social issues because there is less hellfire and brimstone and more brother's keeper sermons in most churches and let's be honest the sermons of Jesus of Nazareth tend to be pretty liberal in terms of social justice issues and even economic issues.
However there are still some key problems with appealing to this demographic. Abortion is still a massive hot button issue among Evangelicals and there are lots of single issue voters that will decide almost exclusively on the abortion issue. So while there are some pro-life Democrats who have been able to reach out to these voters the vast majority of Democratic politicians tend to be more or less pro-choice. Do you abandon the pro-choice platform (I sure as hell hope not) in order to chase evangelical whites? Thus far most Democrats have avoided doing that because it could cause decreased enthusiasm among the base.
Separation of Church and State and religious exemptions to government rules and regulations are also an area where Republicans have traditionally been able to create laws that will cause big GotV among evangelicals and thus far it's not really been worth it for Democrats to really soften their stance on opposing many religious exemptions in order to appeal to Evangelicals.
posted by vuron at 7:33 PM on June 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
The reality of course was that the number of PUMAs in reality were actually pretty small. People might've had a preference for Hillary but Obama was acceptable especially after Hillary made moves to smooth over differences. I think there was some thought as well that Hillary should've been VP and Palin was intended to highlight that.
It's not just that the PUMAs were small though, it's that there was an even smaller percentage who didn't take offense at the idea that that inexperienced know-nothing was in any way an adequate replacement for Hillary Clinton.
Also, I doubt Clinton would've taken the VP if offered (she knows it's a toothless position), and Clinton supporters knew that, too.
posted by Anonymous at 7:35 PM on June 19, 2016
It's not just that the PUMAs were small though, it's that there was an even smaller percentage who didn't take offense at the idea that that inexperienced know-nothing was in any way an adequate replacement for Hillary Clinton.
Also, I doubt Clinton would've taken the VP if offered (she knows it's a toothless position), and Clinton supporters knew that, too.
posted by Anonymous at 7:35 PM on June 19, 2016
To clarify, I don't necessarily think Clinton should be the one reaching out to those Venn voters. Right or wrong, she'd get attacked by both sides. However, at the local level, and perhaps more importantly by Democratic voters themselves, there's potential for outreach. It's been said often in these threads that change starts from the ground up. I'm the ground and one thing I can do is to be mindful of how I think about and engage with those voters. No, I don't want to trade reproductive rights for their vote, nor do I want to throw away issues that most affect minorities for the white vote. I do want to find commonalities and areas where we can be more welcoming. For example, having been a stay at home both by necessity and choice at different points in my child's life, I don't think Democrats do a great job at reaching out to that demographic. I think we do dismiss so called traditional family values, because there's such a focus on women's financial success (which is good!) that we overlook those women who choose (honestly choose) a different path, or worse, hold them in contempt. Like when a Democratic pundit said Ann Romney never worked a day in her life. It was a stupid, dismissive thing to say, but Hilary Rosen wasn't alone in thinking it.
posted by Ruki at 8:06 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Ruki at 8:06 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is why chasing the blue dogs out of the party is short sighted. Moderate and even conservative democrats bring Republicans and the country leftward. Ideological purity is what kills us.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:29 PM on June 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:29 PM on June 19, 2016 [12 favorites]
Anti-Trump delegates raising money for staff and a legal defense fund
Supporters of a growing anti-Donald Trump movement announced plans Sunday to raise money for staff and a possible legal defense fund as they asked new recruits to help spread the word with less than a month until the Republican National Convention.posted by peeedro at 8:55 PM on June 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Having started with just a few dozen delegates, organizers also said Sunday that they now count several hundred delegates and alternates as part of their campaign.
there was an even smaller percentage who didn't take offense at the idea that that inexperienced know-nothing was in any way an adequate replacement for Hillary Clinton.
Hahahaha oh maaaaan, I remember that from 2008. I was a disappointed Clinton supporter who was always going to vote Democratic - like, abstaining or switching parties wasn't at all an option. Not even a little bit. But once Palin was announced...it's like the Republicans couldn't be more obvious how little they thought of the people they may have been trying to attract across party lines. Like, you think we have zero principles or truly held beliefs and will vote for any old woman no matter how odious or badly prepared she is because we're just *that* bitter? What kind of idiots do you take us for?
It was like parents trying to trick their kid into eating beets by promising them they taste like strawberries because they're the same color. It was so insulting in its blatant, transparent pandering that it pissed me off and made me want to vote Democratic twice as hard as I was already going to just to show them what I thought of them.
posted by Salieri at 9:06 PM on June 19, 2016 [22 favorites]
Hahahaha oh maaaaan, I remember that from 2008. I was a disappointed Clinton supporter who was always going to vote Democratic - like, abstaining or switching parties wasn't at all an option. Not even a little bit. But once Palin was announced...it's like the Republicans couldn't be more obvious how little they thought of the people they may have been trying to attract across party lines. Like, you think we have zero principles or truly held beliefs and will vote for any old woman no matter how odious or badly prepared she is because we're just *that* bitter? What kind of idiots do you take us for?
It was like parents trying to trick their kid into eating beets by promising them they taste like strawberries because they're the same color. It was so insulting in its blatant, transparent pandering that it pissed me off and made me want to vote Democratic twice as hard as I was already going to just to show them what I thought of them.
posted by Salieri at 9:06 PM on June 19, 2016 [22 favorites]
But once Palin was announced...it's like the Republicans couldn't be more obvious how little they thought of the people they may have been trying to attract across party lines. Like, you think we have zero principles or truly held beliefs and will vote for any old woman no matter how odious or badly prepared she is because we're just *that* bitter? What kind of idiots do you take us for?
Palin, and later the election of Michael Steele as RNC chair, could not more plainly have been real-life instances of that scene in O Brother, Where Art Thou? where Pappy O'Daniel's campaign staffer proposes that since folks seem to like the little person campaigning for Homer Stokes, well, maybe we oughta get one, too!
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:57 PM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Palin, and later the election of Michael Steele as RNC chair, could not more plainly have been real-life instances of that scene in O Brother, Where Art Thou? where Pappy O'Daniel's campaign staffer proposes that since folks seem to like the little person campaigning for Homer Stokes, well, maybe we oughta get one, too!
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:57 PM on June 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
Gary Johnson and his running mate William Weld were both 2-term Republican governors in blue states. Trump, the major party nominee, has no political experience. Does this give the 2016 Libertarian ticket a lot more credibility than 3rd parties usually receive?
Interesting question, via r/politicaldiscussion. It's obvious with those credentials they are a far more credible ticket than Trump/Whoever, but well...3rd party.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:08 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Interesting question, via r/politicaldiscussion. It's obvious with those credentials they are a far more credible ticket than Trump/Whoever, but well...3rd party.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:08 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
From Peeedro's link: An RNC spokesman on Friday dismissed plans to undermine Trump, first reported by The Washington Post, as "silly" and "nothing more than a media creation and a series of tweets."
But then again, that's exactly how Trump started and where he stood not too long ago.
posted by sour cream at 1:10 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
But then again, that's exactly how Trump started and where he stood not too long ago.
posted by sour cream at 1:10 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Here's an article about the return of the 50-state strategy: Hillary Clinton Is On A Mission To Rebuild The Democratic Party:
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign will maintain staff in all 50 states during the general election with an eye toward overwhelming Republicans in the fall and rebuilding the Democratic Party’s infrastructure thereafter.posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:38 AM on June 20, 2016 [21 favorites]
The strategy, described to The Huffington Post by Clinton campaign aides, is a continuation of the Ramp Up Grassroots Organizing program that the campaign applied to the Democratic primary. But unlike that approach — which had the immediate objective of competing with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in each state contest — the current one carries risk.
Many states in which Clinton will be employing staff and spending resources will almost assuredly vote against her anyway. She could end up wasting money that is needed to win swing states. But her staffers say the investment is well worth it.
Well, I'm sure they don't want to say "Look, the GOP is basically giving us this one on a silver platter, so we figured we'd actually use all this money for something productive rather than just taking a victory lap," but I'm glad they're doing it.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:39 AM on June 20, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:39 AM on June 20, 2016 [15 favorites]
My daily Hillary fundraiser email yesterday was on the theme of "please don't get overconfident and stop paying attention," so I think they're a little concerned about that. But it is kind of an amazing opportunity. In particular, it would be a game-changer in several states if more Latinos started voting. If we can use this election cycle to encourage more people to get involved in the process, that could be a real, lasting victory.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:59 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:59 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign will maintain staff in all 50 states during the general election with an eye toward overwhelming Republicans in the fall and rebuilding the Democratic Party’s infrastructure thereafter.
My daily Hillary fundraiser email yesterday was on the theme of "please don't get overconfident and stop paying attention," so I think they're a little concerned about that.
These are both encouraging bits of news.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:26 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
My daily Hillary fundraiser email yesterday was on the theme of "please don't get overconfident and stop paying attention," so I think they're a little concerned about that.
These are both encouraging bits of news.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:26 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Trump effect: Could Arizona go blue for the first time in 20 years?
Arizona is down to 57% white. They're almost majority-minority. Latinos there are really underrepresented in the electorate as well. If as many Latinos would vote as whites the state would turn blue and Sheriff Arpaio would be out on his ass.
posted by Talez at 6:27 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Arizona is down to 57% white. They're almost majority-minority. Latinos there are really underrepresented in the electorate as well. If as many Latinos would vote as whites the state would turn blue and Sheriff Arpaio would be out on his ass.
posted by Talez at 6:27 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
That reminds me I need to get in touch with the League of Women Voters. I want to work on the GOTV effort, because I really think we have a chance to flip some seats here in AZ.
posted by Superplin at 6:29 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 6:29 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Mod note: A couple of comments deleted. Yeah, this isn't the place for hyperbolic rants about "traitors" and how we need to terrify them, etc. Please dial it way, way back.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:52 AM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 6:52 AM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
I can see why the CBC would be opposed to open primaries, and I've never really understood the push for open primaries from the Sanders camp.
But why would they oppose ending superdelegates? Doesn't that dilute or even potentially overrule the impact of black voters?
posted by sotonohito at 6:54 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
But why would they oppose ending superdelegates? Doesn't that dilute or even potentially overrule the impact of black voters?
posted by sotonohito at 6:54 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wow. There is some historical revisionist yarn spun out of whole cloth going on in this thread regarding Blue Dogs.
History lesson time. In 2010 half the Blue Dog Democrats lost just over half their seats to Republicans. In 2012 we lost two Blue Dogs to liberal side primarying. In 2014 we lost more Blue Dogs to Republicans.
They were socially conservative Democrats representing the aggregate will of their constituencies and three quarters of them have been ejected from Congress for not being conservative enough. Two were ejected for not being liberal enough.
They're pretty much gone in Congress at this point but they were elected to be a middle line between liberal and conservative not progressives who scored a fluke or a packed district in a red state.
posted by Talez at 6:55 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
History lesson time. In 2010 half the Blue Dog Democrats lost just over half their seats to Republicans. In 2012 we lost two Blue Dogs to liberal side primarying. In 2014 we lost more Blue Dogs to Republicans.
They were socially conservative Democrats representing the aggregate will of their constituencies and three quarters of them have been ejected from Congress for not being conservative enough. Two were ejected for not being liberal enough.
They're pretty much gone in Congress at this point but they were elected to be a middle line between liberal and conservative not progressives who scored a fluke or a packed district in a red state.
posted by Talez at 6:55 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mother Jones has an in-depth look at the super-PACS associated with Donald Trump, who started them, their relationship to Trump, and how large they are.
The Atlantic has an article about how Paul Ryan's carefully crafted policies are being eclipsed by the giant orange toddler: Paul Ryan has a plan but no one is listening.
A super-PAC is supposed to operate independently from a campaign, but in reality, it is generally created and guided by operatives close to a candidate in the months before the candidate declares an official run. So in that period, messages are coordinated, color schemes matched, and donors who fancy that candidate are told which super-PAC to finance. In Trump's case, that didn't happen. Consequently, a motley crew of pro-Trump super-PACs have sprouted up, each claiming to be the real Trump super-PAC. This has left some of Trump's would-be big-money donors bewildered as to which super-PAC to trust and support.
The Atlantic has an article about how Paul Ryan's carefully crafted policies are being eclipsed by the giant orange toddler: Paul Ryan has a plan but no one is listening.
thus far, Ryan’s beloved agenda—the one his wonkish heart has been dreaming of and laboring over and counting on to define his speakership—has been something of a PR bust, yet another sad casualty of this election cycle’s Trumpsanity.posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:55 AM on June 20, 2016
Just look at what happened at the rollout of the agenda’s first plank: Ryan’s pet anti-poverty plan. The speaker and seven colleagues crossed the Anacostia River to commune with the impoverished, overwhelmingly minority residents from the “bad” side of Washington. But after all the speechifying, the only thing reporters wanted to talk about was Donald Trump’s latest outrage
Four sources confirm Trump has parted ways with embattled campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. Details t/k
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:01 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:01 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Without super delegates members of congress and high ranking office elsewhere have to compete with their own constituents to get a place at the convention. If you consider how hard it is to elect black members of congress, you can see why this would be distasteful and likely decrease black representation at the convention.
posted by R343L at 7:02 AM on June 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by R343L at 7:02 AM on June 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
I vehemently disagree with the proposition that the conservative Democrats should be catered to or even tolerated much. They subvert progressive bills and votes, see the sabotage of the ACA as a primary example, and I would argue that they drag the party and country rightward, not the other way around.
The big tent idea isn't a bad one, up to a point. The problem is that when you start having a tent too big it becomes difficult to argue that the Democrats are actually a party rather than just a very lose coalition of people who aren't Republicans.
I'd argue that the conservative Dems are one reason why the Democratic Party has such a difficult time presenting a narrative or even a coherent set of policies. How can they when the Party contains, and caters to, people who oppose pretty much every plank in the Party Platform?
If they hate the Democratic Party so much they should quit it and go be the Republicans they so clearly yearn to be rather than staying in the party and sabotaging good bills.
What, exactly, is the point in even having a party if there isn't some degree of ideological agreement within it?
posted by sotonohito at 7:04 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
The big tent idea isn't a bad one, up to a point. The problem is that when you start having a tent too big it becomes difficult to argue that the Democrats are actually a party rather than just a very lose coalition of people who aren't Republicans.
I'd argue that the conservative Dems are one reason why the Democratic Party has such a difficult time presenting a narrative or even a coherent set of policies. How can they when the Party contains, and caters to, people who oppose pretty much every plank in the Party Platform?
If they hate the Democratic Party so much they should quit it and go be the Republicans they so clearly yearn to be rather than staying in the party and sabotaging good bills.
What, exactly, is the point in even having a party if there isn't some degree of ideological agreement within it?
posted by sotonohito at 7:04 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
R343L I hadn't considered that aspect of things.
I do think that if we are going to include them automatically they should at least be bound to vote in the first round like the regular delegates. The idea of the wise men of the party overruling the foolish people is deeply repugnant to me. It hasn't happened yet, but the existence of the superdelegates as they currently exist makes it a possibility and I don't like it even as a possibility.
posted by sotonohito at 7:10 AM on June 20, 2016
I do think that if we are going to include them automatically they should at least be bound to vote in the first round like the regular delegates. The idea of the wise men of the party overruling the foolish people is deeply repugnant to me. It hasn't happened yet, but the existence of the superdelegates as they currently exist makes it a possibility and I don't like it even as a possibility.
posted by sotonohito at 7:10 AM on June 20, 2016
the existence of the superdelegates as they currently exist makes it a possibility and I don't like it even as a possibility.
Republicans would probably disagree right now. Trump is perhaps the best argument for the escape hatch function of superdelegates.
posted by chris24 at 7:18 AM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
Republicans would probably disagree right now. Trump is perhaps the best argument for the escape hatch function of superdelegates.
posted by chris24 at 7:18 AM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
re: Lewandowski-
Kyle Griffin: NBC News: Trump staffer described it as "bedlam in the Trump campaign. No one knows what is happening."
RNC to NBC News: "No comment."
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:20 AM on June 20, 2016
Kyle Griffin: NBC News: Trump staffer described it as "bedlam in the Trump campaign. No one knows what is happening."
RNC to NBC News: "No comment."
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:20 AM on June 20, 2016
Ben Jacobs: I just talked to a high ranking Trump source who had "no idea what was going on"
Nate Silver: Betting markets now give Trump a 14% chance of NOT being the GOP nominee. That's higher than it was before Indiana.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:22 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nate Silver: Betting markets now give Trump a 14% chance of NOT being the GOP nominee. That's higher than it was before Indiana.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:22 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
With the utter chaos of the Trump campaign right now, it would be a good time for the Clinton camp to drop one of their (I'm assuming many) oppo bombs. "Oh sorry it sounds like a shitshow over there Donald, but could you also now please respond to *this*?"
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:26 AM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:26 AM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
...In the course of a single conversation, I have been assured that Hillary is cunning and manipulative but also crass, clueless, and stunningly impolitic; that she is a hopelessly woolly-headed do-gooder and, at heart, a hardball litigator; that she is a base opportunist and a zealot convinced that God is on her side. What emerges is a cultural inventory of villainy rather than a plausible depiction of an actual person." —Henry Louis GatesThe most thorough, profound and moving defense of Hillary Clinton I have ever seen.
The quote above comes from a fascinating article called “Hating Hillary”, written by Gates for the New Yorker in 1996. Even now, 20 years after it was first published, it’s a fascinating and impressive piece, and if you have a few spare moments I strongly recommend it to you.
...And I can’t help but notice that many of the reactions she receives seem to reflect what Gates referred to as “a cultural inventory of villainy” rather than any realistic assessment of who she really is and what she has really done.
To conservatives she is a radical left-wing insurgent who has on multiple occasions been compared to Mikhail Suslov, the Soviet Kremlin’s long-time Chief of Ideology. To many progressives (you know who you are), she is a Republican fox in Democratic sheep’s clothing, a shill for Wall Street who doesn’t give a damn about the working class... The only thing both teams seem to share is the insistence that Hillary is a Machiavellian conspirator and implacable liar, unworthy of society’s trust.
And this claim of unabated mendacity is particularly interesting, because while it is not the oldest defamation aimed at Hillary, it is the one that most effortlessly glides across partisan lines... And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season...
Also instructive is Jill Abramson’s recent piece in the Guardian: “...I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.”
Notice how Abramson uses the word “surprising”? She’s obviously doing that for our benefit, because she knows that many readers will be astonished at the very thought of Hillary being “fundamentally honest”. But why? In my opinion we need to go back to the time of Whitewater in order to answer that question...
posted by y2karl at 7:27 AM on June 20, 2016 [25 favorites]
Between gleefully reading about Trump campaign gossip and the GOT episodes, I'm afraid my petty side is really showing and I LOOOOOVE IT! *goes to make more tea*
posted by like_neon at 7:28 AM on June 20, 2016
posted by like_neon at 7:28 AM on June 20, 2016
The big tent idea isn't a bad one, up to a point. The problem is that when you start having a tent too big it becomes difficult to argue that the Democrats are actually a party rather than just a very lose coalition of people who aren't Republicans.
The United States is a country of 325 million people holding every conceivable variety of every conceivable political position.
There is literally nothing more democratic than representing all those people and all their myriad views with "a very loose coalition."
posted by dersins at 7:30 AM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
The United States is a country of 325 million people holding every conceivable variety of every conceivable political position.
There is literally nothing more democratic than representing all those people and all their myriad views with "a very loose coalition."
posted by dersins at 7:30 AM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
What, exactly, is the point in even having a party if there isn't some degree of ideological agreement within it?
Oh, come on. People were making that argument 20 years ago, and the result is that nowadays, there is no Democrat more conservative (based on DW-NOMINATE) than any Republican, and no Republican more liberal than any Democrat. There are plenty of degrees of ideological agreement within both parties, and look where it's gotten us.
And as Talez pointed out, the quest for ideological purity pushed conservative Democrats out in favor of Republicans, not more-liberal Democrats.
posted by Etrigan at 7:30 AM on June 20, 2016 [17 favorites]
Oh, come on. People were making that argument 20 years ago, and the result is that nowadays, there is no Democrat more conservative (based on DW-NOMINATE) than any Republican, and no Republican more liberal than any Democrat. There are plenty of degrees of ideological agreement within both parties, and look where it's gotten us.
And as Talez pointed out, the quest for ideological purity pushed conservative Democrats out in favor of Republicans, not more-liberal Democrats.
posted by Etrigan at 7:30 AM on June 20, 2016 [17 favorites]
And as Talez pointed out, the quest for ideological purity pushed conservative Democrats out in favor of Republicans, not more-liberal Democrats.
Well, you gotta keep someone around as a punching bag.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:38 AM on June 20, 2016
Well, you gotta keep someone around as a punching bag.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:38 AM on June 20, 2016
If they hate the Democratic Party so much they should quit it and go be the Republicans they so clearly yearn to be rather than staying in the party and sabotaging good bills.
There is more than one axis that makes you qualified to being a Democrat. You can hate the idea of black people but still want to help poor people. You can think gay sex is icky while still wanting to preserve a woman's right to choose. You can hate regulation while still believing in organized labor.
Big tent leaves us open to consensus, compromise and new ideas. It means people have to work together and working together is what the Democratic party, nay, government and organized society as a whole should be all about.
posted by Talez at 7:45 AM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
There is more than one axis that makes you qualified to being a Democrat. You can hate the idea of black people but still want to help poor people. You can think gay sex is icky while still wanting to preserve a woman's right to choose. You can hate regulation while still believing in organized labor.
Big tent leaves us open to consensus, compromise and new ideas. It means people have to work together and working together is what the Democratic party, nay, government and organized society as a whole should be all about.
posted by Talez at 7:45 AM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Trump camp source downplays Corey's success: he "ran the tour. The tour manager for the Stones doesn't get inducted into the hall of fame."
Actually, Ian Stewart was inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
That is a first-ballot Actually Hall of Fame tweet right there.
posted by Etrigan at 7:46 AM on June 20, 2016 [33 favorites]
Actually, Ian Stewart was inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
That is a first-ballot Actually Hall of Fame tweet right there.
posted by Etrigan at 7:46 AM on June 20, 2016 [33 favorites]
Republicans would probably disagree right now. Trump is perhaps the best argument for the escape hatch function of superdelegates.
I 100% think this is why Trump ran as a Republican. The Democratic party is much harder to sieze because you have to take control of its entire institutional arm.
posted by Talez at 7:48 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I 100% think this is why Trump ran as a Republican. The Democratic party is much harder to sieze because you have to take control of its entire institutional arm.
posted by Talez at 7:48 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
How to Talk Your Friends and Loved Ones Out of Supporting Donald Trump
posted by kirkaracha at 7:49 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 7:49 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
With Trump it's hard to tell.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:56 AM on June 20, 2016
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:56 AM on June 20, 2016
I mean in a normal campaign it would probably signal a shake-up, but with Trump maybe Lewandowski just got tired of the bear-suit fellatio
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:59 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 7:59 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
So, since we keep talking about ideological purity tests and who is ACTUALLY the most left, I want to say something about why I am still not over Sanders endorsing Kaptur.
Other people have already written about how this shows what a lot of people had been saying all along: Sanders views reproductive rights as secondary, and less important, than economic issues.
But for me, it is staggering for another reason. I mean, on the one hand, I get it— she endorsed his candidacy, and now he has endorsed her. It is the most typical of political quid pro quos.
Except: the most typical of political quid pro quos are LITERALLY the thing that Sanders and all his devotees claim hate most about Hilary Clinton! The idea that someone does you a favor and you do one back has been framed as moral bankruptcy whenever she does it! What happened to the ideological purity high ground? What happened to taking a principled stance no matter what the political cost?
I just— I can’t even comprehend it, the cognitive dissonance is so extreme. It isn’t just the inventory of villainy thing. It is that when Clinton does something, it is UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY, but when Sanders does the exact same thing, He Has His Reasons.
flamesonthesideofmyface.gif
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:59 AM on June 20, 2016 [54 favorites]
Other people have already written about how this shows what a lot of people had been saying all along: Sanders views reproductive rights as secondary, and less important, than economic issues.
But for me, it is staggering for another reason. I mean, on the one hand, I get it— she endorsed his candidacy, and now he has endorsed her. It is the most typical of political quid pro quos.
Except: the most typical of political quid pro quos are LITERALLY the thing that Sanders and all his devotees claim hate most about Hilary Clinton! The idea that someone does you a favor and you do one back has been framed as moral bankruptcy whenever she does it! What happened to the ideological purity high ground? What happened to taking a principled stance no matter what the political cost?
I just— I can’t even comprehend it, the cognitive dissonance is so extreme. It isn’t just the inventory of villainy thing. It is that when Clinton does something, it is UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY, but when Sanders does the exact same thing, He Has His Reasons.
flamesonthesideofmyface.gif
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:59 AM on June 20, 2016 [54 favorites]
I just— I can’t even comprehend it, the cognitive dissonance is so extreme. It isn’t just the inventory of villainy thing. It is that when Clinton does something, it is UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY, but when Sanders does the exact same thing, He Has His Reasons.
It's as baffling as #neverhillary voters saying they'd happily back Joe Biden for president.
posted by Talez at 8:04 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's as baffling as #neverhillary voters saying they'd happily back Joe Biden for president.
posted by Talez at 8:04 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Do you think Trump summoned Lewandowski into a dramatically-lit boardroom and did the whole *finger point* "You're fired" thing, then leaned back in his chair, closed his eyes, smiled and lit a cigar? I choose to believe he did.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:06 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:06 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Man! I was briefly afraid that there would be no Trump bombshells to start off this week. Thank goodness.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:08 AM on June 20, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 8:08 AM on June 20, 2016
chris24 Republicans would probably disagree right now. Trump is perhaps the best argument for the escape hatch function of superdelegates.
I think that if the Republicans do force him out, despite the clear preference of Republican voters for him, it will be the end of the Republican party, not just in this election but likely forever.
And you can argue that they deserve it, after all a party has to be very sick before it can succumb to a parasite as awful as Trump. They've been pushing racist rhetoric for decades, it is no surprise at all that someone can win by saying the quiet parts loud.
But I find the idea, sorry corb, that the Republicans should or could legitimately cheat Trump out of his victory deeply repugnant. It undermines the entire concept of a representative democracy and brings us straight back to the bad idea of a "wise" aristocracy overruling the hoi polloi.
I loathe and despise Trump and I wish him and his supporters nothing but failure and misfortune. But, and I think this is important: HE WON. He followed their rules and he won. The result of that should not be the aristocrats taking his victory away because he's a horrible person, but rather the people now [1] realizing that their willingness to put up with empowering the bigots in exchange for lower tax rates was a very bad thing and abandoning the party.
Etrigan And as Talez pointed out, the quest for ideological purity pushed conservative Democrats out in favor of Republicans, not more-liberal Democrats.
Better an open enemy than a false friend. Push 'em out, I don't need racists, misogynists, and so on in my party. If that shrinks the party than good.
Would you rather have a nice single scoop of ice cream or a scoop of ice cream with a pile of cow manure on top? You get more stuff if you accept the cow manure, but I'd rather go for quality than quantity.
Yes, there is and should be room for disagreement and so forth within the Party. But that room shouldn't include people who want to force women to give birth against their will, that room shouldn't include people who think that people with dark skin are less people than people with light skin.
Once you're including people who hold views that different, then the party ceases to stand for anything. "Vote for us, we aren't Republicans!" is a losing slogan.
[1] And I've got no sympathy for the Republicans who claim to be shocked at Trump or find him offensive. Where were they back when Reagan was pushing racist dog whistles? Or when Bush was pushing racist dog whistles? Or when Junior was pushing racist dog whistles? Or when they anointed FOX as the only legitimate news source despite it too pushing the same damn racist agenda Trump is, just doing it more quietly.
NOW? Now they have the gall to ask us to pretend with them that Republicanism isn't just a pretty face for the Klan? No, bugger that for a lark. My entire life the Republican Party has just been a kinder and gentler version of the KKK, they don't get to pretend that somehow it was all ok until that mean old Mr. Trump magically appeared out of nowhere and conjured up out of nothing all the racism they now claim to oppose.
posted by sotonohito at 8:08 AM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think that if the Republicans do force him out, despite the clear preference of Republican voters for him, it will be the end of the Republican party, not just in this election but likely forever.
And you can argue that they deserve it, after all a party has to be very sick before it can succumb to a parasite as awful as Trump. They've been pushing racist rhetoric for decades, it is no surprise at all that someone can win by saying the quiet parts loud.
But I find the idea, sorry corb, that the Republicans should or could legitimately cheat Trump out of his victory deeply repugnant. It undermines the entire concept of a representative democracy and brings us straight back to the bad idea of a "wise" aristocracy overruling the hoi polloi.
I loathe and despise Trump and I wish him and his supporters nothing but failure and misfortune. But, and I think this is important: HE WON. He followed their rules and he won. The result of that should not be the aristocrats taking his victory away because he's a horrible person, but rather the people now [1] realizing that their willingness to put up with empowering the bigots in exchange for lower tax rates was a very bad thing and abandoning the party.
Etrigan And as Talez pointed out, the quest for ideological purity pushed conservative Democrats out in favor of Republicans, not more-liberal Democrats.
Better an open enemy than a false friend. Push 'em out, I don't need racists, misogynists, and so on in my party. If that shrinks the party than good.
Would you rather have a nice single scoop of ice cream or a scoop of ice cream with a pile of cow manure on top? You get more stuff if you accept the cow manure, but I'd rather go for quality than quantity.
Yes, there is and should be room for disagreement and so forth within the Party. But that room shouldn't include people who want to force women to give birth against their will, that room shouldn't include people who think that people with dark skin are less people than people with light skin.
Once you're including people who hold views that different, then the party ceases to stand for anything. "Vote for us, we aren't Republicans!" is a losing slogan.
[1] And I've got no sympathy for the Republicans who claim to be shocked at Trump or find him offensive. Where were they back when Reagan was pushing racist dog whistles? Or when Bush was pushing racist dog whistles? Or when Junior was pushing racist dog whistles? Or when they anointed FOX as the only legitimate news source despite it too pushing the same damn racist agenda Trump is, just doing it more quietly.
NOW? Now they have the gall to ask us to pretend with them that Republicanism isn't just a pretty face for the Klan? No, bugger that for a lark. My entire life the Republican Party has just been a kinder and gentler version of the KKK, they don't get to pretend that somehow it was all ok until that mean old Mr. Trump magically appeared out of nowhere and conjured up out of nothing all the racism they now claim to oppose.
posted by sotonohito at 8:08 AM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm not even after ideological purity, I'm just after people who aren't actively and aggressively working for goals that I consider to be diametrically opposed to mine.
posted by sotonohito at 8:10 AM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 8:10 AM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Metafilter: made me want to vote Democratic twice as hard as I was already going to
posted by soelo at 8:14 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by soelo at 8:14 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
But I find the idea, sorry corb, that the Republicans should or could legitimately cheat Trump out of his victory deeply repugnant. It undermines the entire concept of a representative democracy and brings us straight back to the bad idea of a "wise" aristocracy overruling the hoi polloi.
OK. This right here. A leader's job is to lead with wisdom and conviction.
The whole reason we have checks and balances on the entire system of representative democracy is because the average IQ is 100 and 50% of the population are dumber than that.
I'm just after people who aren't actively and aggressively working for goals that I consider to be diametrically opposed to mine
You don't seem to understand that no person is going to be diametrically opposed to absolutely everything you believe. The majority of people are probably going to agree with you on most things. Some people are going to fear change when they feel their place in the system is secure under the status quo despite evidence to the contrary. To make things more complicated people will change their thoughts and feelings depending on the day of the week, the events that have unfolded or even the color of the underwear they pull out of their drawers.
If you keep finding reasons not to work with people I can tell you that you'll eventually be left standing alone wondering why nobody likes you.
posted by Talez at 8:14 AM on June 20, 2016 [14 favorites]
OK. This right here. A leader's job is to lead with wisdom and conviction.
The whole reason we have checks and balances on the entire system of representative democracy is because the average IQ is 100 and 50% of the population are dumber than that.
I'm just after people who aren't actively and aggressively working for goals that I consider to be diametrically opposed to mine
You don't seem to understand that no person is going to be diametrically opposed to absolutely everything you believe. The majority of people are probably going to agree with you on most things. Some people are going to fear change when they feel their place in the system is secure under the status quo despite evidence to the contrary. To make things more complicated people will change their thoughts and feelings depending on the day of the week, the events that have unfolded or even the color of the underwear they pull out of their drawers.
If you keep finding reasons not to work with people I can tell you that you'll eventually be left standing alone wondering why nobody likes you.
posted by Talez at 8:14 AM on June 20, 2016 [14 favorites]
I'm not even after ideological purity, I'm just after people who aren't actively and aggressively working for goals that I consider to be diametrically opposed to mine.
I cannot see the difference between these two things when applied to people whose job it is to write and implement the laws of the land. You want non-ideologically-pure Democrats -- who represent their constituents -- to just take a walk when that one thing they disagree with all the other Democrats on is up for vote? What about when that's things that are too liberal for all the other Democrats? You know, like gay marriage was within our lifetime?
posted by Etrigan at 8:17 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I cannot see the difference between these two things when applied to people whose job it is to write and implement the laws of the land. You want non-ideologically-pure Democrats -- who represent their constituents -- to just take a walk when that one thing they disagree with all the other Democrats on is up for vote? What about when that's things that are too liberal for all the other Democrats? You know, like gay marriage was within our lifetime?
posted by Etrigan at 8:17 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
If they hate the Democratic Party so much they should quit it and go be the Republicans they so clearly yearn to be rather than staying in the party and sabotaging good bills.
Here's the problem with that thinking: At some point the Democrats will need to take the House back. And not everyone is marching lock-step with the Trotskyists. Even abortion isn't a constant, given Marcy Kaptur's 36% NLRC rating.
At some point the Democrats are going to have to bring in people to the right of Bernie, and even to the right of Hillary. They're going to need to win some gerrymandered districts in Texas, or take the exurban and cross-Cascade WA-8. Those places don't take kindly to Bernie. They do, however, like their Republicans because they're "not loony" and "in power" and "get things done."
So, you can wait another 20 years for the revolution to perhaps come to pass, or you can run a 50 state strategy and knock off weak Republicans. If you do the latter, though, you're not running perfect liberals. You're going to run a lot of people that are going to disagree with "good bills."
But that IS what democracy is about, after all. It's about your "good bill" being my "bad bill" and us working out "a bill we can be OK with."
Ultimately, overturning Citizens United and figuring out some way to make campaigns cheaper would solve a lot of this. But this does mean you'll need to elect the Democrats as they stand to do so. Going to war with the army you have, &c.
posted by dw at 8:19 AM on June 20, 2016 [28 favorites]
Here's the problem with that thinking: At some point the Democrats will need to take the House back. And not everyone is marching lock-step with the Trotskyists. Even abortion isn't a constant, given Marcy Kaptur's 36% NLRC rating.
At some point the Democrats are going to have to bring in people to the right of Bernie, and even to the right of Hillary. They're going to need to win some gerrymandered districts in Texas, or take the exurban and cross-Cascade WA-8. Those places don't take kindly to Bernie. They do, however, like their Republicans because they're "not loony" and "in power" and "get things done."
So, you can wait another 20 years for the revolution to perhaps come to pass, or you can run a 50 state strategy and knock off weak Republicans. If you do the latter, though, you're not running perfect liberals. You're going to run a lot of people that are going to disagree with "good bills."
But that IS what democracy is about, after all. It's about your "good bill" being my "bad bill" and us working out "a bill we can be OK with."
Ultimately, overturning Citizens United and figuring out some way to make campaigns cheaper would solve a lot of this. But this does mean you'll need to elect the Democrats as they stand to do so. Going to war with the army you have, &c.
posted by dw at 8:19 AM on June 20, 2016 [28 favorites]
What about when that's things that are too liberal for all the other Democrats? You know, like gay marriage was within our lifetime?
This. Almost every piece of forward progression in our society over the past 60 years was done over the kicking and screaming of representative democracy.
posted by Talez at 8:20 AM on June 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
This. Almost every piece of forward progression in our society over the past 60 years was done over the kicking and screaming of representative democracy.
posted by Talez at 8:20 AM on June 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
"Stop The Madness." I mean, on one hand, great idea! On the other, you had several chances over the course of several months to stop the madness and either didn't or couldn't and now you're stuck with this mess.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:20 AM on June 20, 2016
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:20 AM on June 20, 2016
I saw a couple of tweets re: polling over the weekend about a possibility of a Ryan replacement and Ryan popping up on all media talking 'issues' and just being blandly sane makes me think there's something in the works.
posted by readery at 8:24 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by readery at 8:24 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trotskyists
I love how we still call progressives names like this in America in the year 2016.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:25 AM on June 20, 2016 [17 favorites]
I love how we still call progressives names like this in America in the year 2016.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:25 AM on June 20, 2016 [17 favorites]
Would you prefer Pinko?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:28 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 8:28 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
The whole reason we have checks and balances on the entire system of representative democracy is because the average IQ is 100 and 50% of the population are dumber than that.
I too fondly recall the Psychometrics of the Population section of the The Federalist Papers.
posted by dis_integration at 8:31 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I too fondly recall the Psychometrics of the Population section of the The Federalist Papers.
posted by dis_integration at 8:31 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Re the super delegates thing and the "wise men" of the party running things, turn it around. Think of it as those who have invested the most in the party (to the degree they've made it their full time job) having a bit more say in who is going to represent them and who they are going to have to support publicly than someone who may be no more committed to the party than a vote every four years. I'd be fine with more restrictions on how they wield that influence but I don't think it's fundamentally unfair for them to exist and the CBC are probably most aware of why they do exist.
posted by R343L at 8:33 AM on June 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by R343L at 8:33 AM on June 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
And I'm completely with dw about big tent. I was pretty excited by Dean and 50 state strategy and would love to see the party go back there.
posted by R343L at 8:36 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by R343L at 8:36 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
I too fondly recall the Psychometrics of the Population section of the The Federalist Papers.
That would be Federalist 10, which refers to "... the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
The idea that democracy must be balanced against the tyranny of the majority is neither new nor particularly controversial.
posted by multics at 8:38 AM on June 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
That would be Federalist 10, which refers to "... the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
The idea that democracy must be balanced against the tyranny of the majority is neither new nor particularly controversial.
posted by multics at 8:38 AM on June 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
The Atlantic has an article about how Paul Ryan's carefully crafted policies are being eclipsed by the giant orange toddler: Paul Ryan has a plan but no one is listening.
For why that might not matter to congressional republicans, try Why Paul Ryan Can’t Quit Donald Trump:
For why that might not matter to congressional republicans, try Why Paul Ryan Can’t Quit Donald Trump:
It’s impossible to fully grasp Ryan’s thinking without understanding how close he feels he’s come to realizing a decades-old dream. That dream, as Grover Norquist told CPAC four years ago, culminates with the election of a figurehead. “We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don’t need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget...We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don’t need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate...Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States.”posted by peeedro at 8:45 AM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Ryan may not imagine a president’s obligations to be quite so perfunctory, but he agrees that the main purpose of electing a Republican president is to fulfill that final, unthinking step in the legislative process. Trump’s digits are legendarily stumpy, but still large enough to cast a signature. And as long as that’s true, Ryan will set the bar for abandoning him very, very high.
Talez OK. This right here. A leader's job is to lead with wisdom and conviction.
The whole reason we have checks and balances on the entire system of representative democracy is because the average IQ is 100 and 50% of the population are dumber than that.
I'd argue that there's a huge difference between things like setting aside certain liberties from being overruled by a simple majority and having an aristocracy decreeing that the person who won a nomination was the wrong person so the votes don't count.
One of the reasons for my break with Sanders was because he started lobbying the super delegates to overrule the will of the Democratic Party voters and install him as the nominee despite Clinton getting more votes.
I try to avoid naked hypocrisy, I can't condemn Sanders for that while at the same time calling for the Republican aristocrats to take away Trump's win.
And, moreover, I do think that we Americans wrongly enshrine the concept of checks and balances. Mostly that just means allowing a minority to dictate to a majority, and I don't think that's a good idea.
Perhaps I'm being self serving, though I don't think so, but I do see a categorical difference between Constitutional rights being defended against a simple majority and a group of elites overruling voters on who they chose to be their party's nominee.
You don't seem to understand that no person is going to be diametrically opposed to absolutely everything you believe.
Not at all. I just have a short list of items that I consider to be absolutely essential, or bright lines that can't be crossed, or whatever.
Beyond that I'm willing to compromise and be all diverse and whatever. See, for example, my support of Clinton despite her embrace of what I consider to be her embrace of a dangerous and destructive economic and trade policy.
R343L And I'm completely with dw about big tent. I was pretty excited by Dean and 50 state strategy and would love to see the party go back there.
A 50 state strategy is excellent. We absolutely should not be abandoning some regions (and I speak as a Democrat living in a mostly abandoned region here).
But that doesn't mean we should be compromising core Party objectives and ideals in order to try to peel off a few racist white dudes.
A 50 state strategy of trying to elect real Democrats everywhere, of aggressively marketing Democratic ideals everywhere, is one I can get behind. A 50 state strategy that consists of finding Republicans willing to turn coat and run for office under the Democratic brand is not.
posted by sotonohito at 8:49 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The whole reason we have checks and balances on the entire system of representative democracy is because the average IQ is 100 and 50% of the population are dumber than that.
I'd argue that there's a huge difference between things like setting aside certain liberties from being overruled by a simple majority and having an aristocracy decreeing that the person who won a nomination was the wrong person so the votes don't count.
One of the reasons for my break with Sanders was because he started lobbying the super delegates to overrule the will of the Democratic Party voters and install him as the nominee despite Clinton getting more votes.
I try to avoid naked hypocrisy, I can't condemn Sanders for that while at the same time calling for the Republican aristocrats to take away Trump's win.
And, moreover, I do think that we Americans wrongly enshrine the concept of checks and balances. Mostly that just means allowing a minority to dictate to a majority, and I don't think that's a good idea.
Perhaps I'm being self serving, though I don't think so, but I do see a categorical difference between Constitutional rights being defended against a simple majority and a group of elites overruling voters on who they chose to be their party's nominee.
You don't seem to understand that no person is going to be diametrically opposed to absolutely everything you believe.
Not at all. I just have a short list of items that I consider to be absolutely essential, or bright lines that can't be crossed, or whatever.
Beyond that I'm willing to compromise and be all diverse and whatever. See, for example, my support of Clinton despite her embrace of what I consider to be her embrace of a dangerous and destructive economic and trade policy.
R343L And I'm completely with dw about big tent. I was pretty excited by Dean and 50 state strategy and would love to see the party go back there.
A 50 state strategy is excellent. We absolutely should not be abandoning some regions (and I speak as a Democrat living in a mostly abandoned region here).
But that doesn't mean we should be compromising core Party objectives and ideals in order to try to peel off a few racist white dudes.
A 50 state strategy of trying to elect real Democrats everywhere, of aggressively marketing Democratic ideals everywhere, is one I can get behind. A 50 state strategy that consists of finding Republicans willing to turn coat and run for office under the Democratic brand is not.
posted by sotonohito at 8:49 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's the other thing - the reason the Democrats felt like they had to resort to third-wayism was because the Republicans were WINNING. Like, big time. The Democrats got their asses handed to them, and they responded by saying "I guess this country is more conservative than we thought, so we better tack right a little if we ever want to implement ANY of the things we believe in." And the only way the Republicans were able to pull that off in the first place was by building a coalition of diverse interests with diverse priorities.
Wouldn't it be fucking great to turn around and do that to the Republicans?
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:51 AM on June 20, 2016 [23 favorites]
Wouldn't it be fucking great to turn around and do that to the Republicans?
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:51 AM on June 20, 2016 [23 favorites]
A Democrat who'll cosign 51% of Democratic ideals getting support to run against a Republican who's 100% Republican and would be essentially running opposed otherwise is something I'd get behind. Any race, anywhere, anytime.
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:52 AM on June 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 8:52 AM on June 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
That would be Federalist 10, which refers to "... the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
The distinction here is between raw interest and the principles of justice. Not necessarily the intelligence of the majority, but their desire to have their own needs met at the expense of a minority (of property owners, mostly). But yeah, the founders did read their Aristotle and so talked about the ideal of a ruling class of aristocrats in the true sense: as the best sort of people, smartest, most moral, manly, capable, etc (a Madisonian thought). But IQ is a whole other issue. You can have a high IQ and be numb to questions of justice... Anyway, my snark was because the remark was anachronistic, and 18th century minds had different ideas about the nature of intelligence than our modern ones.
posted by dis_integration at 8:52 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The distinction here is between raw interest and the principles of justice. Not necessarily the intelligence of the majority, but their desire to have their own needs met at the expense of a minority (of property owners, mostly). But yeah, the founders did read their Aristotle and so talked about the ideal of a ruling class of aristocrats in the true sense: as the best sort of people, smartest, most moral, manly, capable, etc (a Madisonian thought). But IQ is a whole other issue. You can have a high IQ and be numb to questions of justice... Anyway, my snark was because the remark was anachronistic, and 18th century minds had different ideas about the nature of intelligence than our modern ones.
posted by dis_integration at 8:52 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
..."Some of the personal attack levelled against me is a not very veiled attempt to undermine the positions that I have worked on and stood for,” Hillary says. “The people who hold the view of exalted individualism and think that the market can solve all our problems are not so confident in their position that they don’t feel it necessary to attack anyone who has a contrary point of view. And then I’ve made mistakes and I’ve engendered some criticism, I think justifiably, for things that I said or did or didn’t handle well. So it’s a combination of all that.” Her gaze drifts off toward the map, with its color-coded demarcation of the liberated zones and the Axis-controlled holdouts. “We’re becoming, as a culture, very hard, very cold and sterile in lots of ways, partly because of technology and global competition. So, no matter how one defines one’s political or ideological identity, I think all of us have to reach down and redefine our human identity first and foremost.” The alternative, after all, is that others will define our human identity for us.Hillary Hating
Elsewhere in the building, policy papers are being drafted and redrafted, numbers are being crunched and massaged, speeches are being punched up or toned down. Here we sit in the gloom of the late afternoon, and Mrs. Clinton, by way of demonstration, is looking with willed gratitude at the bowl of pink roses on the long mahogany table. The discipline of gratitude requires noticing things you normally wouldn’t, and not noticing things you normally would. “I don’t even read what people mostly say about me,” she maintains, in her best pack-up-your-troubles tone. “I figure that’ll all wash out historically, and a lot of this kind of day-by-day stuff doesn’t amount to very much. And, in fact, I look at each day’s news and I try to think, What will be important in five years, or fifty years?” Not those roses, which, on close inspection, are already beginning to fade. History vindicates, of course, but it can equally condemn, ignore, equivocate. Much depends on who writes it.
Henry Louis Gates Jr.
New Yorker
February 26, 1996
posted by y2karl at 8:53 AM on June 20, 2016 [18 favorites]
I just have a short list of items that I consider to be absolutely essential, or bright lines that can't be crossed, or whatever.
Yeah, and every other Democrat has a short list of items that they consider to be absolutely essential etc. etc. Yet, you dismiss essentially everyone who disagrees with you on one of those things as a "Republican willing to turn coat and run for office under the Democratic brand".
posted by Etrigan at 8:56 AM on June 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
Yeah, and every other Democrat has a short list of items that they consider to be absolutely essential etc. etc. Yet, you dismiss essentially everyone who disagrees with you on one of those things as a "Republican willing to turn coat and run for office under the Democratic brand".
posted by Etrigan at 8:56 AM on June 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
Do you think Trump summoned Lewandowski into a dramatically-lit boardroom and did the whole *finger point* "You're fired" thing, then leaned back in his chair, closed his eyes, smiled and lit a cigar? I choose to believe he did.
I think the persona that's capable of that level of decisive action is totally manufactured for TV. If someone scripted it and there was a camera crew, maybe this is how he did it. In reality, I bet Trump is the kind of guy who fires you and you find out because your email stops working or you're suddenly locked out of the building.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:56 AM on June 20, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think the persona that's capable of that level of decisive action is totally manufactured for TV. If someone scripted it and there was a camera crew, maybe this is how he did it. In reality, I bet Trump is the kind of guy who fires you and you find out because your email stops working or you're suddenly locked out of the building.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:56 AM on June 20, 2016 [15 favorites]
I think Trump is also the sort of person who becomes his own act, so it wouldn't surprise me at all that he actually fires people in that way nowadays.
posted by Etrigan at 9:04 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 9:04 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I assume Lewandowski was fired like a dog.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:06 AM on June 20, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:06 AM on June 20, 2016 [27 favorites]
The superdelegates are not aristocrats. It's not the case that we round up a bunch of rich people descended from Hapsburgs and give them a veto. The superdelegates are democratically elected officials. You may as well object to the Senate voting on judicial nominations.
posted by chrchr at 9:09 AM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by chrchr at 9:09 AM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Bad dog! Bad bad dog! No job for you! Go outside! Bad dog!"
posted by murphy slaw at 9:10 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by murphy slaw at 9:10 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
And the only way the Republicans were able to pull that off in the first place was by building a coalition of diverse interests with diverse priorities.
The same GOP of voodoo economics and the Southern Strategy?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:10 AM on June 20, 2016
The same GOP of voodoo economics and the Southern Strategy?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:10 AM on June 20, 2016
Also, if you let voters pick candidates in party primaries, you get the party those voters want. You can call the, for instance, Oklahoma Democratic congressional candidates DINO's all you want, but in Oklahoma they just call them Democrats.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:15 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:15 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
...Why Sanders got so little institutional supportOne sentence from Bernie Sanders’s speech last night that really enrages Democratic leaders
It’s one thing to disagree with people about policy substance or political tactics. But something Sanders has done throughout his campaign and very pointedly did here is straightforwardly challenge the good faith of the vast majority of his colleagues in Democratic Party politics. It’s worked pretty well for him on the stump, but it doesn’t win you a lot of friends. And to be honest, it’s simply wrong — you can raise a lot of objections to Obama’s approach to Wall Street or climate change, but the fact is that the financial services industry and the fossil fuel industries have been fighting him every step of the way.
This is important to understanding why, at the end of the day, Sanders got so very little institutional support for his campaign despite a very long career in Congress that’s involved a lot of working constructively with other members and left-wing interest groups.
Even labor unions and progressive members of Congress who share important aspects of Sanders’s worldview have also been there in the trenches and seen these things happen...
A lot of the people who’ve fought for those things agree with Sanders that they didn’t go far enough in important ways, or even that key people in the party didn’t push hard enough or strong enough for them. But a lot of Sanders’s rhetoric seems to simply erase these battles, as if the whole party were just sitting on its hands until Bernie and his political revolution came to town.
posted by y2karl at 9:16 AM on June 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
also, I keep meaning to say re: the title of this post, we will never be free until the last primary is strangled with the entrails of the last caucus. thank you carry on
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:17 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:17 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Card Cheat: "Do you think Trump summoned Lewandowski into a dramatically-lit boardroom and did the whole *finger point* "You're fired" thing, then leaned back in his chair, closed his eyes, smiled and lit a cigar? I choose to believe he did."
No, it looks like he dropped it during the normal morning strategy conference call.
posted by octothorpe at 9:18 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, it looks like he dropped it during the normal morning strategy conference call.
posted by octothorpe at 9:18 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Right on Monday morning, the absolute best time to bury bad news!
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:22 AM on June 20, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:22 AM on June 20, 2016 [18 favorites]
Wait, am I really in a thread where people are saying that having a big tent is a problem and that there should basically be cases where the technocratic elite overrule the will of the masses?
Woo that is some crazy stuff.
The reality is that yes conservative Democrats can be a pain in the ass and they can provide cover to Republicans and sometimes it's nice to have more ideological uniformity but sometimes having some conservative Democrats is the difference between having a bill pass and being fillibustered.
So while the ACA isn't perfect for instance an some conservative Democratic senators prevented the public option from moving forward having 2-3 conservative Democratic senators + 57 standard Democratic senators allowed ACA to pass despite efforts to fillibuster it.
posted by vuron at 9:37 AM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Woo that is some crazy stuff.
The reality is that yes conservative Democrats can be a pain in the ass and they can provide cover to Republicans and sometimes it's nice to have more ideological uniformity but sometimes having some conservative Democrats is the difference between having a bill pass and being fillibustered.
So while the ACA isn't perfect for instance an some conservative Democratic senators prevented the public option from moving forward having 2-3 conservative Democratic senators + 57 standard Democratic senators allowed ACA to pass despite efforts to fillibuster it.
posted by vuron at 9:37 AM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
I love how we still call progressives names like this in America in the year 2016.
I use "Trotskyist" because that's how Bernie's line of socialism comes from, not from the Marxist-Leninist line. Trotskyists believe in continual revolution and that the working class would just naturally embrace socialist thinking. They also rejected the compromises of the Stalinists, believing in a "pure" form of Communism.
Bernie's socialism stems from that branch, and you can see it -- a belief that they are right, compromising the core rejects the revolution, and a belief that things the movement of the workers will be enough to overcome the other problems (e.g. racism).
I don't mean "Trotskyist" as some sort of epithet. I mean it because that's what they are: Believers that the revolution continues and must continue and should not be compromised.
But, clearly, not everyone on the left is a Trotskyist. The standards of purity are different.
posted by dw at 9:38 AM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
I use "Trotskyist" because that's how Bernie's line of socialism comes from, not from the Marxist-Leninist line. Trotskyists believe in continual revolution and that the working class would just naturally embrace socialist thinking. They also rejected the compromises of the Stalinists, believing in a "pure" form of Communism.
Bernie's socialism stems from that branch, and you can see it -- a belief that they are right, compromising the core rejects the revolution, and a belief that things the movement of the workers will be enough to overcome the other problems (e.g. racism).
I don't mean "Trotskyist" as some sort of epithet. I mean it because that's what they are: Believers that the revolution continues and must continue and should not be compromised.
But, clearly, not everyone on the left is a Trotskyist. The standards of purity are different.
posted by dw at 9:38 AM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
With the utter chaos of the Trump campaign right now, it would be a good time for the Clinton camp to drop one of their (I'm assuming many) oppo bombs. "Oh sorry it sounds like a shitshow over there Donald, but could you also now please respond to *this*?"
No way! You don't drop your bombs when the other camp is already in disarray, you wait until they think they're up and running again and BOOM. Dropping anything now is a waste.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:40 AM on June 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
No way! You don't drop your bombs when the other camp is already in disarray, you wait until they think they're up and running again and BOOM. Dropping anything now is a waste.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:40 AM on June 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Dumping Lewandowski, sadly, is the best move the Trump campaign has made so far.
posted by dw at 9:42 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dw at 9:42 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
So y'all think he's gonna replace him with a funny fat guy?
posted by sour cream at 9:46 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sour cream at 9:46 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah it shows an unexpected pragmatic streak. It could mean that the adults aren't totally out of influence in the Trump campaign. That, or he needed a scapegoat
posted by chimaera at 9:47 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by chimaera at 9:47 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't really agree that ditching Trump would be undermining our democracy, just because there's really no rule that says party candidates have to be chosen democratically. It's not even a terrible old practice. And, hell, in a lot of parliamentary systems you have no say in who the leader of the party-in-charge is at all.
A lot of Republican voters showed up and expressed a preference for Trump, yes. 13,300,000 votes, or thereabouts. But given the number of other candidates, and the rise of people registering as independents, that means that in practice, Trump has gotten to this point by receiving votes from no more than 5.4% of adult Americans. Is THAT democratic?
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:47 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
A lot of Republican voters showed up and expressed a preference for Trump, yes. 13,300,000 votes, or thereabouts. But given the number of other candidates, and the rise of people registering as independents, that means that in practice, Trump has gotten to this point by receiving votes from no more than 5.4% of adult Americans. Is THAT democratic?
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:47 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, they probably should have had him sign an NDA.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:48 AM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:48 AM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
Dumping Lewandowski, sadly, is the best move the Trump campaign has made so far.
For a normal candidate who could be expected to behave rationally, yes. But we don't know who Trump plans to replace the guy with.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:48 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
For a normal candidate who could be expected to behave rationally, yes. But we don't know who Trump plans to replace the guy with.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:48 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, they probably should have had him sign an NDA.
...
......
.........omg
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:49 AM on June 20, 2016 [25 favorites]
...
......
.........omg
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:49 AM on June 20, 2016 [25 favorites]
But we don't know who Trump plans to replace the guy with.
Some sources on Twitter are saying it was the Trump children who had him removed, so maybe Donald is not the one calling the shots?
posted by a fiendish thingy at 9:50 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Some sources on Twitter are saying it was the Trump children who had him removed, so maybe Donald is not the one calling the shots?
posted by a fiendish thingy at 9:50 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, at least you can't say Trump doesn't treat all his employees equally.
(like shit)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:50 AM on June 20, 2016
(like shit)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:50 AM on June 20, 2016
So y'all think he's gonna replace him with a funny fat guy?
Naw, I'm pretty sure this is when the literal shrieking white-hot sphere of pure rage* enters the picture.
*I am pretty sure this will actually be the energy creature from Day of the Dove...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:51 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Naw, I'm pretty sure this is when the literal shrieking white-hot sphere of pure rage* enters the picture.
*I am pretty sure this will actually be the energy creature from Day of the Dove...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:51 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
showbiz_liz Here's the other thing - the reason the Democrats felt like they had to resort to third-wayism was because the Republicans were WINNING. Like, big time. The Democrats got their asses handed to them, and they responded by saying "I guess this country is more conservative than we thought, so we better tack right a little if we ever want to implement ANY of the things we believe in." And the only way the Republicans were able to pull that off in the first place was by building a coalition of diverse interests with diverse priorities.
I think I remember things very differently from you.
The Republicans were indeed taking away old Democratic strongholds in the former Confederacy. They'd been doing that since the Civil Rights Act passed. Johnson said the Democrats had lost the South for a generation and he badly underestimated how deeply racist some white Southerners were.
They didn't build a diverse coalition, they built a coalition of embittered white racists and rich people willing to tolerate the racists in order to pass plutocratic laws. And it turns out that there are a lot of racist white people out there, which is depressing.
The problem is that pushing the Democratic party to the right in hopes that somehow, if we pander enough to the right wing, that we can get a few of those racist votes for the Democrats is a bad idea that just won't work.
You can't peel off a few moderate leaning Republicans by making the Democratic Party more Republican. Who will go for a pandering Democrats when they could just vote Republican?
There's an analogy here with the MMO problem.
The MMO problem is that for several years people tried various ways to do massively multiplayer online games. Some worked, some failed, there was a lot of diversity. Then World Of Warcraft appeared and dominated the MMO market for over a decade.
As a result a lot of people tried, and failed, to gain a place by making a WoW style MMO. Dazzled by the huge WoW playerbase, entranced by the prospect of those people paying $15 a month, they thought to themselves that if only they could take even five or six percent of the WoW playerbase they'd be rich beyond their wildest dreams.
And they tried and tried and tried. They're still trying today even though the whole MMORPG style of game seems to be fading in popularity. The quickest way to get funding for a new MMO is to be able to say "it's like WoW only..." or "it's like WoW with [insert popular IP here]". The quickest way to get investors to tell you to bugger off is to say "I've got an MMO that is nothing at all like WoW".
The WoW imitators keep failing because if someone wants to play WoW they can. They don't need to play your imitation, they've got the real thing available.
The same applies, I think, to political parties.
I get the appeal of becoming super duper amazing with bulletproof majorities in Congress by appealing to everyone. Who wouldn't want that?
But it isn't just that I find working with racists to be repugnant, it's that the Democrats can't make it happen. Because the racist Republican voters aren't going to switch to Democrat no matter how hard we pander. They've already got a party that works for them, they'll stick with it.
You say the Democrats shifted to third way ism because the Republicans were winning. So we've tried that experiment for decades now and we can judge the results.
Did it work?
Did pandering to Republican voters win them over and get them voting for Democrats?
The answer can only be a resounding no. The Republicans have an ironclad lock on the House, the only reason there's even the faintest chance of them losing the Senate this time is because Trump is an awful candidate.
After decades of pandering to the right the Democrats have gotten exactly jack shit. We didn't swing the racists to our Party. The approach you are advocating has been empirically demonstrated to fail.
So how about we try something different?
posted by sotonohito at 9:52 AM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think I remember things very differently from you.
The Republicans were indeed taking away old Democratic strongholds in the former Confederacy. They'd been doing that since the Civil Rights Act passed. Johnson said the Democrats had lost the South for a generation and he badly underestimated how deeply racist some white Southerners were.
They didn't build a diverse coalition, they built a coalition of embittered white racists and rich people willing to tolerate the racists in order to pass plutocratic laws. And it turns out that there are a lot of racist white people out there, which is depressing.
The problem is that pushing the Democratic party to the right in hopes that somehow, if we pander enough to the right wing, that we can get a few of those racist votes for the Democrats is a bad idea that just won't work.
You can't peel off a few moderate leaning Republicans by making the Democratic Party more Republican. Who will go for a pandering Democrats when they could just vote Republican?
There's an analogy here with the MMO problem.
The MMO problem is that for several years people tried various ways to do massively multiplayer online games. Some worked, some failed, there was a lot of diversity. Then World Of Warcraft appeared and dominated the MMO market for over a decade.
As a result a lot of people tried, and failed, to gain a place by making a WoW style MMO. Dazzled by the huge WoW playerbase, entranced by the prospect of those people paying $15 a month, they thought to themselves that if only they could take even five or six percent of the WoW playerbase they'd be rich beyond their wildest dreams.
And they tried and tried and tried. They're still trying today even though the whole MMORPG style of game seems to be fading in popularity. The quickest way to get funding for a new MMO is to be able to say "it's like WoW only..." or "it's like WoW with [insert popular IP here]". The quickest way to get investors to tell you to bugger off is to say "I've got an MMO that is nothing at all like WoW".
The WoW imitators keep failing because if someone wants to play WoW they can. They don't need to play your imitation, they've got the real thing available.
The same applies, I think, to political parties.
I get the appeal of becoming super duper amazing with bulletproof majorities in Congress by appealing to everyone. Who wouldn't want that?
But it isn't just that I find working with racists to be repugnant, it's that the Democrats can't make it happen. Because the racist Republican voters aren't going to switch to Democrat no matter how hard we pander. They've already got a party that works for them, they'll stick with it.
You say the Democrats shifted to third way ism because the Republicans were winning. So we've tried that experiment for decades now and we can judge the results.
Did it work?
Did pandering to Republican voters win them over and get them voting for Democrats?
The answer can only be a resounding no. The Republicans have an ironclad lock on the House, the only reason there's even the faintest chance of them losing the Senate this time is because Trump is an awful candidate.
After decades of pandering to the right the Democrats have gotten exactly jack shit. We didn't swing the racists to our Party. The approach you are advocating has been empirically demonstrated to fail.
So how about we try something different?
posted by sotonohito at 9:52 AM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
Some sources on Twitter are saying it was the Trump children who had him removed, so maybe Donald is not the one calling the shots?
Huh. That makes a ton of sense actually - if a guy like Trump could be persuaded to listen to anyone, it might be his own children, if only because they're kind of an extension of him (if you buy into the Trump=pathological narcissist theory). There's nothing they can do about his mountain of negatives or his apparent inability to stay on message, but if his kids can get a handle on the organizational stuff, maybe his campaign won't totally collapse after all.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:52 AM on June 20, 2016
Huh. That makes a ton of sense actually - if a guy like Trump could be persuaded to listen to anyone, it might be his own children, if only because they're kind of an extension of him (if you buy into the Trump=pathological narcissist theory). There's nothing they can do about his mountain of negatives or his apparent inability to stay on message, but if his kids can get a handle on the organizational stuff, maybe his campaign won't totally collapse after all.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:52 AM on June 20, 2016
They didn't pay Lewandowski hush money? They're relying solely on his loyalty?
Of course, Trump hires people for their loyalty, so who knows if he'll really leak the crap out of the Trump campaign.
I don't really agree that ditching Trump would be undermining our democracy, just because there's really no rule that says party candidates have to be chosen democratically.
So in principle I agree with this statement -- Trump didn't win a true majority, and the party chooses. OTOH, the optics would be insanely bad UNLESS the GOP can come up with someone everyone can agree is a far better choice. And the likelihood of finding that person is close to nil.
OTOOH, if you assume Trump voters are mostly independents and people who like Trump The TV Character, then you can safely exclude them, similar to how the Dems can, at this point, let most of the Bernie Or Busters go. You can bring them around later if you can unify the core of the party and then move that message out to the populace. Thing is, given Hillary's negatives, you'd have a good chance of bringing the independents around.
posted by dw at 9:54 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Of course, Trump hires people for their loyalty, so who knows if he'll really leak the crap out of the Trump campaign.
I don't really agree that ditching Trump would be undermining our democracy, just because there's really no rule that says party candidates have to be chosen democratically.
So in principle I agree with this statement -- Trump didn't win a true majority, and the party chooses. OTOH, the optics would be insanely bad UNLESS the GOP can come up with someone everyone can agree is a far better choice. And the likelihood of finding that person is close to nil.
OTOOH, if you assume Trump voters are mostly independents and people who like Trump The TV Character, then you can safely exclude them, similar to how the Dems can, at this point, let most of the Bernie Or Busters go. You can bring them around later if you can unify the core of the party and then move that message out to the populace. Thing is, given Hillary's negatives, you'd have a good chance of bringing the independents around.
posted by dw at 9:54 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
You can't peel off a few moderate leaning Republicans by making the Democratic Party more Republican. Who will go for a pandering Democrats when they could just vote Republican?
That's not what I'm saying at all. Courting former Republicans doesn't require becoming more Republican.
Like: back in the day, the country as a whole is trending conservative, so the Dems lean conservative. Now, despite the very vocal right, the country is trending more liberal - and the response I'm proposing to that is not "the Dems should lean more conservative again," it's the exact opposite. The Dems just have to figure out how to bring people into their tent - WITHOUT compromising their ideals - by convincing them that they, with their current ideals, represent the people better than the Republicans. Which is exactly what the Republicans once did - they didn't snatch up Dems by becoming more liberal. They just convinced them that liberals were bad for them.
The Dems don't need to move right. They need to stay exactly where they are (or move slightly left) and snatch Republicans away anyway, which forces the REPUBLICANS to move left or die.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:55 AM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
That's not what I'm saying at all. Courting former Republicans doesn't require becoming more Republican.
Like: back in the day, the country as a whole is trending conservative, so the Dems lean conservative. Now, despite the very vocal right, the country is trending more liberal - and the response I'm proposing to that is not "the Dems should lean more conservative again," it's the exact opposite. The Dems just have to figure out how to bring people into their tent - WITHOUT compromising their ideals - by convincing them that they, with their current ideals, represent the people better than the Republicans. Which is exactly what the Republicans once did - they didn't snatch up Dems by becoming more liberal. They just convinced them that liberals were bad for them.
The Dems don't need to move right. They need to stay exactly where they are (or move slightly left) and snatch Republicans away anyway, which forces the REPUBLICANS to move left or die.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:55 AM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
What I'm hearing on Twitter is that there was some sort of feud between Lewandowski and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Lewandowski was supposedly spreading nasty rumors to try to undermine Kushner. As a general rule, I would not fuck with Ivanka, but apparently Lewandowski didn't get that memo.
It is all kind of Real Housewives-esque, isn't it?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:58 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
It is all kind of Real Housewives-esque, isn't it?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:58 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Who gives a shit whether or not the Dems soak up former white Republicans upset that the racism and misogyny have become explicit rather than covert? The future of the Democratic Party isn't white people. Focusing on white people, particularly shitty white people whose major complaint is that they prefer their white supremacy genteel instead of foaming at the mouth, is stupid and counter-productive.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:00 AM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:00 AM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
They didn't pay Lewandowski hush money? They're relying solely on his loyalty?
Of course, Trump hires people for their loyalty, so who knows if he'll really leak the crap out of the Trump campaign.
Maybe they're taking his professional self-interest for granted? By and large, talking shit about a former employer doesn't make you look particularly good to prospective new employers. Doubly so in a field where confidentiality is so intensely important.
The flipside, though, is that Trump is such an aberration of everything that the establishment may not even blink at someone who drops out of his campaign and immediately goes straight to the media with a wheelbarrow full of dirt and a pocket full of receipts. It might be completely forgiven. "Normally I wouldn't talk to a political operative who didn't keep his mouth shut after leaving a campaign, but...I mean, Trump, right?"
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:04 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Of course, Trump hires people for their loyalty, so who knows if he'll really leak the crap out of the Trump campaign.
Maybe they're taking his professional self-interest for granted? By and large, talking shit about a former employer doesn't make you look particularly good to prospective new employers. Doubly so in a field where confidentiality is so intensely important.
The flipside, though, is that Trump is such an aberration of everything that the establishment may not even blink at someone who drops out of his campaign and immediately goes straight to the media with a wheelbarrow full of dirt and a pocket full of receipts. It might be completely forgiven. "Normally I wouldn't talk to a political operative who didn't keep his mouth shut after leaving a campaign, but...I mean, Trump, right?"
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:04 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
The flipside, though, is that Trump is such an aberration of everything that the establishment may not even blink at someone who drops out of his campaign and immediately goes straight to the media with a wheelbarrow full of dirt and a pocket full of receipts. It might be completely forgiven.
That, and how long is it until Trump starts badmouthing the guy on Twitter?
posted by nubs at 10:08 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
That, and how long is it until Trump starts badmouthing the guy on Twitter?
posted by nubs at 10:08 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, the Trump campaign could easily turn out to be so radioactive that the only career path available to former high-level staff is talking about the Trump campaign.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:08 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:08 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, the Trump campaign could easily turn out to be so radioactive that the only career path available to former high-level staff is talking about the Trump campaign.
Steve Schmidt (of McCain/Palin) works at MSNBC now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:09 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Steve Schmidt (of McCain/Palin) works at MSNBC now.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:09 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who gives a shit whether or not the Dems soak up former white Republicans upset that the racism and misogyny have become explicit rather than covert? The future of the Democratic Party isn't white people. Focusing on white people, particularly shitty white people whose major complaint is that they prefer their white supremacy genteel instead of foaming at the mouth, is stupid and counter-productive.
I disagree that "pitching the Democratic party to skeptics" inherently means "focusing on white racists." Especially because, despite the fact that many current Republican voters are racists, many of them are also impoverished Americans who could genuinely be helped by Democratic social programs, which is a message we really should have been trying to get to them for a decade or two now.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:17 AM on June 20, 2016 [23 favorites]
I disagree that "pitching the Democratic party to skeptics" inherently means "focusing on white racists." Especially because, despite the fact that many current Republican voters are racists, many of them are also impoverished Americans who could genuinely be helped by Democratic social programs, which is a message we really should have been trying to get to them for a decade or two now.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:17 AM on June 20, 2016 [23 favorites]
This way this conversation has turned is a good example of my point. When I talked about courting voters, I very specifically said not the people who are glad they can be openly racist (also that I would give up ideals or put the white vote ahead of minority issues). And here are a bunch of posts about how we don't want to give up our ideals for racist white people. That was never the point, and we're never going to pull the specific demographic I was talking about left if we insist on calling them horrible racists. Bad rhetoric. Not welcoming. I think drawing people left is a good thing, and that's not going to happen if they're treated with contempt by those on the left.
It's not like I suggested redrawing the Democratic party to get the Arpaio's on our side. It's just that not everyone on the right is an Arpaio, and it would be good to not treat them as such.
posted by Ruki at 10:18 AM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's not like I suggested redrawing the Democratic party to get the Arpaio's on our side. It's just that not everyone on the right is an Arpaio, and it would be good to not treat them as such.
posted by Ruki at 10:18 AM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't like the idea of the Trump Kids taking an active role in making their father's campaign less slapdash and vile. I do like the idea of the Trump Kids forcing out key staffers because of interpersonal conflicts. Not sure how to feel about this yet
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:19 AM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:19 AM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
A 50 state strategy of trying to elect real Democrats everywhere, of aggressively marketing Democratic ideals everywhere, is one I can get behind. A 50 state strategy that consists of finding Republicans willing to turn coat and run for office under the Democratic brand is not.
The landscape has changed. It used to be that Democrats could get moderate Republicans to cross the aisle and compromise sometimes. That's not going to happen again anytime soon. If you want moderates in congress who sometimes side with the Democrats, they're gonna have to have a (D) after their name, even if you think it should be an (R).
posted by straight at 10:32 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
The landscape has changed. It used to be that Democrats could get moderate Republicans to cross the aisle and compromise sometimes. That's not going to happen again anytime soon. If you want moderates in congress who sometimes side with the Democrats, they're gonna have to have a (D) after their name, even if you think it should be an (R).
posted by straight at 10:32 AM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
And outside the edit window "Would NOT give up ideals..."
posted by Ruki at 10:32 AM on June 20, 2016
posted by Ruki at 10:32 AM on June 20, 2016
I have yet to see the path to a majority Democratic Congress, much less one with a supermajority in the Senate, that doesn't involve the Democratic party allowing some measure of heterodoxy on the part of members in more conservative districts / states who are there for the big votes, but allowed to vote with their constituency when the vote doesn't affect the outcome. This is not an exact science, but all things being equal, I'd rather have, for example, a Joe Donnelly in the Senate over a Dick Lugar, because though Donnelly's not my idea of what an Indiana Democrat should be, he appears to be Indiana's idea of what a Democrat should be, and their votes actually count there.
If someone can show evidence that there's a yearning for more progressive candidates than the ones that are winning in these reddish states, please do so, but as much of a pain in the ass as Blue Dog types have been in the past, it's even worse seeing all this effort poured into electing a Democratic President just to have most of their energy taken up by stopping a GOP-controlled congress from doing terrible shit.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:36 AM on June 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
If someone can show evidence that there's a yearning for more progressive candidates than the ones that are winning in these reddish states, please do so, but as much of a pain in the ass as Blue Dog types have been in the past, it's even worse seeing all this effort poured into electing a Democratic President just to have most of their energy taken up by stopping a GOP-controlled congress from doing terrible shit.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:36 AM on June 20, 2016 [19 favorites]
Especially because, despite the fact that many current Republican voters are racists, many of them are also impoverished Americans who could genuinely be helped by Democratic social programs, which is a message we really should have been trying to get to them for a decade or two now.
We have been sending that message. The problem is that they are willing to screw themselves over, as long as everyone they see as under them socially is even worse off.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:47 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
We have been sending that message. The problem is that they are willing to screw themselves over, as long as everyone they see as under them socially is even worse off.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:47 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump Removes Corey Lewandowski as Campaign Manager:
posted by kirkaracha at 10:50 AM on June 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
Democrats also seized on a mistake in Trump’s speech, in which he said the Queens, New York-born shooter was from Afghanistan...Staffers had accidentally uploaded the wrong version of the speech into the TelePrompTers and later posted the correct version on Trump’s Facebook page.So after repeatedly saying that "If you’re running for president, you shouldn't be allowed to use a teleprompter," and saying "[Clinton]'s just reading it off a teleprompter, he just blindly reads what's on the teleprompter?
posted by kirkaracha at 10:50 AM on June 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
Also, why was there a version of the script which said the shooter was from "Afghan"?
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:52 AM on June 20, 2016
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:52 AM on June 20, 2016
Josh at TPM: The Real News Is Trump is Broke
posted by chris24 at 10:53 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by chris24 at 10:53 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
We have been sending that message. The problem is that they are willing to screw themselves over, as long as everyone they see as under them socially is even worse off.
I really don't believe that a bunch of people sat down and said to themselves "I know for a fact that this policy will help me but it would also help those people so I don't want it." They've been told, by the other side, "this policy will only help those people and it will hurt you," and we have not effectively countered that argument.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:55 AM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
I really don't believe that a bunch of people sat down and said to themselves "I know for a fact that this policy will help me but it would also help those people so I don't want it." They've been told, by the other side, "this policy will only help those people and it will hurt you," and we have not effectively countered that argument.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:55 AM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
Also, why was there a version of the script which said the shooter was from "Afghan"?
I like to imagine whatever staffer wrote that uploaded the spec and prompts to one of those "EZ COURSE WRITING" sites and paid like $5 to have some random guy in like India write it, and then copy checked it.
The version on the prompters was the non-copy checked one
posted by emptythought at 10:58 AM on June 20, 2016
I like to imagine whatever staffer wrote that uploaded the spec and prompts to one of those "EZ COURSE WRITING" sites and paid like $5 to have some random guy in like India write it, and then copy checked it.
The version on the prompters was the non-copy checked one
posted by emptythought at 10:58 AM on June 20, 2016
I really don't believe that a bunch of people sat down and said to themselves "I know for a fact that this policy will help me but it would also help those people so I don't want it." They've been told, by the other side, "this policy will only help those people and it will hurt you," and we have not effectively countered that argument.
No, they don't say it outright like that. But, as Lee Atwater explained so famously, that's sort of the point - you don't say it outright.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:00 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, they don't say it outright like that. But, as Lee Atwater explained so famously, that's sort of the point - you don't say it outright.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:00 AM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
which is a message we really should have been trying to get to them for a decade or two now.
Doesn't the Democratic Party already do that? ACA was pushed as a pretty anodyne plan that was to first and foremost to insure ALL Americans. And Clinton's plans for child care and family leave are also meant to benefit everybody, which is reflected in the slogan "Stronger Together".
I'm not saying to give up, but I think as long as the Republican Party exists it's going to be extremely hard to wrench the white demographic from their hands, because it's one of the only groups they have left. And it's being shown that the Republicans will tolerate a whole lot (like Trump) in order to keep this demographic in their party.
posted by FJT at 11:01 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Doesn't the Democratic Party already do that? ACA was pushed as a pretty anodyne plan that was to first and foremost to insure ALL Americans. And Clinton's plans for child care and family leave are also meant to benefit everybody, which is reflected in the slogan "Stronger Together".
I'm not saying to give up, but I think as long as the Republican Party exists it's going to be extremely hard to wrench the white demographic from their hands, because it's one of the only groups they have left. And it's being shown that the Republicans will tolerate a whole lot (like Trump) in order to keep this demographic in their party.
posted by FJT at 11:01 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
paid like $5 to have some random guy in like India write it
Can we not? People in India know what Afghanistan is.
posted by zutalors! at 11:01 AM on June 20, 2016 [17 favorites]
Can we not? People in India know what Afghanistan is.
posted by zutalors! at 11:01 AM on June 20, 2016 [17 favorites]
Joe Lieberman is with us on everything but the war.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:01 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 11:01 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
We have been sending that message.
But...not very effectively? I know a lot of Republicans, even though I disagree with 98% of their worldview. The majority of them feel that most Democrats/Liberals despise them. Look at the media narratives about people who live in rural areas, or blue collar workers, or anyone who didn't go to college. Look at the way they are portrayed, and mocked, and infantilized. That is the message getting through. Not "we care about you as a valuable human being with inherent dignity and rights".
I mean, a lot of this comes from Fox distortions and misrepresentations, but nowhere near all of it. The absolute vitriol and scorn that are regularly aimed at them by liberal luminaries is pretty intense.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:02 AM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
But...not very effectively? I know a lot of Republicans, even though I disagree with 98% of their worldview. The majority of them feel that most Democrats/Liberals despise them. Look at the media narratives about people who live in rural areas, or blue collar workers, or anyone who didn't go to college. Look at the way they are portrayed, and mocked, and infantilized. That is the message getting through. Not "we care about you as a valuable human being with inherent dignity and rights".
I mean, a lot of this comes from Fox distortions and misrepresentations, but nowhere near all of it. The absolute vitriol and scorn that are regularly aimed at them by liberal luminaries is pretty intense.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:02 AM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
Monmouth Poll:
2-way: Clinton 47/Trump 40 RV (49/41 LV)
4-way: HC 42/DT 36/Johnson 9/Stein 4 RV (44/37/9/4 LV)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:02 AM on June 20, 2016
2-way: Clinton 47/Trump 40 RV (49/41 LV)
4-way: HC 42/DT 36/Johnson 9/Stein 4 RV (44/37/9/4 LV)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:02 AM on June 20, 2016
Doesn't the Democratic Party already do that? ACA was pushed as a pretty anodyne plan that was to first and foremost to insure ALL Americans.
It's not about the policies themselves. It's about marketing the policies to people more effectively and in a more targeted manner.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:02 AM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's not about the policies themselves. It's about marketing the policies to people more effectively and in a more targeted manner.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:02 AM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
The 'Afghan' thing seems like a Freudian slip. The man just can't not compare people to dogs.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:03 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:03 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
When you ask yourself why poor white people would vote against their interests, you really need to factor in religion. Self-sacrifice for God's will is a potent idea, which is why the prolife "save the babies" message works with so many; sure you're maybe screwing yourself over but you saved babies by voting for that guy. Or saved the world from the evils of Hilary who would make your daughter become an atheist lesbian who goes to hell. Or kept out Communism. It's not all racism. Or perhaps it's a type of virtuous racism that sees helping minorities (the poor things) as "bad for them." It's a twisted-up version of otherwise ethical impulses.
Most Randian types tend to be people who already have money and don't want to share it.
posted by emjaybee at 11:04 AM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Most Randian types tend to be people who already have money and don't want to share it.
posted by emjaybee at 11:04 AM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Steve Schmidt (of McCain/Palin) works at MSNBC now.
There goes that liberal media again...
posted by Gelatin at 11:05 AM on June 20, 2016
There goes that liberal media again...
posted by Gelatin at 11:05 AM on June 20, 2016
Joe Lieberman is with us on everything but the war.
Connecticut isn't Indiana. Democrats rightly tried to get rid of Lieberman, because they understood that is exactly what you do in deep blue states. I'd happily take some version of Lieberman in Texas or Oklahoma, but it's not hard to understand the difference between allowing space for red state Democrats to be red state Democrats while also telling Joe Lieberman to fuck off.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:06 AM on June 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
Connecticut isn't Indiana. Democrats rightly tried to get rid of Lieberman, because they understood that is exactly what you do in deep blue states. I'd happily take some version of Lieberman in Texas or Oklahoma, but it's not hard to understand the difference between allowing space for red state Democrats to be red state Democrats while also telling Joe Lieberman to fuck off.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:06 AM on June 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
Most Randian types tend to be people who already have money and don't want to share it.
Or who aspire to become those people.
posted by Superplin at 11:07 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Or who aspire to become those people.
posted by Superplin at 11:07 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Can we not? People in India know what Afghanistan is.
Yea, that's a shitty cheap shot, i regret it, and it didn't even occur to me when i clicked post that it could be taken that way. Sorry.
I could genuinely imagine is horribly overloaded tiny staff using one of those pay-for-college-paper sites to write a campaign speech though because... yep.
posted by emptythought at 11:10 AM on June 20, 2016
Yea, that's a shitty cheap shot, i regret it, and it didn't even occur to me when i clicked post that it could be taken that way. Sorry.
I could genuinely imagine is horribly overloaded tiny staff using one of those pay-for-college-paper sites to write a campaign speech though because... yep.
posted by emptythought at 11:10 AM on June 20, 2016
"I think profiling is something that we're going to have to start thinking about as a country," Trump said when asked on CBS whether he supported more profiling of Muslims in America.
"You look at Israel and you look at others, and they do it and they do it successfully. And you know, I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense," he added.
We're back on racial profiling folks. The 14th amendment wasn't a real amendment, right?
posted by Talez at 22:53 on June 19
You know how we keep saying that Republicans are upset because he's saying the quiet parts loud? The ugly truth is that when it comes to profiling Muslims, that applies to many, if not most, of the Democrats in office as well.
posted by bardophile at 11:10 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
"You look at Israel and you look at others, and they do it and they do it successfully. And you know, I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense," he added.
We're back on racial profiling folks. The 14th amendment wasn't a real amendment, right?
posted by Talez at 22:53 on June 19
You know how we keep saying that Republicans are upset because he's saying the quiet parts loud? The ugly truth is that when it comes to profiling Muslims, that applies to many, if not most, of the Democrats in office as well.
posted by bardophile at 11:10 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's a twisted-up version of otherwise ethical impulses.
This actually puts me in mind of an FPP I posted a while ago: Violence [say the authors] does not stem from a psychopathic lack of morality. Quite the reverse: it comes from the exercise of perceived moral rights and obligations. People who do things that you or I see as twisted and despicable don't wake up every day thinking "I am twisted and despicable, time to go hurt people." For the most part, people act according to what they think is the right way to act. So the trick is to change what they think that right way is.
None of this is meant to excuse racism or violence. But I think it's a grave mistake to act like people can't ever change. If people couldn't be persuaded to change we wouldn't have gay marriage now.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:11 AM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
This actually puts me in mind of an FPP I posted a while ago: Violence [say the authors] does not stem from a psychopathic lack of morality. Quite the reverse: it comes from the exercise of perceived moral rights and obligations. People who do things that you or I see as twisted and despicable don't wake up every day thinking "I am twisted and despicable, time to go hurt people." For the most part, people act according to what they think is the right way to act. So the trick is to change what they think that right way is.
None of this is meant to excuse racism or violence. But I think it's a grave mistake to act like people can't ever change. If people couldn't be persuaded to change we wouldn't have gay marriage now.
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:11 AM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
fellow liberals: if you're trying to understand the minds of GOP voters and you keep falling back on 'well it's either irredeemable racism or extreme religiosity' you are probably, um, oversimplifying
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:12 AM on June 20, 2016 [35 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:12 AM on June 20, 2016 [35 favorites]
In regards to Trump's allegation that Pulse would have been safer with an armed guard, Pulse had a uniformed, armed guard who exchanged fire with the murderer before retreating. This is a shout-it-from-the-rooftops point that seems to have been totally buried. A trained good guy with a gun was not able to stop this massacre.
This talking point of Trump's should not be allowed to stand and I encourage you to share that Fact check link with anyone who supports it. Not that facts change opinions, but that point should not be allowed to stand without challenge every single time it brought up.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:13 AM on June 20, 2016 [33 favorites]
This talking point of Trump's should not be allowed to stand and I encourage you to share that Fact check link with anyone who supports it. Not that facts change opinions, but that point should not be allowed to stand without challenge every single time it brought up.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:13 AM on June 20, 2016 [33 favorites]
Most Randian types tend to be people who already have money and don't want to share it.
Cite? Compelling, but a cite would be good.
fellow liberals: if you're trying to understand the minds of GOP voters and you keep falling back on 'well it's either irredeemable racism or extreme religiosity' you are probably, um, oversimplifying
A million times.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:13 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Cite? Compelling, but a cite would be good.
fellow liberals: if you're trying to understand the minds of GOP voters and you keep falling back on 'well it's either irredeemable racism or extreme religiosity' you are probably, um, oversimplifying
A million times.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:13 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
When you ask yourself why poor white people would vote against their interests, you really need to factor in religion.
I actually think this election is disproving this framing-- a lot of Trump's fans believe in "old time values" but aren't religious at all. I have a friend whose whole family is full of immigrant hating Fox News fans, but none of them are remotely religious. They just hate anyone who isn't just like them.
Trump has showcased how little he knows about religion, and his fans love that about him because it makes him seem "genuine". That is not an audience of the devout.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:16 AM on June 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
I actually think this election is disproving this framing-- a lot of Trump's fans believe in "old time values" but aren't religious at all. I have a friend whose whole family is full of immigrant hating Fox News fans, but none of them are remotely religious. They just hate anyone who isn't just like them.
Trump has showcased how little he knows about religion, and his fans love that about him because it makes him seem "genuine". That is not an audience of the devout.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:16 AM on June 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Connecticut isn't Indiana. Democrats rightly tried to get rid of Lieberman, because they understood that is exactly what you do in deep blue states. I'd happily take some version of Lieberman in Texas or Oklahoma, but it's not hard to understand the difference between allowing space for red state Democrats to be red state Democrats while also telling Joe Lieberman to fuck off.
"Democrats" didn't do that, Democrats on the left did that while the establishment that made him a VP choice (a few years before a Republican strongly considered him) tried to hold on to him kicking and screaming. The issue isn't that Democrats are a liberal party that tolerates some centrists for pragmatic reasons, it's that it's a centrist party that tolerates liberals for pragmatic reasons. Some liberals are kind of fed up with that approach, rightly or wrongly. They want to be a liberal party first, I think it's why a lot of people wanted Sanders to win.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:21 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Democrats" didn't do that, Democrats on the left did that while the establishment that made him a VP choice (a few years before a Republican strongly considered him) tried to hold on to him kicking and screaming. The issue isn't that Democrats are a liberal party that tolerates some centrists for pragmatic reasons, it's that it's a centrist party that tolerates liberals for pragmatic reasons. Some liberals are kind of fed up with that approach, rightly or wrongly. They want to be a liberal party first, I think it's why a lot of people wanted Sanders to win.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:21 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
> Also, the Trump campaign could easily turn out to be so radioactive that the only career path available to former high-level staff is talking about the Trump campaign.
Up here in Toronto, it turned out that working for Rob Ford was generally not a good career move (or beneficial to one's health).
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:27 AM on June 20, 2016
Up here in Toronto, it turned out that working for Rob Ford was generally not a good career move (or beneficial to one's health).
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:27 AM on June 20, 2016
When you ask yourself why poor white people would vote against their interests, you really need to factor in religion.
I think the fact that we have so many wings of a single religion that manage to occupy the entire American political spectrum speaks to the fact that religion is a symptom, not a disease. That is, people for the most part aren't becoming Republicans or Democrats based on what they hear in Sunday school -- they're forming political opinions and then finding churches that align with that. Hence the rise of overtly political megachurches and televangelists. They were filling a large niche of people who had their politics and were looking for a church, not the other way around.
posted by Etrigan at 11:28 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the fact that we have so many wings of a single religion that manage to occupy the entire American political spectrum speaks to the fact that religion is a symptom, not a disease. That is, people for the most part aren't becoming Republicans or Democrats based on what they hear in Sunday school -- they're forming political opinions and then finding churches that align with that. Hence the rise of overtly political megachurches and televangelists. They were filling a large niche of people who had their politics and were looking for a church, not the other way around.
posted by Etrigan at 11:28 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
So locally, RI Democrats aren't really aligned with my political beliefs. There's a lot of anti-unionism, the Democratic President of state Senate is still against same sex marriage and she's pro-life. But we reliably send Democrats to Congress. In the past hundred years, if I remembered correctly what I just looked up, we've had nine Democrats and five Republicans in the Senate. The Republicans, on average served short terms, while on the other side, Claiborne Pell was in for over 30 years. Plus, two of those Republicans were John and Lincoln Chaffee. John Chaffee was pro-choice and an environmentalist who often broke from the party line. And well, Linc is a Democrat now. I'm totally cool with ideological impurity at the local level if it gets Democrats into Congress. I definitely want to see the party move to the left and that happens through Congress, in my opinion.
posted by Ruki at 11:28 AM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Ruki at 11:28 AM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
The thing is, I actually think some white folks are voting for their interests when they vote Republican. I take them at their word, or their vote, that the Republican Party is what they want and is of benefit to them.
posted by FJT at 11:28 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by FJT at 11:28 AM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Democrats" didn't do that, Democrats on the left did that
Democrats on the left, also known as Democrats. The party leaders and rank and file also lined up behind Lamont after he won the primary. What exactly were you expecting them to do?
I don't really understand your argument here. You and I both want die-hard progressives in blue states, which is an achievable goal. You and I probably both want die-hard progressives in red states too, but that is not an achievable goal. Would you rather have Republicans in Blue Dog seats and be a permanent legislative minority, and if not, what is your plan to get progressives elected to those seats? Please stop with the sniping and make an affirmative argument for something concrete.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:31 AM on June 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
Democrats on the left, also known as Democrats. The party leaders and rank and file also lined up behind Lamont after he won the primary. What exactly were you expecting them to do?
I don't really understand your argument here. You and I both want die-hard progressives in blue states, which is an achievable goal. You and I probably both want die-hard progressives in red states too, but that is not an achievable goal. Would you rather have Republicans in Blue Dog seats and be a permanent legislative minority, and if not, what is your plan to get progressives elected to those seats? Please stop with the sniping and make an affirmative argument for something concrete.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:31 AM on June 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
"...they're forming political opinions and then finding churches that align with that."
I'm not so sure. I think the so-called Roman Catholic vote has been pretty evenly split between the Democrats and Republicans for years.
posted by klarck at 11:35 AM on June 20, 2016
I'm not so sure. I think the so-called Roman Catholic vote has been pretty evenly split between the Democrats and Republicans for years.
posted by klarck at 11:35 AM on June 20, 2016
"...they're forming political opinions and then finding churches that align with that."
I'm not so sure. I think the so-called Roman Catholic vote has been pretty evenly split between the Democrats and Republicans for years.
Sorry, I left off "or their religion simply doesn't inform their politics at all."
posted by Etrigan at 11:38 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not so sure. I think the so-called Roman Catholic vote has been pretty evenly split between the Democrats and Republicans for years.
Sorry, I left off "or their religion simply doesn't inform their politics at all."
posted by Etrigan at 11:38 AM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
When you ask yourself why poor white people would vote against their interests, you really need to factor in religion.
Yes and no. They are certainly more pro-life and more likely to be anti-gay, but at the same time they're also sizably areligious and tolerant.
It really is about money. They're economically treading water, at best, in parts of the country where the current bull market has passed over. And they get their paycheck and see all that money coming out for taxes... which, for most of us upper-middle class folks, is chump change compared to what we pay, but our taxes are often what their take-home is.
This is one reason Sanders appealed to poor whites -- it wasn't about race, it was about money. It was about making those coastal elites pay up, even as their own taxes would have risen.
It's also why Trump appeals to many of them, only without the tax increase.
posted by dw at 11:43 AM on June 20, 2016
Yes and no. They are certainly more pro-life and more likely to be anti-gay, but at the same time they're also sizably areligious and tolerant.
It really is about money. They're economically treading water, at best, in parts of the country where the current bull market has passed over. And they get their paycheck and see all that money coming out for taxes... which, for most of us upper-middle class folks, is chump change compared to what we pay, but our taxes are often what their take-home is.
This is one reason Sanders appealed to poor whites -- it wasn't about race, it was about money. It was about making those coastal elites pay up, even as their own taxes would have risen.
It's also why Trump appeals to many of them, only without the tax increase.
posted by dw at 11:43 AM on June 20, 2016
The majority of them feel that most Democrats/Liberals despise them. Look at the media narratives about people who live in rural areas, or blue collar workers, or anyone who didn't go to college.
Well, I live just outside San Francisco. Within California, our blue county taxes subsidize the red counties in the state. Nationwide, California and other blue states subsidize the red states. Instead of thanks we get derided as coastal elites and tax-and-spend liberals who should keep government out of Medicare. I don't despise them, but sometimes I do get fucking tired of the hypocrisy.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:49 AM on June 20, 2016 [15 favorites]
Sorry, I left off "or their religion simply doesn't inform their politics at all."
I'm not sure if you mean otherwise, but the politics of many Catholics — on the left and on the right — is very much informed by their religion.
posted by multics at 11:55 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure if you mean otherwise, but the politics of many Catholics — on the left and on the right — is very much informed by their religion.
posted by multics at 11:55 AM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
straight If you want moderates in congress who sometimes side with the Democrats, they're gonna have to have a (D) after their name, even if you think it should be an (R).
Ok, but why would I possibly want moderates who sometimes side with Democrats?
I want to win, not ass around with turning the boat two degrees or split the loaf so many times I get nothing but crumbs and pretend that it's a good thing.
a fiendish thingy I know a lot of Republicans, even though I disagree with 98% of their worldview. The majority of them feel that most Democrats/Liberals despise them.
As do I, and I'd say that is an accurate assessment of the situation.
I'm one of the people who despises them. I've lived surrounded by them my entire life and they're despicable. They want anyone not like them to suffer and be oppressed and they vote for that to happen every chance they get.
Many of the people of that mindset I've spoken to have expressed a belief in what might be termed zero sum oppression, the idea that there's no such thing as actual equality or people just not being oppressed. Instead they see the world as one where inevitably **SOMEONE** is going to be oppressed so if they aren't the ones doing the oppression then, by definition, they are the ones being oppressed.
So yeah, I despise them not because of their education or their jobs but because they do a great deal of harm and I have never seen any way of actually causing them to change their minds.
posted by sotonohito at 12:00 PM on June 20, 2016
Ok, but why would I possibly want moderates who sometimes side with Democrats?
I want to win, not ass around with turning the boat two degrees or split the loaf so many times I get nothing but crumbs and pretend that it's a good thing.
a fiendish thingy I know a lot of Republicans, even though I disagree with 98% of their worldview. The majority of them feel that most Democrats/Liberals despise them.
As do I, and I'd say that is an accurate assessment of the situation.
I'm one of the people who despises them. I've lived surrounded by them my entire life and they're despicable. They want anyone not like them to suffer and be oppressed and they vote for that to happen every chance they get.
Many of the people of that mindset I've spoken to have expressed a belief in what might be termed zero sum oppression, the idea that there's no such thing as actual equality or people just not being oppressed. Instead they see the world as one where inevitably **SOMEONE** is going to be oppressed so if they aren't the ones doing the oppression then, by definition, they are the ones being oppressed.
So yeah, I despise them not because of their education or their jobs but because they do a great deal of harm and I have never seen any way of actually causing them to change their minds.
posted by sotonohito at 12:00 PM on June 20, 2016
the politics of many Catholics — on the left and on the right — is very much informed by their religion.
That's a more granular version of what I was talking about -- Catholics take "church teachings" to mean whatever aligns to their politics, not the other way around. Democrats ignore the abortion stuff. Republicans ignore the parts about giving all their money to the poor.
posted by Etrigan at 12:01 PM on June 20, 2016
That's a more granular version of what I was talking about -- Catholics take "church teachings" to mean whatever aligns to their politics, not the other way around. Democrats ignore the abortion stuff. Republicans ignore the parts about giving all their money to the poor.
posted by Etrigan at 12:01 PM on June 20, 2016
Republicans ignore the parts about giving all their money to the poor.
Yeah, but in fairness so do virtually all Christians, regardless of politics.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:03 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, but in fairness so do virtually all Christians, regardless of politics.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:03 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
why would I possibly want moderates who sometimes side with Democrats?
Because if they have an (R) after their names, they never will.
posted by Gelatin at 12:03 PM on June 20, 2016 [20 favorites]
Because if they have an (R) after their names, they never will.
posted by Gelatin at 12:03 PM on June 20, 2016 [20 favorites]
The party of today is leftward of where it was in 2000
Specifically, it's moved left on foreign policy, mostly due to the Iraq War. Before 2005 or so, the GOP was often very effective at casting Democrats as weak-willed doves (e.g. Dukakis, Kerry). So Dems were often happy to have a hawks in Congress and one on the ticket. In 1992, one of Clinton's litmus tests for VP was support for the Gulf War. You can draw a line from that to Gore picking Lieberman in 2000, and to candidates with national aspirations voting for war in the fall of 2002 (see Clinton, Hillary).
The utter disaster in Iraq completely changed things. In 2006, Lieberman lost his primary, and in 2008 Obama won in the nomination in large part due to his early opposition to invading Iraq.
posted by fitnr at 12:08 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Specifically, it's moved left on foreign policy, mostly due to the Iraq War. Before 2005 or so, the GOP was often very effective at casting Democrats as weak-willed doves (e.g. Dukakis, Kerry). So Dems were often happy to have a hawks in Congress and one on the ticket. In 1992, one of Clinton's litmus tests for VP was support for the Gulf War. You can draw a line from that to Gore picking Lieberman in 2000, and to candidates with national aspirations voting for war in the fall of 2002 (see Clinton, Hillary).
The utter disaster in Iraq completely changed things. In 2006, Lieberman lost his primary, and in 2008 Obama won in the nomination in large part due to his early opposition to invading Iraq.
posted by fitnr at 12:08 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Ok, but why would I possibly want moderates who sometimes side with Democrats?
Why would you want to pass the Civil Rights Act? Or the Americans with Disabilities Act? Or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program?
posted by straight at 12:11 PM on June 20, 2016 [27 favorites]
Why would you want to pass the Civil Rights Act? Or the Americans with Disabilities Act? Or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program?
posted by straight at 12:11 PM on June 20, 2016 [27 favorites]
Etrigan that's not really exclusive to Catholics though. In fact I'd argue that the seeming contradiction of Evangelicals embracing Trump is due to "Evangelical" not actually describing a religious denomination but rather a political tribe with some religious decorations.
Not that they consider the religion to be irrelevant or anything, more that in their view right religion produces right politics and vice versa. Therefore wrong politics means wrong religion regardless of all other religious considerations and right politics means the person with the right politics must somehow be on side with the religion. Maybe they just haven't awoken to Christ's love, but since they get all the political matters right they must be on the right path.
posted by sotonohito at 12:12 PM on June 20, 2016
Not that they consider the religion to be irrelevant or anything, more that in their view right religion produces right politics and vice versa. Therefore wrong politics means wrong religion regardless of all other religious considerations and right politics means the person with the right politics must somehow be on side with the religion. Maybe they just haven't awoken to Christ's love, but since they get all the political matters right they must be on the right path.
posted by sotonohito at 12:12 PM on June 20, 2016
Mod note: sotonohito, this has at this point gotten into sort of a long-form "satisfy my demands about political theory" take-on-all-comers thing that I'm gonna ask you to ease way back on.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:13 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:13 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
In fact I'd argue that the seeming contradiction of Evangelicals embracing Trump is due to "Evangelical" not actually describing a religious denomination but rather a political tribe with some religious decorations.
Yes, that is what I said:.
posted by Etrigan at 12:17 PM on June 20, 2016
Yes, that is what I said:.
posted by Etrigan at 12:17 PM on June 20, 2016
OK, this has been said before (by me among others), but if you want a More Left Party first you have to get a majority of people to agree with you. It doesn't make any sense to push the party in a direction that a majority of people don't agree with. That just makes the party smaller and less popular. I don't think that is so hard to understand.
It's a cart before the horse thing.
posted by bongo_x at 12:19 PM on June 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
It's a cart before the horse thing.
posted by bongo_x at 12:19 PM on June 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'm one of the people who despises them. I've lived surrounded by them my entire life and they're despicable.
Sure! But this is kind of a chicken/egg scenario. The Democrats despise them, so they won't vote for Democrats, even if the Democrats give them exactly what they want and need. And they won't re-evaluate their givens, because to do so would also be to give in to those dreaded liberals. It's like the Key and Peele sketch where Obama writes a bill opposing gun control, and all the Republicans miserably begin calling for gun control because they can't bear to be on his side.
I have never seen any way of actually causing them to change their minds.
Like I said, I know a lot of Republicans. And I have helped change a lot of their minds over the years. Unfortunately, it usually takes decades of "I love you but I disagree with you, if you ever want to talk about it let me know". It's a long game, and it is painful and exhausting. But it is also surprisingly effective, in my own experience. Former boilerplate religious righters talking about the importance of gay rights: surprising, but pretty great. Relative who used to have a framed portrait of Reagan in her house telling me she's going to vote for Clinton: aces. Former "hate the sin love the sinner"-type telling me how proud she is of a relative for coming out as bisexual: kind of incredible.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:22 PM on June 20, 2016 [20 favorites]
Sure! But this is kind of a chicken/egg scenario. The Democrats despise them, so they won't vote for Democrats, even if the Democrats give them exactly what they want and need. And they won't re-evaluate their givens, because to do so would also be to give in to those dreaded liberals. It's like the Key and Peele sketch where Obama writes a bill opposing gun control, and all the Republicans miserably begin calling for gun control because they can't bear to be on his side.
I have never seen any way of actually causing them to change their minds.
Like I said, I know a lot of Republicans. And I have helped change a lot of their minds over the years. Unfortunately, it usually takes decades of "I love you but I disagree with you, if you ever want to talk about it let me know". It's a long game, and it is painful and exhausting. But it is also surprisingly effective, in my own experience. Former boilerplate religious righters talking about the importance of gay rights: surprising, but pretty great. Relative who used to have a framed portrait of Reagan in her house telling me she's going to vote for Clinton: aces. Former "hate the sin love the sinner"-type telling me how proud she is of a relative for coming out as bisexual: kind of incredible.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:22 PM on June 20, 2016 [20 favorites]
I understand wanting a change. The part I don't understand is people saying the Farther Left needs more representation. They will get it when enough people agree.
Let's say there is a 20% of people that want that. Those 20% should be setting policy for everyone else? I thought we were worried about the will of the people? Are they not getting 20% of what they want out of government now?
It's all compromise, and it better stay that way or we are in trouble.
posted by bongo_x at 12:23 PM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
Let's say there is a 20% of people that want that. Those 20% should be setting policy for everyone else? I thought we were worried about the will of the people? Are they not getting 20% of what they want out of government now?
It's all compromise, and it better stay that way or we are in trouble.
posted by bongo_x at 12:23 PM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
> I use "Trotskyist" because that's how Bernie's line of socialism comes from, not from the Marxist-Leninist line. Trotskyists believe in continual revolution and that the working class would just naturally embrace socialist thinking. They also rejected the compromises of the Stalinists, believing in a "pure" form of Communism.
Your distinction is meaningful but your history is muddled. Trotskyism is every bit as Marxist-Leninist as Stalinism (according to Trotskyists, even more so). Marx and Lenin, of course, also believed that the working class would just naturally embrace socialist thinking. The whole "continual revolution" thing is often misunderstood and caricatured, and I don't want to get into it here, and I certainly don't want to get into an inter-donkey debate (I'm an anarchist!), but if I see a mistaken bit of leftist history, I am contractually required to leap in and correct it.
posted by languagehat at 12:25 PM on June 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
Your distinction is meaningful but your history is muddled. Trotskyism is every bit as Marxist-Leninist as Stalinism (according to Trotskyists, even more so). Marx and Lenin, of course, also believed that the working class would just naturally embrace socialist thinking. The whole "continual revolution" thing is often misunderstood and caricatured, and I don't want to get into it here, and I certainly don't want to get into an inter-donkey debate (I'm an anarchist!), but if I see a mistaken bit of leftist history, I am contractually required to leap in and correct it.
posted by languagehat at 12:25 PM on June 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
"Republicans -- are they all just racist or religious nut-cases or what?" -- When the Democrats say this kind of stuff, they totally alienate any Republicans who may overhear them, and reduce the chances that those people will ever move leftward or compromise with the left. I totally agree with bongo_x that if you want a more leftish Democratic party, the way to achieve that is to try to move as much of the population as you can (including Republicans) a little left of where they currently are, because I believe in our two-party system the Democratic party will always be the party of "the left-most half of the population" and you can't really move it unless you move the population.
As for what drives Republicans if not pure racism and religious nuttery... I've simplified my thinking down to the following mnemonic...
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:36 PM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
As for what drives Republicans if not pure racism and religious nuttery... I've simplified my thinking down to the following mnemonic...
Conservatives: "Extended families should provide a safety net for their members. They can only do that if everyone plays their part for the good of the family as a whole, which includes deferring to legitimate authority within the family."I tried to write those in a way which is fair enough to each view point that people who hold those views would agree that they're not being mis-represented, but I think the fundamental differences are still pretty well-defined. I think which category people find themselves in is mostly a function of which type of abuse of authority they find the scariest, patriarchal or governmental. Or both -- which makes you a libertarian.
Progressives: "Governments should provide a safety net for their citizens. They can only do that if everyone pays their share of taxes, which means deferring to the legitimate authority of government."
Libertarians: "The safety net should be minimal, so that people aren't tempted to rest in it instead of pulling their own weight. No one should be be forced by authorities of any kind to provide for someone else."
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:36 PM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Unfortunately, the politics of white supremacy and especially the fear of losing it drives much of American politics, especially the Republican party. It's all very nice to pretend that it's all about family or whatever, and certainly there are Republicans that believe in that, but for 50+ years, their election coalition has been built on white supremacy. If you don't understand that, you sure as hell aren't going to win.
posted by tavella at 12:43 PM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by tavella at 12:43 PM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm not saying that some Republicans aren't racist (of course they are, and so are some Democrats -- pretty much everyone is a little bit racist actually -- but the Republicans have definitely been more welcoming to the loud-and-proud variety of racist). And I don't really think Donald Trump is a conservative by my definition above. Maybe somewhat Libertarian, but really not that coherent in his views, beyond his racism.
But if you don't believe there is more to the Republican party than racism, you're certainly not going to win either... Because "winning" requires "winning over" some Republicans.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:45 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
But if you don't believe there is more to the Republican party than racism, you're certainly not going to win either... Because "winning" requires "winning over" some Republicans.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:45 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Not racist, but #1 with racists."
posted by tonycpsu at 12:47 PM on June 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 12:47 PM on June 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Libertarians have no objection to safety nets as long as they're consensual.
posted by stolyarova at 12:47 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stolyarova at 12:47 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd also point out that racists aren't necessarily single-issue voters, and saying "they'll never vote for Dems because of racism" sort of implies that they are. But why would they necessarily have to be?
For example, there are people in my family who collect guns, go to gun shows, enjoy target shooting, etc. They also consistently vote for Democrats, because they agree with more Dem policies than Republican policies and they've set their voting priorities accordingly. And I don't think that makes them bad Democrats or dangerous to the party.
And here's the other thing: their kids, having been raised in a Dem household, are more liberal than they are on a ton of issues, including guns. We can pull this off with racists, I honestly think so.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:49 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
For example, there are people in my family who collect guns, go to gun shows, enjoy target shooting, etc. They also consistently vote for Democrats, because they agree with more Dem policies than Republican policies and they've set their voting priorities accordingly. And I don't think that makes them bad Democrats or dangerous to the party.
And here's the other thing: their kids, having been raised in a Dem household, are more liberal than they are on a ton of issues, including guns. We can pull this off with racists, I honestly think so.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:49 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Unless we're talking about the big-L Libertarian party, the whole "what exactly libertarians believe" discussion seems like a waste of time to me, because a vast majority of people who would call themselves libertarian are going to vote for the GOP because low taxes, with any social left-ish leanings they may have riding securely in the back seat.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:51 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 12:51 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, it's not an equally leftward movement across the board;
Totally agree. I wanted to highlight foreign policy because Lieberman kept coming up. Gay rights is the other issue where national public opinion has rapidly changed in the last 15-20 years. Trade is the last great issue that cuts across party lines, which is kind of ironic given that the tariff was the bright line separating the parties for much of the 19th century.
posted by fitnr at 12:53 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Totally agree. I wanted to highlight foreign policy because Lieberman kept coming up. Gay rights is the other issue where national public opinion has rapidly changed in the last 15-20 years. Trade is the last great issue that cuts across party lines, which is kind of ironic given that the tariff was the bright line separating the parties for much of the 19th century.
posted by fitnr at 12:53 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
because a vast majority of people who would call themselves libertarian are going to vote for the GOP because low taxes, with any social left-ish leanings they may have riding securely in the back seat
Also many white male libertarians correctly intuit that if they are discreet and have enough money, they can personally enjoy any kind of social liberty they wish.
posted by murphy slaw at 12:59 PM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Also many white male libertarians correctly intuit that if they are discreet and have enough money, they can personally enjoy any kind of social liberty they wish.
posted by murphy slaw at 12:59 PM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
You know what we really need to do? Tie bitcoin to the gold standard. It would combine the best that Silicon Valley innovation has to offer with the best of crackpot 2am infomercials! Two areas where good ol' American ingenuity continues to lead!
posted by Existential Dread at 1:14 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 1:14 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
Also many white male libertarians correctly intuit that if they are discreet and have enough money, they can personally enjoy any kind of social liberty they wish.
This is what I'd refer to as libertarian brutalism.
posted by stolyarova at 1:24 PM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is what I'd refer to as libertarian brutalism.
...I would suggest that libertarians can generally be divided into two camps: humanitarians and brutalists.Tucker goes on to explain why humanitarian libertarianism that rejects these brutalist impulses is superior for society. It's a great article from a compassionate libertarian perspective, if you're interested in peering inside the movement rather than assuming it's monolithically assholes.
The humanitarians are drawn to reasons such as the following. Liberty allows peaceful human cooperation. It inspires the creative service of others. It keeps violence at bay. It allows for capital formation and prosperity. It protects human rights of all against invasion. It allows human associations of all sorts to flourish on their own terms. It socializes people with rewards toward getting along rather than tearing each other apart, and leads to a world in which people are valued as ends in themselves rather than fodder in the central plan.
We know all of this from history and experience. These are all great reasons to love liberty.
But they are not the only reasons that people support liberty. There is a segment of the population of self-described libertarians—described here as brutalists—who find all the above rather boring, broad, and excessively humanitarian. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms...
...In the libertarian world, however, brutalism is rooted in the pure theory of the rights of individuals to live their values whatever they may be. The core truth is there and indisputable, but the application is made raw to push a point. Thus do the brutalists assert the right to be racist, the right to be a misogynist, the right to hate Jews or foreigners, the right to ignore civil standards of social engagement, the right to be uncivilized, to be rude and crude. It is all permissible and even meritorious because embracing what is awful can constitute a kind of test. After all, what is liberty if not the right to be a boor?
These kinds of arguments make the libertarian humanitarians deeply uncomfortable since they are narrowly true as regards pure theory but miss the bigger point of human liberty, which is not to make the world more divided and miserable but to enable human flourishing in peace and prosperity. Just as we want architecture to please the eye and reflect the drama and elegance of the human ideal, so too a theory of the social order should provide a framework for a life well lived and communities of association that permit its members to flourish.
The brutalists are technically correct that liberty also protects the right to be a complete jerk and the right to hate, but such impulses do not flow from the long history of the liberal idea. As regards race and sex, for example, the liberation of women and minority populations from arbitrary rule has been a great achievement of this tradition. To continue to assert the right to turn back the clock in your private and commercial life gives an impression of the ideology that is uprooted from this history, as if these victories for human dignity have nothing whatever to do with the ideological needs of today.
Brutalism is more than a stripped-down, antimodern, and gutted version of the original libertarianism. It is also a style of argumentation and an approach to rhetorical engagement. As with architecture, it rejects marketing, the commercial ethos, and the idea of “selling” a worldview. Liberty must be accepted or rejected based entirely on its most reduced form. Thus is it quick to pounce, denounce, and declare victory. It detects compromise everywhere. It loves nothing more than to ferret it out. It has no patience for subtlety of exposition much less the nuances of the circumstances of time and place. It sees only raw truth and clings to it as the one and only truth to the exclusion of all other truth.
posted by stolyarova at 1:24 PM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's all very nice to pretend that it's all about family or whatever, and certainly there are Republicans that believe in that, but for 50+ years, their election coalition has been built on white supremacy. If you don't understand that, you sure as hell aren't going to win.
The electoral coalition of the Democratic Party was built on white supremacy from roughly 1860-1964 (and a case could be made for 1800-1860 as well), during which time some other stuff was going on as well, if I remember correctly. There are millions of Republicans who are committed to ideas such as
a) the United States as a Christian nation (even growing up Adventist, among people deeply leery of anything that directly attacked the separation of Church and State, the idea that American culture and society at large should be made as Christian as possible loomed large)
b) the political Left as a third column (narrowly defined as hippies and Marxists or broadly defined as everyone not to the right of Bill O'Reilly), committed to undermining American prosperity and power
c) the free market as both the pragmatically most sound basis for the economy and a moral right possessed by the American citizen in the same fashion as the latter possesses the right to a fair trial, the right to vote, and the right to bear arms
d) the right to bear arms as the fundamental guarantee of all other rights, as the ultimate defense against tyranny rests with the citizens themselves
e) abortion is murder (having grown up in a rather Catholic neighborhood and gone to a Catholic college, this is the one point on which many otherwise very liberal - anti-war, pro-social welfare programs, suspicious of evangelicals in government - peers break for the Republican Party, their equivalent of "I can't vote for Hillary because Iraq")
Those are all just from my personal experience. Many of these commitments go back well before the Southern Strategy. Encountering teachers, writers, peers, professors (in my case one of them a Jesuit priest), radio and TV personalities and various other folk committed to arguing about and against these ideas is one of the reasons I and a number of other folks of my acquaintance are, in fact, liberal-leaning Democrats.
I have never seen any way of actually causing them to change their minds.
Well, maybe I and those few people I know are just unique and wonderful human beings, open in ways that no other small-c conservative citizens are to reasoned debate. Or maybe not. Maybe convincing huge numbers of other citizens - most of whom are busy with life, work, family, etc. - to change their views on a whole range of issues takes decades of sustained work. Just as it took decades for Republican politicians, writers, speakers, talk radio personalities, and millionaires to convince former Democrats to abandon New Deal liberalism in the '70s and '80s. That's a reality which can co-exist with specific hard-cases we all encounter in daily life.
posted by AdamCSnider at 1:27 PM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
The electoral coalition of the Democratic Party was built on white supremacy from roughly 1860-1964 (and a case could be made for 1800-1860 as well), during which time some other stuff was going on as well, if I remember correctly. There are millions of Republicans who are committed to ideas such as
a) the United States as a Christian nation (even growing up Adventist, among people deeply leery of anything that directly attacked the separation of Church and State, the idea that American culture and society at large should be made as Christian as possible loomed large)
b) the political Left as a third column (narrowly defined as hippies and Marxists or broadly defined as everyone not to the right of Bill O'Reilly), committed to undermining American prosperity and power
c) the free market as both the pragmatically most sound basis for the economy and a moral right possessed by the American citizen in the same fashion as the latter possesses the right to a fair trial, the right to vote, and the right to bear arms
d) the right to bear arms as the fundamental guarantee of all other rights, as the ultimate defense against tyranny rests with the citizens themselves
e) abortion is murder (having grown up in a rather Catholic neighborhood and gone to a Catholic college, this is the one point on which many otherwise very liberal - anti-war, pro-social welfare programs, suspicious of evangelicals in government - peers break for the Republican Party, their equivalent of "I can't vote for Hillary because Iraq")
Those are all just from my personal experience. Many of these commitments go back well before the Southern Strategy. Encountering teachers, writers, peers, professors (in my case one of them a Jesuit priest), radio and TV personalities and various other folk committed to arguing about and against these ideas is one of the reasons I and a number of other folks of my acquaintance are, in fact, liberal-leaning Democrats.
I have never seen any way of actually causing them to change their minds.
Well, maybe I and those few people I know are just unique and wonderful human beings, open in ways that no other small-c conservative citizens are to reasoned debate. Or maybe not. Maybe convincing huge numbers of other citizens - most of whom are busy with life, work, family, etc. - to change their views on a whole range of issues takes decades of sustained work. Just as it took decades for Republican politicians, writers, speakers, talk radio personalities, and millionaires to convince former Democrats to abandon New Deal liberalism in the '70s and '80s. That's a reality which can co-exist with specific hard-cases we all encounter in daily life.
posted by AdamCSnider at 1:27 PM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
if you're interested in peering inside the movement rather than assuming it's monolithically assholes.
For the purposes of this thread, the relevant question is not whether it's monolithically assholes, but whether it's going to vote monolithically for assholes. I can actually imagine a fair number of self-described libertarians voting for Hillary simply because Trump is such a garbage fire, but in Congressional races, I don't see any reason to believe they're going to do anything other than continue to support Republicans, who they feel are closer to them than Democrats on the issues that matter, the main one being taxes. I'd care more about these distinctions between different tribes within libertarianism if there were any evidence that their voting patterns are distinguishable from those of traditional Republican voters.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:30 PM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
For the purposes of this thread, the relevant question is not whether it's monolithically assholes, but whether it's going to vote monolithically for assholes. I can actually imagine a fair number of self-described libertarians voting for Hillary simply because Trump is such a garbage fire, but in Congressional races, I don't see any reason to believe they're going to do anything other than continue to support Republicans, who they feel are closer to them than Democrats on the issues that matter, the main one being taxes. I'd care more about these distinctions between different tribes within libertarianism if there were any evidence that their voting patterns are distinguishable from those of traditional Republican voters.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:30 PM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
They're voting monolithically for Johnson-Weld this time around. Even the Republicans are reluctant to vote for Trump, let alone the libertarians.
posted by stolyarova at 1:43 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 1:43 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
And to clarify, I say that as a libertarian with a Johnson-Weld bumper sticker... who's going to vote for Clinton in the general.
posted by stolyarova at 1:44 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stolyarova at 1:44 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Real News Is [We Speculate That] Trump is Broke
posted by Existential Dread at 1:52 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 1:52 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
"I have never seen any way of actually causing them to change their minds."
Well, maybe I and those few people I know are just unique and wonderful human beings, open in ways that no other small-c conservative citizens are to reasoned debate.
I'm also a former small-c conservative. I never identified with the racist parts of the party, but there was a time when I was very anti-abortion and anti-tax. But arguing on the internet played a huge part in changing my mind (mostly with British people and other Europeans, who thought all Americans were right wing nutjobs but were very polite about it. Hi alt.fan.pratchett!) It's not impossible -- though I think it helps that I was still pretty young, in college.
I think the Republican party these days is an uneasy coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and racists, who mostly only agree on wanting lower taxes (in the racists' case, because they don't want their money going to support those people, while for the conservatives and libertarians, it's more a matter of being afraid of government power).
I don't know how to change the mind of a racist. But people who are simply afraid of the government can have their fears assuaged. Maybe the simplest way to start is just to be openly liberal and yet stay friends with them, so that they can see with their own eyes that not all liberals are double-agents "committed to undermining American prosperity and power." Being less fearful of liberals can help people learn to be less fearful of government, but it helps to know some. I don't think I did know any in real life, until college.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:53 PM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well, maybe I and those few people I know are just unique and wonderful human beings, open in ways that no other small-c conservative citizens are to reasoned debate.
I'm also a former small-c conservative. I never identified with the racist parts of the party, but there was a time when I was very anti-abortion and anti-tax. But arguing on the internet played a huge part in changing my mind (mostly with British people and other Europeans, who thought all Americans were right wing nutjobs but were very polite about it. Hi alt.fan.pratchett!) It's not impossible -- though I think it helps that I was still pretty young, in college.
I think the Republican party these days is an uneasy coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and racists, who mostly only agree on wanting lower taxes (in the racists' case, because they don't want their money going to support those people, while for the conservatives and libertarians, it's more a matter of being afraid of government power).
I don't know how to change the mind of a racist. But people who are simply afraid of the government can have their fears assuaged. Maybe the simplest way to start is just to be openly liberal and yet stay friends with them, so that they can see with their own eyes that not all liberals are double-agents "committed to undermining American prosperity and power." Being less fearful of liberals can help people learn to be less fearful of government, but it helps to know some. I don't think I did know any in real life, until college.
posted by OnceUponATime at 1:53 PM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'd care more about these distinctions between different tribes within libertarianism if there were any evidence that their voting patterns are distinguishable from those of traditional Republican voters.
Don't count out the Millennials. I have some friends in rural VA who would have definitely been Republicans a generation ago, but having grown up in the era of the Iraq war and gay rights (not to mention semi-legal weed), they just can't stomach Republicans at all. They usually seem to wind up choosing between Dem and Libertarian candidates based on a combination of pragmatism (ie, will it make a difference if I vote for the Dem or not) and specific policies (ie, I like this one Dem on this issue but this other Dem is too lefty for me).
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:56 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Don't count out the Millennials. I have some friends in rural VA who would have definitely been Republicans a generation ago, but having grown up in the era of the Iraq war and gay rights (not to mention semi-legal weed), they just can't stomach Republicans at all. They usually seem to wind up choosing between Dem and Libertarian candidates based on a combination of pragmatism (ie, will it make a difference if I vote for the Dem or not) and specific policies (ie, I like this one Dem on this issue but this other Dem is too lefty for me).
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:56 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
They're voting monolithically for Johnson-Weld this time around. Even the Republicans are reluctant to vote for Trump, let alone the libertarians.
Well, we know that there are some robust numbers for Johnson, but unless there's polling I haven't seen yet that break things down by libertarian self-identification, we don't really know how many of those votes are coming from libertarians vs. conservatives.
Anyway, my larger point was that votes in the down-ballot races are likely to go to Republicans, regardless of how they vote at the top.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:59 PM on June 20, 2016
Well, we know that there are some robust numbers for Johnson, but unless there's polling I haven't seen yet that break things down by libertarian self-identification, we don't really know how many of those votes are coming from libertarians vs. conservatives.
Anyway, my larger point was that votes in the down-ballot races are likely to go to Republicans, regardless of how they vote at the top.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:59 PM on June 20, 2016
Nate Silver: Betting markets now give Trump a 14% chance of NOT being the GOP nominee. That's higher than it was before Indiana.
My odds were 50/50. The thing is, Trump's 'brand', both political and commercial, is based on him being a winner. If he looks like a loser, a lot of his fans will drift away. And he's looking like a loser right now. Also, there were plenty of Republican officeholders who were fine with holding their nose and supporting him when they though they'd have a populist candidate who could win, or at least come close. Not so much as he started falling in the polls.
posted by tavella at 2:00 PM on June 20, 2016
My odds were 50/50. The thing is, Trump's 'brand', both political and commercial, is based on him being a winner. If he looks like a loser, a lot of his fans will drift away. And he's looking like a loser right now. Also, there were plenty of Republican officeholders who were fine with holding their nose and supporting him when they though they'd have a populist candidate who could win, or at least come close. Not so much as he started falling in the polls.
posted by tavella at 2:00 PM on June 20, 2016
Millennials, in my experience, are far more likely to believe that the concept of party unity itself (as a discrete concept apart from specific policies) is wrong-headed and dangerous.
posted by Phyltre at 2:04 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Phyltre at 2:04 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Real News Is Trump is Snoke
Je ne regret rien.
posted by Nice Guy Mike at 2:09 PM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Je ne regret rien.
posted by Nice Guy Mike at 2:09 PM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
The Real News Is Trump is Woke
This is Achewood-style alt text transported to MeFi, isn't it
posted by Existential Dread at 2:20 PM on June 20, 2016
This is Achewood-style alt text transported to MeFi, isn't it
posted by Existential Dread at 2:20 PM on June 20, 2016
Now Michael Caputo's out too. At least Paul Manafort is getting a lid on some of this campaign's reckless tweeting.
posted by EatTheWeek at 2:35 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by EatTheWeek at 2:35 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Am I wrong or has Sanders still refused to release his tax returns? Didn't he pledge to do that months ago? I'm really starting to think there must be something in there, because why else go this long?
posted by Justinian at 2:39 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 2:39 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Has the Clinton campaign even been pressuring Sanders about his tax returns lately? Don't really see much of a point to it at this late stage of the game.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:45 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:45 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, nobody cares about Sanders's tax returns because he's not going to be the nominee. If he were still in the running in any significant way, there would be pressure on him to release them.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:48 PM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:48 PM on June 20, 2016 [5 favorites]
Now Michael Caputo's out too.
So after tweeting "Ding dong the witch is dead!", Caputo said
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:55 PM on June 20, 2016
So after tweeting "Ding dong the witch is dead!", Caputo said
"I regret sending out a tweet today alluding to the firing of Corey Lewandowski," the letter, first reported by CNN, read. "In hindsight, that was too exuberant a reaction to this personnel move. I know this is a distraction from the kind of campaign you want to run, so I'm resigning my position as director of communications for caucus operations at the 2016 Republican Convention. Let's make this immediate."Seriously? For writing "too exuberant" of a tweet? That seems a bit of an overreaction. I wonder if it is more a case of a rat deserting a sinking ship, the USS Tonald Drump.
Caputo signaled that resigning was his only option.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:55 PM on June 20, 2016
As the GOP's anti-Trump, Ben Sasse picked a big fight. What would it mean to win? WaPo link, paywall may apply.
posted by PussKillian at 2:56 PM on June 20, 2016
posted by PussKillian at 2:56 PM on June 20, 2016
I'm really curious about what's going on. I wonder if Trump has finally realized that he's in over his head and agreed to a purge of his people followed by the establishment Republican campaign operation taking over.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:57 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:57 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
"Michael Caputo is not a senior adviser," Lewandowski told CNN. "He has no formal role with the campaign."
The ousted campaign manager added: "I don't know what he does on the campaign."
[...]
Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks told Business Insider on Monday afternoon that, after the tweet was published, Caputo resigned his position of director of communications for caucus operations at the GOP convention.
There is nothing about this that isn't absolutely fucking hilarious.
posted by dersins at 3:10 PM on June 20, 2016 [18 favorites]
The ousted campaign manager added: "I don't know what he does on the campaign."
[...]
Campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks told Business Insider on Monday afternoon that, after the tweet was published, Caputo resigned his position of director of communications for caucus operations at the GOP convention.
There is nothing about this that isn't absolutely fucking hilarious.
posted by dersins at 3:10 PM on June 20, 2016 [18 favorites]
From the link Pusskillian provided:
"On a recent early morning in the central town of Hastings, Sasse stood in a middle school parking lot rubbing Vaseline on his nipples.
“This is the most glamorous part of the race,” he said, before limbering up for the town’s half marathon."
Somebody was having a lot of fun putting those sentences together in that order.
posted by nubs at 3:12 PM on June 20, 2016 [14 favorites]
"On a recent early morning in the central town of Hastings, Sasse stood in a middle school parking lot rubbing Vaseline on his nipples.
“This is the most glamorous part of the race,” he said, before limbering up for the town’s half marathon."
Somebody was having a lot of fun putting those sentences together in that order.
posted by nubs at 3:12 PM on June 20, 2016 [14 favorites]
I only have a week in my class to discuss race, gender and politics in social media.
This fall is going to be one big Sophie's Choice about what to cover.
posted by Superplin at 3:13 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
This fall is going to be one big Sophie's Choice about what to cover.
posted by Superplin at 3:13 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
L.A. Times: Ticket to the White House or political oblivion? The challenge for Donald Trump as he seeks a running mate
I snerked at him asking the crowd who they would choose; maybe he will just hold a popularity contest, Mr VPOTUS. Think of the possibilities! Chris Christie displaying a "talent" for eating with the correct fork! Newt Gingrich reciting the Declaration of Independence from memory! Tom Cotton pointing to Afghanistan on a map! Rick Scott pledging his allegiance to Trump and the NRA! Jeff Sessions explaining how a bill is made!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:22 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
So who wants to be the apprentice?The article concludes by pointing out Barry Goldwater's running mate, William Miller, slunk off into oblivion. It's no wonder that many Republicans have already signaled a big fat, NO Thanks, Pal!
“Who do you like?” Donald Trump recently quizzed supporters at a Tampa rally, cupping a hand to his ear as they suggested vice presidential running mates.
“Newt!”... “Sessions!”… “Condi Rice!” came the cries, referring — respectively — to former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s national security advisor and secretary of State.
Loud, undisciplined and often uncouth, the presumptive Republican nominee is a presidential candidate like no other, and whoever joins his ticket will be tested in ways no understudy ever has been.
I snerked at him asking the crowd who they would choose; maybe he will just hold a popularity contest, Mr VPOTUS. Think of the possibilities! Chris Christie displaying a "talent" for eating with the correct fork! Newt Gingrich reciting the Declaration of Independence from memory! Tom Cotton pointing to Afghanistan on a map! Rick Scott pledging his allegiance to Trump and the NRA! Jeff Sessions explaining how a bill is made!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:22 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Slate: There Is No Donald Trump Campaign
Firing your campaign manager is not a big deal when there’s nothing to manage.
A straight rundown on stuff we mostly know already: few staff, little money, no ads. Comparisons to Romney, Obama, and Clinton's campaigns.
Firing your campaign manager is not a big deal when there’s nothing to manage.
A straight rundown on stuff we mostly know already: few staff, little money, no ads. Comparisons to Romney, Obama, and Clinton's campaigns.
f you follow enough election coverage, you’ll notice a phrase from those inclined to read and absorb political science: “Campaigns don’t matter.” The idea is that the twists and turns of the horse race are less important than the broad “fundamentals” of an election year: unemployment, economic growth, foreign conflict, etc. What’s key is the mechanism behind the slogan. It’s not that campaigns are useless; it’s that—in general—they’re evenly matched, so they cancel each other out. When they aren’t—Obama’s ground game vs. Romney’s, for instance—they don’t.posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:35 PM on June 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
What happens when one side has a campaign and the other doesn’t? When one side is mobilizing voters, contacting supporters, and persuading independents, and the other is sitting on its hands?Cable news has done a lot for Donald Trump, but it can’t raise money or organize volunteers. What happens when it’s September and Trump lacks the personnel or the cash to mount a credible fight against the Democratic Party?
I don’t know. No one knows, because it’s never happened before.
It might still be just a bit early to say he's broke and not having any campaign staffers. If the GOP is going to rally behind him, I expect they'll use some of their war chest to let him hire people. The article itself says he might be waiting till July.
I can't look it up right now but does anyone know if starting your general election ground game later than the opponent will hurt the campaign?
posted by numaner at 3:48 PM on June 20, 2016
I can't look it up right now but does anyone know if starting your general election ground game later than the opponent will hurt the campaign?
posted by numaner at 3:48 PM on June 20, 2016
That's such an interesting point. After every election there are a zillion post-mortems claiming Obama won because of X, Y, and Z or that Romney lost because he did A and B but he didn't do C and D also happened. But nobody really knows. There's no way to prove which of the zillion events and factors made the most difference.
Even this year, we might get to see what happens if one candidate doesn't bother with traditional campaigning, but we won't really know how much of the Clinton landslide is because Trump ran a cheap and lazy campaign and how much is just because lots of people hate Trump and wouldn't vote for him no matter how many ads he buys.
posted by straight at 3:54 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even this year, we might get to see what happens if one candidate doesn't bother with traditional campaigning, but we won't really know how much of the Clinton landslide is because Trump ran a cheap and lazy campaign and how much is just because lots of people hate Trump and wouldn't vote for him no matter how many ads he buys.
posted by straight at 3:54 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
According to The Daily Mail the 19 year old man arrested Saturday for attempting to shoot Trump at the Las Vegas Rally had only just learned how to use a gun on Friday.
I can't look it up right now but does anyone know if starting your general election ground game later than the opponent will hurt the campaign?
I'm pretty sure it has never been tried before. What I mean is people in a Presidential election hit the ground running so they won't get left behind.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:55 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't look it up right now but does anyone know if starting your general election ground game later than the opponent will hurt the campaign?
I'm pretty sure it has never been tried before. What I mean is people in a Presidential election hit the ground running so they won't get left behind.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:55 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I can't look it up right now but does anyone know if starting your general election ground game later than the opponent will hurt the campaign?
I don't have stats to point you to, but I can tell you the earlier a campaign can start building an infrastructure of trained, dedicated staff and volunteers the better. There's generally a massive influx of game-but-clueless volunteers very late in the game, and if you haven't built the organizational capacity to use them effectively, you're just wasting their efforts.
There's also the matter of cleaning the data. People change phone numbers, addresses, and whatnot. If you don't get your voter contact lists cleaned up before the big GOTV push, you're not only wasting effort by calling a lot of wrong numbers and knocking on a lot of wrong doors, you're risking something worse: mobilizing the wrong voters.
Thirdly--and sadly I don't have time to dig out the stats on this either--personal conversations (either on the phone, or, preferably, face to face on doors) are a lot "stickier" than ad buys: the effect lasts longer, and some of it is cumulative. The earlier you start talking to high-support low-turnout voters (or persuadables, if that's the campaign you're running), the more contacts you're likely to get with them.
posted by dersins at 4:01 PM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't have stats to point you to, but I can tell you the earlier a campaign can start building an infrastructure of trained, dedicated staff and volunteers the better. There's generally a massive influx of game-but-clueless volunteers very late in the game, and if you haven't built the organizational capacity to use them effectively, you're just wasting their efforts.
There's also the matter of cleaning the data. People change phone numbers, addresses, and whatnot. If you don't get your voter contact lists cleaned up before the big GOTV push, you're not only wasting effort by calling a lot of wrong numbers and knocking on a lot of wrong doors, you're risking something worse: mobilizing the wrong voters.
Thirdly--and sadly I don't have time to dig out the stats on this either--personal conversations (either on the phone, or, preferably, face to face on doors) are a lot "stickier" than ad buys: the effect lasts longer, and some of it is cumulative. The earlier you start talking to high-support low-turnout voters (or persuadables, if that's the campaign you're running), the more contacts you're likely to get with them.
posted by dersins at 4:01 PM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
After every election there are a zillion post-mortems claiming Obama won because of X, Y, and Z or that Romney lost because he did A and B but he didn't do C and D also happened. But nobody really knows.
There's real, actual data showing that GOTV conversations have a measurable effect on turnout.
posted by dersins at 4:03 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's real, actual data showing that GOTV conversations have a measurable effect on turnout.
posted by dersins at 4:03 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
> does anyone know if starting your general election ground game later than the opponent will hurt the campaign?
No, I don't, and I don't think anyone else does either, because as the article says, usually campaigns try to match each other.
But again, Obama's ground game superiority over Romney is usually cited as being worth an extra point or two, which is much of the difference between a close win and a blowout in the electoral college.
The whole traditional idea of wrapping up your nomination early so that you have the entire summer to define your opponent in the worst light possible - we're in a new world here if the Trump campaign doesn't even take the field at all.
I think what might happen is that panic will set in for the down-ticket races, as the R candidates realize that there will be no national coordination, no overarching theme or message to drive the conversation, not even a standard bearer to rally behind. And much more than usual, we'll see a thicket of small scale skirmishes as each congressional district devolves into a messy local fight. I think usually that's true only in the written-off (guaranteed loss or guaranteed win) states for each side, but this year it might be true everywhere on the R side. And if the comment up there is right about Hillary's campaign reviving the 50-state strategy, the D's might have a shot even at otherwise unthinkable seats.
(My congressman, Tom Reed, was one of the earliest endorsers of the Donald - yes, the hippie paradise of Ithaca is represented by a Tea partier - and he's drawn a maybe-decent challenger this time.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 4:10 PM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
No, I don't, and I don't think anyone else does either, because as the article says, usually campaigns try to match each other.
But again, Obama's ground game superiority over Romney is usually cited as being worth an extra point or two, which is much of the difference between a close win and a blowout in the electoral college.
The whole traditional idea of wrapping up your nomination early so that you have the entire summer to define your opponent in the worst light possible - we're in a new world here if the Trump campaign doesn't even take the field at all.
I think what might happen is that panic will set in for the down-ticket races, as the R candidates realize that there will be no national coordination, no overarching theme or message to drive the conversation, not even a standard bearer to rally behind. And much more than usual, we'll see a thicket of small scale skirmishes as each congressional district devolves into a messy local fight. I think usually that's true only in the written-off (guaranteed loss or guaranteed win) states for each side, but this year it might be true everywhere on the R side. And if the comment up there is right about Hillary's campaign reviving the 50-state strategy, the D's might have a shot even at otherwise unthinkable seats.
(My congressman, Tom Reed, was one of the earliest endorsers of the Donald - yes, the hippie paradise of Ithaca is represented by a Tea partier - and he's drawn a maybe-decent challenger this time.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 4:10 PM on June 20, 2016 [7 favorites]
The extent to which every single election, of any kind, for both parties, basically forever, has leaned on GOTV efforts implies that, yeah, this shit is pretty important.
It would be interesting as hell if Trump managed to actually become President without running any ground game at all, though. Terrifying, but real interesting.
posted by Sara C. at 4:18 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
It would be interesting as hell if Trump managed to actually become President without running any ground game at all, though. Terrifying, but real interesting.
posted by Sara C. at 4:18 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I really am wondering if discussions are going on backstage about buying Trump out. It's been clear for a long time that Trump isn't anywhere near as rich as he fronts, so a few hundred million may very well be tempting to him. The issue with pushing him out at the convention has always been that it pisses off his followers. But if they buy him off and he says "well, for the sake of my family I have to step off, because evil liberals have threatened to assassinate my little girl, but X (Cruz Ryan whatever) is my worthy successor. Go vote for him and he'll kill all the bastards." -- well, it probably won't convince them all but it might convince enough.
Trump gets to play "I would have won, if I hadn't been conspired against by the terrorists!", gets cash, and the GOP gets a candidate who will at least fundraise.
posted by tavella at 4:27 PM on June 20, 2016
Trump gets to play "I would have won, if I hadn't been conspired against by the terrorists!", gets cash, and the GOP gets a candidate who will at least fundraise.
posted by tavella at 4:27 PM on June 20, 2016
The #neverTrump convention rebellion may be picking up steam.
I hope they succeed in staging a floor fight, and Trump wins anyway after 35-40 votes because of the lack of any other candidate. Let's see the Republican party split entirely in two. Kill it with fire.
Seriously, the voters spoke loud and clear, they want Trump because he IS the Republican id, they're never going to accept another Burkeian National Review approved dogwhistling pacifier who will push the same old Reagan tax cuts and deregulation from the top down as always, not when they've tasted Trump's raw unadulterated hate without any of the filters. They've gone back to that well one too many times without giving their real base what they really, really want, which is actual, no joke, legitimate fascism. Trumpism is offering them what they want.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:33 PM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
I hope they succeed in staging a floor fight, and Trump wins anyway after 35-40 votes because of the lack of any other candidate. Let's see the Republican party split entirely in two. Kill it with fire.
Seriously, the voters spoke loud and clear, they want Trump because he IS the Republican id, they're never going to accept another Burkeian National Review approved dogwhistling pacifier who will push the same old Reagan tax cuts and deregulation from the top down as always, not when they've tasted Trump's raw unadulterated hate without any of the filters. They've gone back to that well one too many times without giving their real base what they really, really want, which is actual, no joke, legitimate fascism. Trumpism is offering them what they want.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:33 PM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
(My congressman, Tom Reed, was one of the earliest endorsers of the Donald - yes, the hippie paradise of Ithaca is represented by a Tea partier - and he's drawn a maybe-decent challenger this time.)
It is pretty sad for Ithaca to be represented by a tea partier, but when you realize that so many of the students in Ithaca either don't vote or vote absentee from their home states (I did it when I lived there), and just how rural and conservative most of the district is, I guess I shouldn't be that surprised. I hope they can get him out.
posted by zachlipton at 4:47 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
It is pretty sad for Ithaca to be represented by a tea partier, but when you realize that so many of the students in Ithaca either don't vote or vote absentee from their home states (I did it when I lived there), and just how rural and conservative most of the district is, I guess I shouldn't be that surprised. I hope they can get him out.
posted by zachlipton at 4:47 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, I took a trip to the supermarket today, wonderfully politics-free until I got into the checkout line where I was browbeaten by the National Enquirer's front page: "HILLARY WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT: These Crimes Will Put Crooked Clinton In Jail For Life". "Crooked Clinton"? Sounds like the Donald himself wrote that headline (then edited by someone who understands the value of alliteration). And why not? The Enquirer's owner is best buds with the Drumpf, so the writers for that poor-toilet-paper-substitute can't write up any of the actually true scandals about him, leaving them with (as appears by the front-page Hillary sub-heads) perpetual rehashes of old discredited accusations. And the picture of Clinton on the cover: wearing sunglasses as she frowns at her Blackberry, because that totally SCREAMS 'dishonesty' ... at least to privileged misogynists like the dudebros who publish the paper women pick up while shopping. Who needs a real campaign when you've got the National Enquirer working for you?
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:48 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:48 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Who needs a real campaign when you've got the National Enquirer working for you?
Never underestimate the Bigfoot vote.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:00 PM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Never underestimate the Bigfoot vote.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:00 PM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
TRUMP / BAT BOY 2016
posted by dersins at 5:02 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dersins at 5:02 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
TRUMP / BAT BOY 2016
He's not interested.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:05 PM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
He's not interested.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:05 PM on June 20, 2016 [8 favorites]
TRUMP / DAT BOI 2016
posted by one_bean at 5:42 PM on June 20, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by one_bean at 5:42 PM on June 20, 2016 [22 favorites]
...and Bat Boy was affiliated with the much nicer Weekly World News. The Enquirer WISHES they had Bat Boy.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:39 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:39 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Utah Republican Chairman begging Trump to come campaign.
Holy shit. We have officially entered the twilight zone.
posted by Talez at 7:12 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Holy shit. We have officially entered the twilight zone.
posted by Talez at 7:12 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
It would be interesting as hell if Trump managed to actually become President without running any ground game at all, though. Terrifying, but real interesting.
[dog sitting in fire: THIS IS INTERESTING]
posted by numaner at 7:17 PM on June 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
[dog sitting in fire: THIS IS INTERESTING]
posted by numaner at 7:17 PM on June 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
Bat Boy was affiliated with the much nicer Weekly World News.
Fun fact: WWN existed because the Enquirer had a black-and-white press they couldn't sell after they switched to full-color, so they printed up a completely insane tabloid as a joke, and the damn thing sold.
posted by Etrigan at 7:28 PM on June 20, 2016 [18 favorites]
Fun fact: WWN existed because the Enquirer had a black-and-white press they couldn't sell after they switched to full-color, so they printed up a completely insane tabloid as a joke, and the damn thing sold.
posted by Etrigan at 7:28 PM on June 20, 2016 [18 favorites]
Presidential campaigns with more cash on hand than Trump on May 31:
Ben Carson ($1.7M)
Ted Cruz ($6.8M)
Bernie Sanders ($9.2M)
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:31 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ben Carson ($1.7M)
Ted Cruz ($6.8M)
Bernie Sanders ($9.2M)
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:31 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
It is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine that they're gonna let Trump run for real.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:34 PM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:34 PM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Dr. Mrs. Dread says that Trump is doing that thing where you want to break up with someone, but you don't want to be the one to do it, so you just act all disconnected and jerky and force them to break up with you.
posted by Existential Dread at 7:39 PM on June 20, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 7:39 PM on June 20, 2016 [18 favorites]
Maybe, but that feels like it might be giving him too much credit
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:41 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:41 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump to Voters: "I Don't Know, What's YOUR Problem?"
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:41 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:41 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump is trying something new to modern American politics, a populist demagogue with the full machinery of a major party throwing its weight behind his bid for the White House. He is using cutting-edge media better than any of the establishment candidates, and knows how to command an audience as an entertainer. We have literally not seen his like since before the Civil War. The usual rules of engagement are invalid.
Typically, when one side can innovate and bring new ideas and new strategies that can upset and unnerve even their own allies, they win.
Typically.
Hillary was up against Bernie, and figured out how to kick his new-media ass with her old-school machine. I say this as a Bernie supporter.
Trump will be significantly more difficult to deal with, but Sec. Clinton has a solid and tested strategy in place... and also the Bernie Sanders apparatus.
Bernie and Trump both know now is not the time to show your hand. Wait until the convention, solidify the party, and then go at it. In the mean time, uncertainty and doubt - why won't Bernie concede? Why won't The Donald call the top GOP supporters? Why does Sanders think he can win a contested convention? Why did Trump fire the campaign manager who won him the primaries?
We're in for a long summer of bizarre moves pre-convention. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, Obama and Warren rally the core, and give them red meat all summer long while Hillary Clinton seems above it all while being invested in current events and supportive of her supporters.
Post-convention is where the rubber meets the road.
As for Donnie T's veep? It's going to be Condi Rice. It just is. She has no political career to shred, she gets a chance at the reigns of power riding an even more clueless tool than W, she hits some demographic check boxes real hard, she is the warhawkiest warhawk that ever warhawked, and she is smart and ruthless.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:42 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Typically, when one side can innovate and bring new ideas and new strategies that can upset and unnerve even their own allies, they win.
Typically.
Hillary was up against Bernie, and figured out how to kick his new-media ass with her old-school machine. I say this as a Bernie supporter.
Trump will be significantly more difficult to deal with, but Sec. Clinton has a solid and tested strategy in place... and also the Bernie Sanders apparatus.
Bernie and Trump both know now is not the time to show your hand. Wait until the convention, solidify the party, and then go at it. In the mean time, uncertainty and doubt - why won't Bernie concede? Why won't The Donald call the top GOP supporters? Why does Sanders think he can win a contested convention? Why did Trump fire the campaign manager who won him the primaries?
We're in for a long summer of bizarre moves pre-convention. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton, Obama and Warren rally the core, and give them red meat all summer long while Hillary Clinton seems above it all while being invested in current events and supportive of her supporters.
Post-convention is where the rubber meets the road.
As for Donnie T's veep? It's going to be Condi Rice. It just is. She has no political career to shred, she gets a chance at the reigns of power riding an even more clueless tool than W, she hits some demographic check boxes real hard, she is the warhawkiest warhawk that ever warhawked, and she is smart and ruthless.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:42 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hey do you guys remember when every pundit was just so sure that Trump was gonna smoothly pivot toward the center while Clinton and Sanders were still fighting it out, ensuring his path to an easy victory?
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:43 PM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:43 PM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
I'm continuing to be disappointed in Sanders. I keep looking at the comment sections of these articles (I know, I know). Even the ones that are anti-Trump, pro-Clinton are complete cesspools in the comments, full of people making unsubstantiated attacks on her, saying that they can never vote for her, saying that Bernie is their true savior etc. etc. I still believe she will be the next President, but I would have loved for the election of the first woman President of the United States to be a more whole-hearted affair. It's so disheartening to see women attacking her in exactly the same sexist ways they've been taught to by the Republican party - I know women can be just as sexist as men, but it still feels worse to see.
posted by peacheater at 7:44 PM on June 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by peacheater at 7:44 PM on June 20, 2016 [13 favorites]
As for Donnie T's veep? It's going to be Condi Rice. It just is.
I guarantee you she would rather eat broken glass.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:44 PM on June 20, 2016 [31 favorites]
I guarantee you she would rather eat broken glass.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:44 PM on June 20, 2016 [31 favorites]
Typically, when one side can innovate and bring new ideas and new strategies that can upset and unnerve even their own allies, they win.
Are there actually any examples of this? Unnerving one's own allies?
Trump is trying something new to modern American politics, a populist demagogue with the full machinery of a major party throwing its weight behind his bid for the White House. He is using cutting-edge media than any of the establishment candidates, and knows how to command an audience as an entertainer.
I don't agree with this either. The major party of which you speak is busy issuing mealy-mouthed 'well, we should all vote our conscience' statements instead of full-throated endorsements. Meanwhile, Trump thought he could get all the free media he wants, but what he's getting instead is a death by a million cuts, as reporters pick him apart while he has no ability or desire to respond.
posted by Existential Dread at 7:47 PM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
Are there actually any examples of this? Unnerving one's own allies?
Trump is trying something new to modern American politics, a populist demagogue with the full machinery of a major party throwing its weight behind his bid for the White House. He is using cutting-edge media than any of the establishment candidates, and knows how to command an audience as an entertainer.
I don't agree with this either. The major party of which you speak is busy issuing mealy-mouthed 'well, we should all vote our conscience' statements instead of full-throated endorsements. Meanwhile, Trump thought he could get all the free media he wants, but what he's getting instead is a death by a million cuts, as reporters pick him apart while he has no ability or desire to respond.
posted by Existential Dread at 7:47 PM on June 20, 2016 [10 favorites]
I guarantee you she would rather eat broken glass.
Why? You think she has some sort of self-respecting moral center she wouldn't sell out in a heartbeat? Were you even paying attention to the entire G. W. Bust administration I mean G. W. Bush administration?
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:48 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why? You think she has some sort of self-respecting moral center she wouldn't sell out in a heartbeat? Were you even paying attention to the entire G. W. Bust administration I mean G. W. Bush administration?
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:48 PM on June 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Aside from the fact that she tersely stated she wasn't at all interested like two days ago, and has kept out of politics entirely since her Bush days? How about the fact that she's still fairly well-respected and Trump is the least-respected person to ever run for President? Why would she hitch her wagon to that flaming sack of crap? What possible benefit for her would there be?
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:54 PM on June 20, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:54 PM on June 20, 2016 [32 favorites]
You think Colin Powell's sitting there like, 'oh, please, let it be me?' Or do you think he's like, 'Aww, naw, fuck this noise?'
posted by box at 7:55 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by box at 7:55 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Donald J. Trump enters the general election campaign laboring under the worst financial and organizational disadvantage of any major party nominee in recent history, placing both his candidacy and party in political peril.
posted by readery at 7:56 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by readery at 7:56 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump's $1.3 mil cash on hand puts him behind the top 50 members of Congress according to @OpenSecretsDC
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:59 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:59 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Are there actually any examples of this? Unnerving one's own allies?
Oh, man. OK, this is my third post in a row, but wow, I'm'a gonna nerd-out, then Peace-out.
Let's begin! The Spartans at Thermopylae, at the same time, the Athenian Navy at the battle of Salamis. I could go earlier, but it involves untangling all of the Fertile Crescent Empires, and we have no time for that!
Hannibal over the Alps! Fabian making Hannibal wish he could go back that way! Both qualify.
Washington killing Hessians while they slept on Christmas morning. Unnerved and impressed the French, who got their naval act in gear against the British for once in their history.
Then there are the Mongols, and... well. Disruptive is a term that means something in business for a reason.
Donnie T is disruptive. Sec. Clinton is an old-guard who knows how to deal. Like Ladislaus the Cuman, I mean Ladislaus IV who invited in his enemies, the pagan Steppe horse archers, the Cumans, who he barely defeated, to be his best buds. This pissed off pretty much everyone from the Pope to the cleaning lady. So, when the for-real bad-asses from the Steppe showed up again, the Golden Horde Mongols, Ladislaus had a plan he learned by listening to what the Cumans had to say about the Mongols, stuck to it, and then... Saw Them Off.
And now I'm done for tonight.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:09 PM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh, man. OK, this is my third post in a row, but wow, I'm'a gonna nerd-out, then Peace-out.
Let's begin! The Spartans at Thermopylae, at the same time, the Athenian Navy at the battle of Salamis. I could go earlier, but it involves untangling all of the Fertile Crescent Empires, and we have no time for that!
Hannibal over the Alps! Fabian making Hannibal wish he could go back that way! Both qualify.
Washington killing Hessians while they slept on Christmas morning. Unnerved and impressed the French, who got their naval act in gear against the British for once in their history.
Then there are the Mongols, and... well. Disruptive is a term that means something in business for a reason.
Donnie T is disruptive. Sec. Clinton is an old-guard who knows how to deal. Like Ladislaus the Cuman, I mean Ladislaus IV who invited in his enemies, the pagan Steppe horse archers, the Cumans, who he barely defeated, to be his best buds. This pissed off pretty much everyone from the Pope to the cleaning lady. So, when the for-real bad-asses from the Steppe showed up again, the Golden Horde Mongols, Ladislaus had a plan he learned by listening to what the Cumans had to say about the Mongols, stuck to it, and then... Saw Them Off.
And now I'm done for tonight.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:09 PM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
What happens when one side has a campaign and the other doesn’t? When one side is mobilizing voters, contacting supporters, and persuading independents, and the other is sitting on its hands? [...] I don’t know. No one knows, because it’s never happened before.
Well, McKinley *did* run a front porch campaign. But I will allow that the current political environment has some nuanced differences from that of 1896.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:31 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, McKinley *did* run a front porch campaign. But I will allow that the current political environment has some nuanced differences from that of 1896.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:31 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
my god is it really almost a month until cleveland
i'm a gonna need a sphincter transplant
posted by murphy slaw at 8:38 PM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
i'm a gonna need a sphincter transplant
posted by murphy slaw at 8:38 PM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
According to Politico, Wall Street is threatening to yank their Clinton campaign contributions if she picks Warren for VP. I know she won't, but I'd still love to see her call that bluff. "First, what are you gonna do, donate to Trump? You think a trade war will be good for business? Second, I've got forty times as much as him already. Go ahead, walk. I'll live."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:43 PM on June 20, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:43 PM on June 20, 2016 [22 favorites]
Trump directed ~20% of his campaign spending in May—$1.1M—to firms he owns & travel reimbursements for his kidsi don't know what's worse, that this is how he's spending his money, or that he only spent 5.5 million in may
posted by murphy slaw at 8:55 PM on June 20, 2016 [16 favorites]
Let's begin! The Spartans at Thermopylae, at the same time, the Athenian Navy at the battle of Salamis. I could go earlier, but it involves untangling all of the Fertile Crescent Empires, and we have no time for that!
Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of the last 50 years of presidential elections, less Great Generals of History. Trump ----> Hannibal is a bit of a stretch.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:59 PM on June 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
Oh, I was thinking more along the lines of the last 50 years of presidential elections, less Great Generals of History. Trump ----> Hannibal is a bit of a stretch.
posted by Existential Dread at 8:59 PM on June 20, 2016 [12 favorites]
but wait until he brings out the elephants, they're yuge
posted by murphy slaw at 9:00 PM on June 20, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by murphy slaw at 9:00 PM on June 20, 2016 [18 favorites]
So when the inevitable post-mortem books come out, are we going to learn that Trump's kids were behind the whole thing, and Trump himself is just the barely-sentient skin-sack of putrescent rhetoric they wheel onstage to shout at the crowds while the kids rake in the money and make the personnel decisions?
posted by dersins at 9:02 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dersins at 9:02 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hey, if Trump is secretly two children standing on top of each other in a grown-up suit, that would explain the tiny hands!
posted by mmoncur at 9:05 PM on June 20, 2016 [39 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 9:05 PM on June 20, 2016 [39 favorites]
1.3 million is all the "cash on hand" he could fit into those tiny baby hands.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 PM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:10 PM on June 20, 2016 [4 favorites]
I was thinking more along the lines of the last 50 years of presidential elections
I was thinking more along the lines of all those times in history that someone tried it and it didn't work. Those kind of outnumber the times when wild audacity paid off.
posted by chimaera at 9:14 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I was thinking more along the lines of all those times in history that someone tried it and it didn't work. Those kind of outnumber the times when wild audacity paid off.
posted by chimaera at 9:14 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
If this actually is a coup by Manafort, that seems like a good thing for the Trump campaign and a bad thing for, y'know, everybody else
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:21 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:21 PM on June 20, 2016 [6 favorites]
When you ask yourself why poor white people would vote against their interests, you really need to factor in religion. Self-sacrifice for God's will is a potent idea, which is why the prolife "save the babies" message works with so many; sure you're maybe screwing yourself over but you saved babies by voting for that guy. Or saved the world from the evils of Hilary who would make your daughter become an atheist lesbian who goes to hell. Or kept out Communism. It's not all racism. Or perhaps it's a type of virtuous racism that sees helping minorities (the poor things) as "bad for them." It's a twisted-up version of otherwise ethical impulses.It distresses me somewhat to see religion earnestly cited as a motivating force for political awfulness. Not surprising—I was hipster-style defending religion from an atheistic PoV back when being total shits to the religious was still MeFi-approved—but disappointing, especially as we've seen the so-called alt-right emerge wholly from the secular, anti-theistic ranks of Reddit and kin. Religion wasn't only not the cause, it was a red herring. The real struggle here is one of insularity versus inclusiveness, and the worse we are at recognizing that, the more likely it is that we unintentionally side with the insular—even as we tell ourselves we stand opposed to them and their way of life.
It is possible to earnestly hold a number of very terrible beliefs, so long as you're ignorant. To be pro-life and think yourself a champion of the species—without knowing a thing about how women are forced into roles or denied freedom to live as they see fit. You can oppose gay or trans rights all the more easily when you've never met anybody gay or trans. If you've never lived in poverty... well, you get the picture.
Religion gets a bad rap because it's an institution that promotes soul-searching and community-forming. Don't get me wrong, soul-searching is fantastic. But it's also a fundamentally selfish act, at least the way it's practiced most often—i.e. it asks that people come to terms with themselves in and of themselves, as opposed to having them come to terms with their privilege or ignorances or any of the other frankly-unspiritual and fairly shallow ways that mean a tremendous amount. Community-building has a similar effect. Should we all do it? Fuck yes. But if you form a community with people who are all the same level of educated, share similar interests, earn similarly, share the same superficial traits, then you just reinforce your insular tendencies. Even if your spiritual community takes in people of disparate sorts, unless there's a collective effort to understand and equalize community members—to recognize each path through life as equally meaningful—you're just donning an "inclusive" mask and using that to reinforce the status quo.
It's important to recognize that, for most people with privilege or power, their fortune and control strikes them as being simply the status quo. They don't notice how people lack that. They don't notice how much territory they're given simply because others can't claim stake. And when attempts are made to equalize this, these people aren't revolting against equality: they're revolting against a perceived loss of fortune, or comfort, or safety. Their insularity is threatened. They respond with increased insularity.
Politically speaking, this is a losing game. Civilization trends towards freedom, laboriously and slowly, and the more freedom people have, the more doomed an insular approach is. It works better in unregulated territories (and boy oh boy is "disruption" all kinds of a dreadfully ironic word, in its reinforcement of my community as I use it to shatter somebody else's). In the context of this election, though, we've seen a party trying to halt inclusiveness permanently collapse as its fanbase hoarded around the man offering them genuine solutions—ban all Muslims, bar all Mexicans from law, do literally crazy shit. And the more honest they become, the more they repel even the sane insularists, the ones who recognize the need for inclusiveness even as they dig their heels in against it.
The irony that religion is more potent when it deals in simple truths—"Love each other. No, seriously, fucking do it"—is lost on people who appreciate religion's deeper potential in perhaps shallower ways. And that's something we notice is forgotten in a lot of cultural arenas: that shallow connections do matter, and that profundity is often prohibitive. The freedom to pursue elusive truths is a blatant form of privilege; the ability to ignore mundane facts that matter to millions of people is another sort. Some religious people get this; others don't. Very few communities posit this as their singular, central issue, and also live by their words—this is as true of secular communities as it is of spiritual ones.
But comments like the one I excerpted above, which posit theories about value systems that essentially reject the agency or the actual value of people whose beliefs are reprehensible, do us wrong in a lot of ways. They fail to put responsibility on the responsible—the people who believe and act this way, regardless of why. They fail to acknowledge the paths that led these people to where they are—paths which matter as much to them as yours matter to you and mine matter to me. (He said, trying to selfishly find the nuances in a subject while decrying people who do exactly that.) Most of all, they fail to look to what genuinely matters here, which is the forging of new paths, on which we can all safely travel together. And if we aren't the ones forging the way ahead, somebody else invariably will. Often in terribly nasty ways.
I doubt most people take pride in their insularity. The Alt Right is a wretched phenomenon—but it is a minority, and one that I doubt will ever spread far unless it masks its genuine intents. Most people are naively insular. I'm not saying those people should be coddled, or forgiven, or tolerated (though the power to turn the other cheek is remarkable when and only when you can afford it). What I'd like, though, is if we could not-coddle and not-tolerate and not-forgive these people in ways that acknowledge how they form the way they form, admit that terrible thoughts can be held sans brainwash or delusion, and pay careful, careful attention to the forms of insularity that plague everybody, us as much as anybody else. I'm loathe to diagnose somebody else's madness when I know my own far better. And that shared capacity for ignorance and delusion, that willingness to admit that I have been wrong and will be wrong again, unites me with my political and spiritual nemeses far more genuinely than our shared capacity for anger and exclusion, and for casting others out for convenience's sake.
posted by rorgy at 9:22 PM on June 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
Trump directed ~20% of his campaign spending in May—$1.1M—to firms he owns & travel reimbursements for his kids
Wait, with the fact that he's also lending money from his company to his campaign, isn't there some double dipping going on?
posted by FJT at 9:52 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Wait, with the fact that he's also lending money from his company to his campaign, isn't there some double dipping going on?
posted by FJT at 9:52 PM on June 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
I wonder which will depress Republican turnout more, staying with Trump, or stealing the nomination from Trump?
posted by ryanrs at 10:05 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 10:05 PM on June 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Please stop with the sniping and make an affirmative argument for something concrete.
Just because I have different observations of the Democratic party than you do doesn't mean I'm sniping at you or interested in having some argumentative interaction. You see them as a liberal party that tolerates centrists, I see them as the other way around. That's all.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:10 PM on June 20, 2016
Just because I have different observations of the Democratic party than you do doesn't mean I'm sniping at you or interested in having some argumentative interaction. You see them as a liberal party that tolerates centrists, I see them as the other way around. That's all.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:10 PM on June 20, 2016
okay i swear this is my last post tonight but:
So either Trump paid a fictional ad agency, or someone with a small home business and a good sense of humor did some work for his campaign, I guess?
posted by murphy slaw at 10:36 PM on June 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
This is the address listed for "Draper Sterling," the entity Trump paid $35,000 in May for advertising(It's a residential property in Londonderry, NH)
So either Trump paid a fictional ad agency, or someone with a small home business and a good sense of humor did some work for his campaign, I guess?
posted by murphy slaw at 10:36 PM on June 20, 2016 [11 favorites]
The other thing about generalizing about Republicans and why people identify as Republicans is that while presidential politics may be national, most politics are still pretty local. My parents are Republicans (well, not so much these days -- more in a sec) because they've lived in Chicago for a bazillion years and fraud, waste, and corruption in Chicago are a Democrat's machine-politics game. Voting for GOP politicians locally and for the statehouse was generally a vote for clean government. (These days we're pretty equal opportunity felonies-for-politicians and the GOP is equally bad.) The Illinois GOP is also a conservative party in a very blue state (where at times they've been a rump third party while two factions of Democrats try to slit each others' throats), so they're not all that conservative. (One of the first state-level politicians -- maybe the first, I'd have to check -- to come out in favor of gay marriage, and she did so vocally and repeatedly and significantly, was a Republican.) Yes, if you're pro-life in Illinois it's likely you're a Republican, but it doesn't follow that if you're an Illinois Republican you're likely pro-life. A lot of social issues that dominate the national political debate just barely pop up in the local political discourse.
Now, while the national party has never mapped terribly well to the state party (as is generally the case, for both parties, in most states), over the past 20 years in particular there's been a widening divide that has gradually driven my parents away from voting for national-level GOP politicians. Total batshit insanity on the economy and nuttiness/incompetence on foreign affairs/national defense were two big drivers -- I thought my mother might punch Paul Ryan's budget through the television, honestly. The outright racism, xenophobia, and anti-LGBT stances in the national GOP this cycle is what's driven them from quietly voting non-GOP in national elections to ceasing to identify as Republicans.
These are important differences! A Mormon in Utah is Republican for really different reasons than a small-town hunting enthusiast in Alabama. They get really different things from their state parties, from their local GOP politicians, and from the local Democratic opposition. It's a huge mistake to analyze parties and their voters monolithically and nationally, and it is really alienating to say "well if they weren't racist why didn't they quit the party 10 years ago?" Best guess, their local party wasn't racist, and there's always some idiot from some other state saying some stupid shit in Congress, you can't really pick your party based on "I will only vote for the party that has no idiot members of Congress," especially if your local party and local politicians do denounce the out-of-state wingnuttery. Doubly especially if (stay with me here!) the local Democrats are pretty terrible and/or have terrible wingnut members in positions of authority! (Sometimes even racists! There are terrible racist Democrats out there, even if the party doesn't tolerate the dogwhistles at the national level.) Mostly when I go to local Democratic events I have a really good time and those are my people, but I've been to a few where I walked out going, "WOW, I do not want to have ANYTHING in common with that group of people, those are bad people." And yet reliable Democrats. If that bit of the local party were ascendant, I would very much understand why many sensible people would refuse to be affiliated with it.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:40 PM on June 20, 2016 [33 favorites]
Now, while the national party has never mapped terribly well to the state party (as is generally the case, for both parties, in most states), over the past 20 years in particular there's been a widening divide that has gradually driven my parents away from voting for national-level GOP politicians. Total batshit insanity on the economy and nuttiness/incompetence on foreign affairs/national defense were two big drivers -- I thought my mother might punch Paul Ryan's budget through the television, honestly. The outright racism, xenophobia, and anti-LGBT stances in the national GOP this cycle is what's driven them from quietly voting non-GOP in national elections to ceasing to identify as Republicans.
These are important differences! A Mormon in Utah is Republican for really different reasons than a small-town hunting enthusiast in Alabama. They get really different things from their state parties, from their local GOP politicians, and from the local Democratic opposition. It's a huge mistake to analyze parties and their voters monolithically and nationally, and it is really alienating to say "well if they weren't racist why didn't they quit the party 10 years ago?" Best guess, their local party wasn't racist, and there's always some idiot from some other state saying some stupid shit in Congress, you can't really pick your party based on "I will only vote for the party that has no idiot members of Congress," especially if your local party and local politicians do denounce the out-of-state wingnuttery. Doubly especially if (stay with me here!) the local Democrats are pretty terrible and/or have terrible wingnut members in positions of authority! (Sometimes even racists! There are terrible racist Democrats out there, even if the party doesn't tolerate the dogwhistles at the national level.) Mostly when I go to local Democratic events I have a really good time and those are my people, but I've been to a few where I walked out going, "WOW, I do not want to have ANYTHING in common with that group of people, those are bad people." And yet reliable Democrats. If that bit of the local party were ascendant, I would very much understand why many sensible people would refuse to be affiliated with it.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:40 PM on June 20, 2016 [33 favorites]
Trump directed ~20% of his campaign spending in May—$1.1M—to firms he owns & travel reimbursements for his kids
He's running it like he ran his casinos, basically.
Not that I think that he isn't for real running for president, but I think he's incapable of doing anything that isn't at least part way a scam on the side.
posted by Artw at 1:11 AM on June 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
He's running it like he ran his casinos, basically.
Not that I think that he isn't for real running for president, but I think he's incapable of doing anything that isn't at least part way a scam on the side.
posted by Artw at 1:11 AM on June 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
So the new top guy in Trump's campaign, Paul Manafort, sounds like a wonderful person:
Manafort has helped a lot of other controversial political leaders, for example, Jonas Savimbi and Ferdinand Marcos and Mobutu Sese Seko. He also had a neat role in The Karachi Affair, which I guess all Americans should now research considering the prominent role that Manafort will have in the campaign and in any future Trump White House.posted by octothorpe at 5:11 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump directed ~20% of his campaign spending in May—$1.1M—to firms he owns & travel reimbursements for his kids
Wait, with the fact that he's also lending money from his company to his campaign, isn't there some double dipping going on?
This is why D. Trump is fabulously wealthy and I am not. He really knows how to take a buck and s-t-r-e-e-e-e-e-t-c-h it.
1.) Loan yourself money for your campaign but charge interest (we think, though the interest part has not been verified)
2.) Rent your own resorts, planes, and helicopters for your campaign from yourself at the highest in-season prices.
3.) Hire your own family members.
4.) Get other people to contribute to your campaign.
5.) Profit!
It's like if I loaned myself $100.00 to campaign for World's Best Mom and charged myself 7% interest. Then I charge myself $5.00 to rent my office in my house and $5.00 to rent my car. I pay my daughter $10.00 to tell people I am the greatest Mom while asking for donations for my campaign. When I have enough money in contributions back I pay back my loan with interest. $100 loaned, $127 made total. Nice. Plus maybe I am elected World's Best Mom, maybe not. Who cares?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:24 AM on June 21, 2016 [17 favorites]
Wait, with the fact that he's also lending money from his company to his campaign, isn't there some double dipping going on?
This is why D. Trump is fabulously wealthy and I am not. He really knows how to take a buck and s-t-r-e-e-e-e-e-t-c-h it.
1.) Loan yourself money for your campaign but charge interest (we think, though the interest part has not been verified)
2.) Rent your own resorts, planes, and helicopters for your campaign from yourself at the highest in-season prices.
3.) Hire your own family members.
4.) Get other people to contribute to your campaign.
5.) Profit!
It's like if I loaned myself $100.00 to campaign for World's Best Mom and charged myself 7% interest. Then I charge myself $5.00 to rent my office in my house and $5.00 to rent my car. I pay my daughter $10.00 to tell people I am the greatest Mom while asking for donations for my campaign. When I have enough money in contributions back I pay back my loan with interest. $100 loaned, $127 made total. Nice. Plus maybe I am elected World's Best Mom, maybe not. Who cares?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:24 AM on June 21, 2016 [17 favorites]
Trump's 30 paid staffers is less than you'd need to run a well staffed Chipotle.
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:33 AM on June 21, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 5:33 AM on June 21, 2016 [30 favorites]
He's playing chicken with GOP leadership now. He wants to go ahead being himself and have the GOP run GOTV on their dime. Any change to his campaign structure will be accompanied by dollar signs, with him continuing to grift off any money that flows to him thru the party coffers. They'll ditch him. Maybe even today. But soon.
Racism, no. Misogyny, no. But when it comes to money, that's where the axe will fall.
posted by readery at 5:52 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Racism, no. Misogyny, no. But when it comes to money, that's where the axe will fall.
posted by readery at 5:52 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
And he'll get to say it was stolen from him, so win/win.
posted by readery at 5:53 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by readery at 5:53 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump may be in a win/win position but the GOP are fucked/fucked.
They can't allow Trump to just raid the party's coffers to fund his campaign, they have other seats to win as well. And with Hillary's 50 state strategy gearing up, they know that every seat is threatened.
But I don't see how they can nominate someone else and 1) not receive the wrath of the primary voters or 2) establish any sort of cohesive narrative that will have any hope of being heard over the noise made over a Trump exit.
I'm just sitting here with my cup of tea and popcorn. Feed me moar schadenfreude gossip!
posted by like_neon at 6:03 AM on June 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
They can't allow Trump to just raid the party's coffers to fund his campaign, they have other seats to win as well. And with Hillary's 50 state strategy gearing up, they know that every seat is threatened.
But I don't see how they can nominate someone else and 1) not receive the wrath of the primary voters or 2) establish any sort of cohesive narrative that will have any hope of being heard over the noise made over a Trump exit.
I'm just sitting here with my cup of tea and popcorn. Feed me moar schadenfreude gossip!
posted by like_neon at 6:03 AM on June 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump is running a massively ballsy grift and it's kinda funny except for the fact that eventually some of his supporters are going to kill somebody (or each other).
Loan self money at massive interest rates (there was a Democratic representative that loaned money to her campaign at 18% interest thereby netting a nice ROI - I wish I could get a 18% ROI on anything).
I'm not sure how bankruptcy laws work in regards to campaign debt but I assume that any debt that the Trump campaign incurs isn't necessarily easy to discharge. So he can basically continue to collect campaign contributions until the debt is cleared.
Sons and Daughter can get big checks functioning as campaign consultants
Business is directed at Trump assets that might otherwise be underused. Presumably Trump can charge inflated rates.
I wouldn't be shocked if Trump is somehow getting a commission on any ads purchased by his campaign like many media consultants are.
Add in all sorts of other dodgy but probably legal financial shenanigans should be able to push the ROI on this campaign bid even higher.
So the question is whether the campaign is generating revenue in excess of the lost revenue that Trump is seeing as people boycott some of his other businesses.
posted by vuron at 6:25 AM on June 21, 2016
Loan self money at massive interest rates (there was a Democratic representative that loaned money to her campaign at 18% interest thereby netting a nice ROI - I wish I could get a 18% ROI on anything).
I'm not sure how bankruptcy laws work in regards to campaign debt but I assume that any debt that the Trump campaign incurs isn't necessarily easy to discharge. So he can basically continue to collect campaign contributions until the debt is cleared.
Sons and Daughter can get big checks functioning as campaign consultants
Business is directed at Trump assets that might otherwise be underused. Presumably Trump can charge inflated rates.
I wouldn't be shocked if Trump is somehow getting a commission on any ads purchased by his campaign like many media consultants are.
Add in all sorts of other dodgy but probably legal financial shenanigans should be able to push the ROI on this campaign bid even higher.
So the question is whether the campaign is generating revenue in excess of the lost revenue that Trump is seeing as people boycott some of his other businesses.
posted by vuron at 6:25 AM on June 21, 2016
So Trump is running the campaign like a kleptocrat, and now he has a campaign manager who's spent his career burnishing the public image of kleptocrats.
If you didn't think he's too dangerous to lead America before, well, now you have the worst kind of fascist running for president -- one who's got his hand in the till. And now that whole "America will become like Zimbabwe!" talking point of 6-7 years ago the Hayek worshippers used may well come true.
posted by dw at 6:34 AM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
If you didn't think he's too dangerous to lead America before, well, now you have the worst kind of fascist running for president -- one who's got his hand in the till. And now that whole "America will become like Zimbabwe!" talking point of 6-7 years ago the Hayek worshippers used may well come true.
posted by dw at 6:34 AM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump is like the scam ads for Colloidal Silver, and "INVEST IN GOLD" that plague whack-a-doodle websites like The Blaze and Breitbart, and the RNC went ahead and bought him.
posted by codacorolla at 6:40 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by codacorolla at 6:40 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Polling updates:
A new CNN/ORC poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump in the presidential race by five points, 47% to 42%.
***
A new NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll shows Clinton leading by six points.
***
Quinnipiac released polls in three important swing states:
Florida: Clinton 47, Trump 39
Ohio: Clinton 40, Trump 40
Pennsylvania: Clinton 42, Trump 41
Key finding: “By wide margins, voters in each state say Clinton is better prepared than Trump to be president; that she is more intelligent than Trump and that she has higher moral standards.”
posted by Chrysostom at 6:42 AM on June 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
A new CNN/ORC poll shows Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump in the presidential race by five points, 47% to 42%.
***
A new NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll shows Clinton leading by six points.
***
Quinnipiac released polls in three important swing states:
Florida: Clinton 47, Trump 39
Ohio: Clinton 40, Trump 40
Pennsylvania: Clinton 42, Trump 41
Key finding: “By wide margins, voters in each state say Clinton is better prepared than Trump to be president; that she is more intelligent than Trump and that she has higher moral standards.”
posted by Chrysostom at 6:42 AM on June 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
Under the right circumstances, a presidential candidate could make more money with a losing campaign than with a winning one.
I only hope Nov. 9 doesn't find Trump asking himself "Where did I go right?"
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:56 AM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
I only hope Nov. 9 doesn't find Trump asking himself "Where did I go right?"
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:56 AM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
"How could this happen? I was so careful. I picked the wrong play, the wrong director, the wrong cast. Where did I go right?"
posted by kirkaracha at 7:00 AM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 7:00 AM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
Max Bialystock: It's practically a love-letter to Hitler!
Leo Bloom: Wow. This campaign wouldn't run a NIGHT!
Max Bialystock: A night? Are you kidding? This campaign's guaranteed to close on PAGE FOUR!
posted by kirkaracha at 7:01 AM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
Leo Bloom: Wow. This campaign wouldn't run a NIGHT!
Max Bialystock: A night? Are you kidding? This campaign's guaranteed to close on PAGE FOUR!
posted by kirkaracha at 7:01 AM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
The Republicans are absolutely fucked/fucked.
If, somehow, they do cheat Trump, I not only think that's likely the end of their existence as a nationally significant political party, I think we might see serious violence and murder from the Trump supporters. There's a lot of them, many are already hyped up on conspiracy theories, and many are heavily armed. That's not a good combination for someone looking to cheat them out of their victory.
Trump is absolutely guaranteed to run as an independent if he's cheated, and in a lot of ways that might be perfect for him. It'll get him an endless stream of adulation and attention, there's no possible way that he can actually win but if he loses it's clearly and without any doubt not due to him being incompetent but to powerful forces conspiring against him while he bravely fought on against the odds.
For Trump, being cheated out of the Republican nomination might well be the best possible outcome.
For everyone else it'll be a nightmare. Cleveland will burn, just for starters, and I'd be very surprised if there weren't multiple assassination attempts on Clinton and the not-Trump Republican nominee along with Trump supporters engaging in mass shootings at political events. It'll be a perfect opportunity for Trump to stoke the fires of violence while pretending to stand above the fray and have clean hands.
There's an desire for apocalyptic scenarios among many on the right, and Trump being cheated would be a trigger for a lot of them.
***
Which is why I don't think the R's will cheat Trump.
It's tempting to think that they will, because Trump is so clearly awful both to us non-Republicans and also to the less awful Republicans. Clearly he's not just a terrible person, he's also a terrible candidate, and as others have noted he's a money sink and worse he's causing money to dry up.
But from a cold blooded survival of the party standpoint, Trump as the nominee is better than cheating Trump.
Cheating Trump means shattering the party. The racist/plutocrat alliance was never one of any real mutual affection but rather one of convenience for both sides, and both sides clearly despise each other (someone earlier mentioned Democrats despising rural Republicans, that's nothing compared to how the plutocrat type Republicans view rural Republicans).
Cheating Trump means losing, for the foreseeable future, the racist white vote. They saw it happen to Johnson back in 1967, hell some of the older plutocrats were alive then and have personal memories of it happening.
The Republican party cannot survive as a nationally relevant party without the former Confederate states and the racist voters there.
Yes, keeping Trump means an embarrassment and likely money stolen from the Party.
That, from the standpoint of the Republican elites, is better than shattering the party and losing everything.
More important, the Republican elites have demonstrated that they are pretty good at long term thinking and planning. They aren't stupid, just evil. They'll lose the 2016 elections, but that might not even really mean losing much in the Supreme Court, they've already established that they can block Supreme Court nominees, why stop just because Obama leaves office?
Even if they can't block all of Clinton's nominees for the next four years [1], losing the Court is better than losing the Party.
Allowing Trump to be the nominee will hurt, but it won't kill the Party. Cheating him will kill the Party. Therefore they will chose to allow Trump to be the nominee.
If they were going to be cheating Trump they'd have been laying PR groundwork for it, Party leaders would have been refusing to endorse him, there would have been talk about waiting for the convention, there would be a consensus Establishment Republican Nominee being talked up and made out to be the hero of true conservatism.
So they'll let Trump be the nominee and they'll run from him as hard as they can. They'll refuse to fund him to the maximum extent they can get away with, the candidates facing reelection will try their best to pretend that they never heard of the man at the top of the ticket, and it'll cost them. It might cost them the Senate, though I'm still doubtful there, and maybe it'll even cost them some of their hard won seats in state legislatures.
But so what?
As long as the Party survives they can rebuild, they can regain those seats. If the Party is shattered they can't.
Trump will be the Republican nominee, anything else is just wishful thinking.
[1] And I don't see why they wouldn't be able to, the Democrats have a truly delusional love of the filibuster despite it never helping them they keep imagining that maybe, possibly, one day their powder will be dry enough and they can use it for awesome effect.
posted by sotonohito at 7:09 AM on June 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
If, somehow, they do cheat Trump, I not only think that's likely the end of their existence as a nationally significant political party, I think we might see serious violence and murder from the Trump supporters. There's a lot of them, many are already hyped up on conspiracy theories, and many are heavily armed. That's not a good combination for someone looking to cheat them out of their victory.
Trump is absolutely guaranteed to run as an independent if he's cheated, and in a lot of ways that might be perfect for him. It'll get him an endless stream of adulation and attention, there's no possible way that he can actually win but if he loses it's clearly and without any doubt not due to him being incompetent but to powerful forces conspiring against him while he bravely fought on against the odds.
For Trump, being cheated out of the Republican nomination might well be the best possible outcome.
For everyone else it'll be a nightmare. Cleveland will burn, just for starters, and I'd be very surprised if there weren't multiple assassination attempts on Clinton and the not-Trump Republican nominee along with Trump supporters engaging in mass shootings at political events. It'll be a perfect opportunity for Trump to stoke the fires of violence while pretending to stand above the fray and have clean hands.
There's an desire for apocalyptic scenarios among many on the right, and Trump being cheated would be a trigger for a lot of them.
***
Which is why I don't think the R's will cheat Trump.
It's tempting to think that they will, because Trump is so clearly awful both to us non-Republicans and also to the less awful Republicans. Clearly he's not just a terrible person, he's also a terrible candidate, and as others have noted he's a money sink and worse he's causing money to dry up.
But from a cold blooded survival of the party standpoint, Trump as the nominee is better than cheating Trump.
Cheating Trump means shattering the party. The racist/plutocrat alliance was never one of any real mutual affection but rather one of convenience for both sides, and both sides clearly despise each other (someone earlier mentioned Democrats despising rural Republicans, that's nothing compared to how the plutocrat type Republicans view rural Republicans).
Cheating Trump means losing, for the foreseeable future, the racist white vote. They saw it happen to Johnson back in 1967, hell some of the older plutocrats were alive then and have personal memories of it happening.
The Republican party cannot survive as a nationally relevant party without the former Confederate states and the racist voters there.
Yes, keeping Trump means an embarrassment and likely money stolen from the Party.
That, from the standpoint of the Republican elites, is better than shattering the party and losing everything.
More important, the Republican elites have demonstrated that they are pretty good at long term thinking and planning. They aren't stupid, just evil. They'll lose the 2016 elections, but that might not even really mean losing much in the Supreme Court, they've already established that they can block Supreme Court nominees, why stop just because Obama leaves office?
Even if they can't block all of Clinton's nominees for the next four years [1], losing the Court is better than losing the Party.
Allowing Trump to be the nominee will hurt, but it won't kill the Party. Cheating him will kill the Party. Therefore they will chose to allow Trump to be the nominee.
If they were going to be cheating Trump they'd have been laying PR groundwork for it, Party leaders would have been refusing to endorse him, there would have been talk about waiting for the convention, there would be a consensus Establishment Republican Nominee being talked up and made out to be the hero of true conservatism.
So they'll let Trump be the nominee and they'll run from him as hard as they can. They'll refuse to fund him to the maximum extent they can get away with, the candidates facing reelection will try their best to pretend that they never heard of the man at the top of the ticket, and it'll cost them. It might cost them the Senate, though I'm still doubtful there, and maybe it'll even cost them some of their hard won seats in state legislatures.
But so what?
As long as the Party survives they can rebuild, they can regain those seats. If the Party is shattered they can't.
Trump will be the Republican nominee, anything else is just wishful thinking.
[1] And I don't see why they wouldn't be able to, the Democrats have a truly delusional love of the filibuster despite it never helping them they keep imagining that maybe, possibly, one day their powder will be dry enough and they can use it for awesome effect.
posted by sotonohito at 7:09 AM on June 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
Trump will deliver a speech in New York "regarding the election," his campaign announced Tuesday morning in a press release that provided no other details.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:14 AM on June 21, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:14 AM on June 21, 2016
And, from an internal housekeeping standpoint, allowing a Trump candidacy might help the plutocrat Republicans keep the racist Republicans in their place. "There, see, we let you try it your way and we lost bigtime, now STFU and let the grown ups handle things, keep your crap to dog whistles and we can win again!"
posted by sotonohito at 7:14 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 7:14 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
It may be nothing, but this election is so fucked that holding a speech "regarding the election" sounds like the most ominous thing I can imagine.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:22 AM on June 21, 2016 [40 favorites]
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:22 AM on June 21, 2016 [40 favorites]
I think Trump's followers are wide but not deep. He'd have trouble getting them to the polls, they may love to wear red hats and wave signs but making sure they are properly registered and vote in a timely fashion? They like him on TV, have some yucks attending a rally, but besides a core group I can't see them becoming active. The nutcase conspiracy guys are always out there, if they've attached themselves to Trump it is not because of him personally. I see it less as a cult of personality and more as an entertainment.
posted by readery at 7:23 AM on June 21, 2016
posted by readery at 7:23 AM on June 21, 2016
Isn't every speech Trump gives right now in regards to the election?
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:23 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:23 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh.
Trump himself: I will be making a big speech tomorrow to discuss the failed policies and bad judgment of Crooked Hillary Clinton
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump himself: I will be making a big speech tomorrow to discuss the failed policies and bad judgment of Crooked Hillary Clinton
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:24 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
The speech will be "This will be the best election ever, believe me. Crooked Hillary will lose"
And maybe some nonsense about xenophobia and teleprompters.
posted by readery at 7:26 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
And maybe some nonsense about xenophobia and teleprompters.
posted by readery at 7:26 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Ha, just guessed. Best defense in this situation is a really offensive offense.
posted by readery at 7:28 AM on June 21, 2016
posted by readery at 7:28 AM on June 21, 2016
Whoa! GAME CHANGER
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:32 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:32 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
You know, for a long time I really didn't want Trump to be the nominee. Besides the terrifying prospect of him actually winning, it felt like him being the nominee would legitimize all his bigotry and racism and xenophobia in a way that was really dangerous.
But now... now I think I do want him to go ahead and be the nominee. I want him to be the nominee and then get totally crushed in the general. His getting this far has already done dangerous damage in terms of making racism and violence more acceptable, and I don't know that actually getting the nomination would make that any worse. But at least if he runs and gets resoundingly beaten (please please please), that will be a very clear repudiation of what he stands for. That feels like it will be a more powerful symbol than the elite GOP leaders kicking him to the curb at this late date.
Plus there's a long time to go til the election still. If the GOP puts up Ryan or some equally reasonable-seeming candidate instead of Trump, I think it would suddenly be a much closer election, and that makes me nervous.
Plus I think sotonohito is right - GOP leaders taking the nom away from him would beget all kinds of violence and chaos, and I don't want that to happen.
Now that it's clear that Trump has no money and no ground game, and is seemingly getting more incoherent by the day, I want him to be the nominee. And then I want Clinton to absolutely wipe the floor with him, and for the Dems to take back as many Congressional and state-level seats as possible in the process.
posted by aka burlap at 7:33 AM on June 21, 2016 [18 favorites]
But now... now I think I do want him to go ahead and be the nominee. I want him to be the nominee and then get totally crushed in the general. His getting this far has already done dangerous damage in terms of making racism and violence more acceptable, and I don't know that actually getting the nomination would make that any worse. But at least if he runs and gets resoundingly beaten (please please please), that will be a very clear repudiation of what he stands for. That feels like it will be a more powerful symbol than the elite GOP leaders kicking him to the curb at this late date.
Plus there's a long time to go til the election still. If the GOP puts up Ryan or some equally reasonable-seeming candidate instead of Trump, I think it would suddenly be a much closer election, and that makes me nervous.
Plus I think sotonohito is right - GOP leaders taking the nom away from him would beget all kinds of violence and chaos, and I don't want that to happen.
Now that it's clear that Trump has no money and no ground game, and is seemingly getting more incoherent by the day, I want him to be the nominee. And then I want Clinton to absolutely wipe the floor with him, and for the Dems to take back as many Congressional and state-level seats as possible in the process.
posted by aka burlap at 7:33 AM on June 21, 2016 [18 favorites]
You see them as a liberal party that tolerates centrists, I see them as the other way around. That's all.
Can you please try to make your case without telling me what I think? I've already acknowledged that the party runs centrists in red and purple states. Given malapportionment in the Senate and gerrymandering in the House, the choice is often "centrist Democrat or Republican", not "progressive Democrat or centrist Democrat."
You can continue to ignore these circumstances, but it's unfair of you to suggest that my refusal to ignore it constitutes acceptance of or approval of the party being as conservative as it is. I wish things were different, and in many cases, I would love the Democrats to try to be more aggressive and push the boundaries and run more unapologetically progressive candidates, but I'm under no illusion that simply running farther to the left will magically bring out enough voters to overcome the built-in advantages conservatives have in these states and districts. It takes hard work, and there is also the downside risk of throwing seats held by more conservative Democrats to Republicans.
With your drive-by Lieberman quip and total lack of interest in supporting your case with data, you're offering nothing in the way of an actual roadmap to a progressive governing majority -- just vague insinuations that the party should be more liberal. I agree! But how we get there matters, and if you're not offering any solutions or acknowledging the difficult choices the party leadership faces, then your complaints about the party not being liberal enough aren't going to be very persuasive.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:35 AM on June 21, 2016 [24 favorites]
Can you please try to make your case without telling me what I think? I've already acknowledged that the party runs centrists in red and purple states. Given malapportionment in the Senate and gerrymandering in the House, the choice is often "centrist Democrat or Republican", not "progressive Democrat or centrist Democrat."
You can continue to ignore these circumstances, but it's unfair of you to suggest that my refusal to ignore it constitutes acceptance of or approval of the party being as conservative as it is. I wish things were different, and in many cases, I would love the Democrats to try to be more aggressive and push the boundaries and run more unapologetically progressive candidates, but I'm under no illusion that simply running farther to the left will magically bring out enough voters to overcome the built-in advantages conservatives have in these states and districts. It takes hard work, and there is also the downside risk of throwing seats held by more conservative Democrats to Republicans.
With your drive-by Lieberman quip and total lack of interest in supporting your case with data, you're offering nothing in the way of an actual roadmap to a progressive governing majority -- just vague insinuations that the party should be more liberal. I agree! But how we get there matters, and if you're not offering any solutions or acknowledging the difficult choices the party leadership faces, then your complaints about the party not being liberal enough aren't going to be very persuasive.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:35 AM on June 21, 2016 [24 favorites]
It’s 2020, four years from now. The campaign is under way to succeed the president, who is retiring after a single wretched term... Congress and the White House seem incapable of working together on anything, even when their interests align. With lawmaking at a standstill, the president’s use of executive orders and regulatory discretion has reached a level that Congress views as dictatorial—not that Congress can do anything about it, except file lawsuits that the divided Supreme Court, its three vacancies unfilled, has been unable to resolve.How American Politics Went Insane
On Capitol Hill, Speaker Paul Ryan resigned after proving unable to pass a budget, or much else. The House burned through two more speakers and one “acting” speaker, a job invented following four speakerless months. The Senate, meanwhile, is tied in knots by wannabe presidents and aspiring talk-show hosts, who use the chamber as a social-media platform to build their brands by obstructing—well, everything. The Defense Department is among hundreds of agencies that have not been reauthorized, the government has shut down three times, and, yes, it finally happened: The United States briefly defaulted on the national debt... No one wanted that outcome, but no one was able to prevent it.
As the presidential primaries unfold, Kanye West is leading a fractured field of Democrats. The Republican front-runner is Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame. Elected governor of Louisiana only a few months ago, he is promising to defy the Washington establishment by never trimming his beard. Party elders have given up all pretense of being more than spectators, and most of the candidates have given up all pretense of party loyalty. On the debate stages, and everywhere else, anything goes.
posted by y2karl at 7:37 AM on June 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Trump is doing big speeches mainly because that's the only way he can get his message out because of all the free media coverage he receives.
If he says something boring and the news stopped giving him free attention and made him actually pay for ads he would be utterly fucked so he's going to have to keep ramping up the rhetoric because after a while saying the same thing over and over gets boring especially if you are the political equivalent of a shock jock.
posted by vuron at 7:37 AM on June 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
If he says something boring and the news stopped giving him free attention and made him actually pay for ads he would be utterly fucked so he's going to have to keep ramping up the rhetoric because after a while saying the same thing over and over gets boring especially if you are the political equivalent of a shock jock.
posted by vuron at 7:37 AM on June 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
The Republican front-runner is Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame... promising to defy the Washington establishment by never trimming his beard.
In other words, these are the Good Old Days...
posted by y2karl at 7:39 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
In other words, these are the Good Old Days...
posted by y2karl at 7:39 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
readery, I disagree. The racist branch of the Republicans has been wanting open racism for quite some time. They don't like dog whistles. They don't like being treated like an embarrassing anachronism. They not only know they're the base, they also know that the Party has been promising them the moon for decades and it hasn't been delivering.
They're also not stupid. Racist, yes, generally bigoted and xenophobic of anything outside their fantasy of small town Real America, absolutely. But not stupid.
They know that despite the promises of trickle down and supply side, and the action to punish black people for being welfare queens and super predators they are still hurting. That isn't going to make them reassess their racism, but it will make them reassess the value of voting for people who try to keep their racism quiet.
I think Trump's strategy of saying the quiet parts loud really resonates with a lot of the Republican base. You don't pack in the numbers he gets at the rallies without tapping something real. Look at how the term "politically correct" has shifted from mainly being directed at liberals to mainly being directed at Republicans who want to sweep the embarrassing racism under the rug.
aka burlap I don't want Trump to be the nominee, because I don't think he's done all the damage he can, and I think the longer he keeps any sort of legitimacy the worse it'll be. I think him as the nominee will lead to all manner of violence against anyone seen as an immigrant, and to a lesser extent anyone seen as LGBT or otherwise not Real American.
I just think it's also likely that Trump being cheated will probably be worse at this point.
The only real way I could see things getting better is if Trump dropped out on his own, even if he did it in a temper tantrum, and I don't see that happening.
The "wise men" of the Republican Party blew it bigtime. Cruz was running an insurgent campaign against JEB! in the early days before anyone recognized Trump as a threat, and he and the others were all too power hungry to make a deal and unite to defeat Trump back when he could still be defeated.
I don't see a way forward that won't be very bad for the more vulnerable among us. Trump as the candidate will be terrible for Latinx people and likely most other minority groups as well, Trump cheated will probably be even worse for them.
posted by sotonohito at 7:42 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
They're also not stupid. Racist, yes, generally bigoted and xenophobic of anything outside their fantasy of small town Real America, absolutely. But not stupid.
They know that despite the promises of trickle down and supply side, and the action to punish black people for being welfare queens and super predators they are still hurting. That isn't going to make them reassess their racism, but it will make them reassess the value of voting for people who try to keep their racism quiet.
I think Trump's strategy of saying the quiet parts loud really resonates with a lot of the Republican base. You don't pack in the numbers he gets at the rallies without tapping something real. Look at how the term "politically correct" has shifted from mainly being directed at liberals to mainly being directed at Republicans who want to sweep the embarrassing racism under the rug.
aka burlap I don't want Trump to be the nominee, because I don't think he's done all the damage he can, and I think the longer he keeps any sort of legitimacy the worse it'll be. I think him as the nominee will lead to all manner of violence against anyone seen as an immigrant, and to a lesser extent anyone seen as LGBT or otherwise not Real American.
I just think it's also likely that Trump being cheated will probably be worse at this point.
The only real way I could see things getting better is if Trump dropped out on his own, even if he did it in a temper tantrum, and I don't see that happening.
The "wise men" of the Republican Party blew it bigtime. Cruz was running an insurgent campaign against JEB! in the early days before anyone recognized Trump as a threat, and he and the others were all too power hungry to make a deal and unite to defeat Trump back when he could still be defeated.
I don't see a way forward that won't be very bad for the more vulnerable among us. Trump as the candidate will be terrible for Latinx people and likely most other minority groups as well, Trump cheated will probably be even worse for them.
posted by sotonohito at 7:42 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I will be making a big speech tomorrow to discuss the failed policies and bad judgment of Crooked Hillary Clinton
"I was undecided as of June 21st, but after listening to Donald Trump's speech, I now realize that Hillary Clinton is bad, and I've decided to vote for Trump." -- no one, ever
posted by Etrigan at 7:45 AM on June 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
"I was undecided as of June 21st, but after listening to Donald Trump's speech, I now realize that Hillary Clinton is bad, and I've decided to vote for Trump." -- no one, ever
posted by Etrigan at 7:45 AM on June 21, 2016 [11 favorites]
> The "wise men" of the Republican Party blew it bigtime.
This should be the new RNC theme song (possibly NSFW).
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:51 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
This should be the new RNC theme song (possibly NSFW).
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:51 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't want Trump to be the nominee, because I don't think he's done all the damage he can, and I think the longer he keeps any sort of legitimacy the worse it'll be
Yeah, you might be right. I hope not, but who knows how things are going to evolve from here.
posted by aka burlap at 7:56 AM on June 21, 2016
Yeah, you might be right. I hope not, but who knows how things are going to evolve from here.
posted by aka burlap at 7:56 AM on June 21, 2016
Cheating Trump means shattering the party.
Here's where you and I depart. I don't think it'll shatter the party. I think what it will do is push the Trump supporters out, and many of them aren't supporters as much as fans. It may well suppress GOP turnout in 2016, but I think it will mean that rank-and-file Republicans won't stay home or look to the Libertarian party as a new home.
But we also know that 2018 only has a handful of Republican senators up for re-election. If you can hold the core of the party together and survive 2016, you get a fresh start in 2018 and can take the Senate back.
I do think the GOP royally screwed themselves, though. They left the door open to a Trump coming in and scooping up the nomination. And they can only blame their embrace of the Tea Party for that.
posted by dw at 7:58 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Here's where you and I depart. I don't think it'll shatter the party. I think what it will do is push the Trump supporters out, and many of them aren't supporters as much as fans. It may well suppress GOP turnout in 2016, but I think it will mean that rank-and-file Republicans won't stay home or look to the Libertarian party as a new home.
But we also know that 2018 only has a handful of Republican senators up for re-election. If you can hold the core of the party together and survive 2016, you get a fresh start in 2018 and can take the Senate back.
I do think the GOP royally screwed themselves, though. They left the door open to a Trump coming in and scooping up the nomination. And they can only blame their embrace of the Tea Party for that.
posted by dw at 7:58 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure there is a party to shatter anymore.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:00 AM on June 21, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:00 AM on June 21, 2016
The funny thing here is that neither side has opposition "bombshells" as such. Trump doesn't because (a) he has nobody on oppo research, and (b) Republicans have spent decades going through Clinton laundry and vigorously waving anything that looks even slightly dirty; Clinton doesn't have any because the most outrageous ammunition against Trump has been the words out of his own mouth in public speeches.
So, yeah, I don't expect Trump's hyped speech to actually be any sort of effective strike on Clinton. It's going to be the same shit all of us have already heard many times from many different antagonists. Clinton is more effective—largely because she's a better orator, has better speechwriters, and because the oppositional points she makes are a lot less ambiguous—but still rarely actually surprising, because anyone paying attention noticed Trump's ignorant/crazy/unworkable ideas the first time he said them.
OTOH, the campaign disclosures as to how much Trump is grifting the election seem like a pretty scandalous bomb, but thus far most of that has been from media rather than from the Clinton campaign.
posted by jackbishop at 8:07 AM on June 21, 2016
So, yeah, I don't expect Trump's hyped speech to actually be any sort of effective strike on Clinton. It's going to be the same shit all of us have already heard many times from many different antagonists. Clinton is more effective—largely because she's a better orator, has better speechwriters, and because the oppositional points she makes are a lot less ambiguous—but still rarely actually surprising, because anyone paying attention noticed Trump's ignorant/crazy/unworkable ideas the first time he said them.
OTOH, the campaign disclosures as to how much Trump is grifting the election seem like a pretty scandalous bomb, but thus far most of that has been from media rather than from the Clinton campaign.
posted by jackbishop at 8:07 AM on June 21, 2016
y2karl Thanks for the link to Rauch's piece. I disagree with his prescription, and I think his diagnosis was flawed by an unwillingness to note that the real destructive force here is the Republican party collectively losing its mind, but he had a lot of good points.
Still, I can't say I agree with him that the solution is to bring back and empower kingmakers, to close doors, to shut out daylight, and to encourage the corrupt practices that allowed the party aristocrats to make decisions against the will of the public.
He notes that in safely gerrymandered districts politicians are urged towards more radicalism [1]. The solution is not to bring back a system where some faceless kingmaker can phone up Prescott Bush and tell him that if he wants to be the nominee it's guaranteed to be his, it is to get rid of gerrymandered districts.
He notes that Congress is tied in knots thanks to procedural rules that are blocking majorities from passing laws. The solution is not to restore a corrupt system where party aristocrats can bribe or coerce politicians into voting the "right" way, but rather to end the procedural rules that allow such blocking. The filibuster, thePedophile er, Hastert Rule, and other things put in place by the party aristocrats during their time of power are part of the problem now, and the solution isn't to bring back the aristocrats, it is to sweep out the remnants of their corruption.
[1] Or, again, politicians are urged towards more rightward radicalism. There's never, Republican or Democrat, such a thing as being too right wing, but being even slightly to far to the left of center is horrible and must be squashed at all costs.
posted by sotonohito at 8:09 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Still, I can't say I agree with him that the solution is to bring back and empower kingmakers, to close doors, to shut out daylight, and to encourage the corrupt practices that allowed the party aristocrats to make decisions against the will of the public.
He notes that in safely gerrymandered districts politicians are urged towards more radicalism [1]. The solution is not to bring back a system where some faceless kingmaker can phone up Prescott Bush and tell him that if he wants to be the nominee it's guaranteed to be his, it is to get rid of gerrymandered districts.
He notes that Congress is tied in knots thanks to procedural rules that are blocking majorities from passing laws. The solution is not to restore a corrupt system where party aristocrats can bribe or coerce politicians into voting the "right" way, but rather to end the procedural rules that allow such blocking. The filibuster, the
[1] Or, again, politicians are urged towards more rightward radicalism. There's never, Republican or Democrat, such a thing as being too right wing, but being even slightly to far to the left of center is horrible and must be squashed at all costs.
posted by sotonohito at 8:09 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
The problem with the argument that piece is making, y2karl, is that its core conceit is a load of manure:
In their various ways, Trump, Cruz, and Sanders are demonstrating a new principle: The political parties no longer have either intelligible boundaries or enforceable norms, and, as a result, renegade political behavior pays.
As we've discussed here, a large part of Sanders' failure was due to his inability to actually engage the Democratic Party base. Yes, he tries to argue that independents sustained his campaign, but the reality is that unless you get a large enough part of the Democratic base behind you, you're not going to win the nomination.
Cruz, on the other hand, demonstrates what flaunting and screwing over your party compatriots will do. As gets pointed out, Cruz was the best shot that the Republican party establishment had to take down Trump, and yet nobody wanted to work with him, because of his behavior.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:10 AM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
In their various ways, Trump, Cruz, and Sanders are demonstrating a new principle: The political parties no longer have either intelligible boundaries or enforceable norms, and, as a result, renegade political behavior pays.
As we've discussed here, a large part of Sanders' failure was due to his inability to actually engage the Democratic Party base. Yes, he tries to argue that independents sustained his campaign, but the reality is that unless you get a large enough part of the Democratic base behind you, you're not going to win the nomination.
Cruz, on the other hand, demonstrates what flaunting and screwing over your party compatriots will do. As gets pointed out, Cruz was the best shot that the Republican party establishment had to take down Trump, and yet nobody wanted to work with him, because of his behavior.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:10 AM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
The solution is not to bring back a system where some faceless kingmaker can phone up Prescott Bush and tell him that if he wants to be the nominee it's guaranteed to be his
I would hope not, he's been dead 43 years.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:15 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would hope not, he's been dead 43 years.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:15 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
And, from an internal housekeeping standpoint, allowing a Trump candidacy might help the plutocrat Republicans keep the racist Republicans in their place. "There, see, we let you try it your way and we lost bigtime, now STFU and let the grown ups handle things, keep your crap to dog whistles and we can win again!"
I think this is the strongest argument, from the GOP's perspective, for not ratfucking him. An anti-mandate, if you will.
BUT. If I were them, I'd be very, very worried about Gary Johnson. His poll numbers are already twice what they were in 2012 - he's hovering around 10% nationally*. That's NUTS, and it makes the danger of running a truly incompetent candidate much more real, because the last of the "small government" holdouts might look at Trump and then look at Johnson and think "...huh." And if Johnson clears 15% in a few national polls then we get a three-way debate, and then the Republicans are ULTRA fucked. Like, maybe Whig fucked.
*In 2012 he hovered around 5% nationally in polls, and took home 1% of the popular vote.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:15 AM on June 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think this is the strongest argument, from the GOP's perspective, for not ratfucking him. An anti-mandate, if you will.
BUT. If I were them, I'd be very, very worried about Gary Johnson. His poll numbers are already twice what they were in 2012 - he's hovering around 10% nationally*. That's NUTS, and it makes the danger of running a truly incompetent candidate much more real, because the last of the "small government" holdouts might look at Trump and then look at Johnson and think "...huh." And if Johnson clears 15% in a few national polls then we get a three-way debate, and then the Republicans are ULTRA fucked. Like, maybe Whig fucked.
*In 2012 he hovered around 5% nationally in polls, and took home 1% of the popular vote.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:15 AM on June 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
I'm not sure that there isn't bombshells waiting to happen in regards to Trump as there are a lot of his business dealings that have been less than ethical.
Combined with him likely being a massive tax dodger (which might or might not hurt him with some Republicans but almost certainly will in regards to Independents and Democrats) and he could be in trouble.
And that's assuming there isn't something massive like an eminent bankruptcy filing or failure to report taxes which would more or less destroy his chances (not that he has great chances to begin with).
Clinton is going to be cautious about dumping too much stuff yet because if the Republicans do something extremely unlikely like replace Trump at the convention it could be a waste of resources and currently Clinton doesn't really have to go all in on Trump. She can keep up moderate ad buys and just use his own words against him.
Right now the biggest return on investment for Clinton is pushing a ton of resources into expanding the number of battlegrounds so that Trump and the RNC have to play a lot of defense especially since Trump's polling number outside of the south are horrific.
posted by vuron at 8:17 AM on June 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
Combined with him likely being a massive tax dodger (which might or might not hurt him with some Republicans but almost certainly will in regards to Independents and Democrats) and he could be in trouble.
And that's assuming there isn't something massive like an eminent bankruptcy filing or failure to report taxes which would more or less destroy his chances (not that he has great chances to begin with).
Clinton is going to be cautious about dumping too much stuff yet because if the Republicans do something extremely unlikely like replace Trump at the convention it could be a waste of resources and currently Clinton doesn't really have to go all in on Trump. She can keep up moderate ad buys and just use his own words against him.
Right now the biggest return on investment for Clinton is pushing a ton of resources into expanding the number of battlegrounds so that Trump and the RNC have to play a lot of defense especially since Trump's polling number outside of the south are horrific.
posted by vuron at 8:17 AM on June 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
I would hope not, he's been dead 43 years.
See also King Log
posted by y2karl at 8:19 AM on June 21, 2016
See also King Log
posted by y2karl at 8:19 AM on June 21, 2016
The other fun thing is, even if they replace Trump at the convention, Clinton has snatched up a lot of prime airtime already, like through the whole rest of the campaign season.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:19 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:19 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Clinton is going to be cautious about dumping too much stuff yet because if the Republicans do something extremely unlikely like replace Trump at the convention it could be a waste of resources and currently Clinton doesn't really have to go all in on Trump. She can keep up moderate ad buys and just use his own words against him.
I suspect this is why the Democrats aren't hitting the "Trump is scamming his supporters for money" angle very hard -- it hits close enough to home that it could bolster the dump-Trump movement rather than just hurting him in the general election.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:20 AM on June 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
I suspect this is why the Democrats aren't hitting the "Trump is scamming his supporters for money" angle very hard -- it hits close enough to home that it could bolster the dump-Trump movement rather than just hurting him in the general election.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:20 AM on June 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Which beats President Ubik...
posted by y2karl at 8:20 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by y2karl at 8:20 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
There are some interesting happenings on over on the Lawyers, Guns, and Money blog today, where a commenter's side bet with a front-pager over whether Trump would win the nomination has led to the commenter being given front page posting privileges for a day.
I am not a huge fan of the commenter's rhetorical approach so far, and he's posting a bit too fast and furious to foster a dialogue in comments, but it has been interesting reading a died-in-the-wool Sanders supporter trying to make his case to a broader spectrum of progressive readers.
Anyway, if you're interested in following along, here's the commenter's first post.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:22 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I am not a huge fan of the commenter's rhetorical approach so far, and he's posting a bit too fast and furious to foster a dialogue in comments, but it has been interesting reading a died-in-the-wool Sanders supporter trying to make his case to a broader spectrum of progressive readers.
Anyway, if you're interested in following along, here's the commenter's first post.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:22 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
The news of his financial shenanigans and that as of now assorted media is looking in to the fact that he's broke hasn't filtered down to the low information voter yet. Remember at the beginning of the race Forbes and Bloomberg disagreed about how many billion dollars he had, which is a story unto itself I think.
I think it will go about half and half between those that are willing to overlook this (oh, what a scamp!) and those that will feel cheated. Either way his voter base will not grow.
posted by readery at 8:22 AM on June 21, 2016
I think it will go about half and half between those that are willing to overlook this (oh, what a scamp!) and those that will feel cheated. Either way his voter base will not grow.
posted by readery at 8:22 AM on June 21, 2016
Fair enough. I suppose Donald Trump is a rich enough vein of oppo points that they'll be keeping any silver bullets they uncover in reserve while hammering away with the mundane negatives which everyone already knows.
posted by jackbishop at 8:24 AM on June 21, 2016
posted by jackbishop at 8:24 AM on June 21, 2016
Tony: I'm on board with anything that gets MaxSpeak blogging again; he's always been a fun read.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:26 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:26 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm on board with anything that gets MaxSpeak blogging again; he's always been a fun read.
I'd be interested in seeing him brought on as a regular guest poster rather than this sort of one-bite-at-the-apple thing, which I suspect is leading to him making some sloppy arguments that he's had to walk back already, but I do see evidence of some thought behind some of his points on foreign policy, taxation, etc.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:30 AM on June 21, 2016
I'd be interested in seeing him brought on as a regular guest poster rather than this sort of one-bite-at-the-apple thing, which I suspect is leading to him making some sloppy arguments that he's had to walk back already, but I do see evidence of some thought behind some of his points on foreign policy, taxation, etc.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:30 AM on June 21, 2016
The Weird Story Behind The Trump Campaign’s $35,000 Payment To ‘Draper Sterling’
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:40 AM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:40 AM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
I wonder how many other campaign fund recipients are equally sketchy/nonexistent but smart enough not to name themselves CLEARLY FICTIONAL AD AGENCY, INC.
posted by theodolite at 8:47 AM on June 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 8:47 AM on June 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
> Like, maybe Whig fucked.
"Whig fucked" is my new favorite phrase, and I'm going to be using it a lot. "Dammit, cat, you pissed outside the litter box again! You do that one more time, and you're going to be fucked.... Whig fucked!"
posted by languagehat at 8:56 AM on June 21, 2016 [27 favorites]
"Whig fucked" is my new favorite phrase, and I'm going to be using it a lot. "Dammit, cat, you pissed outside the litter box again! You do that one more time, and you're going to be fucked.... Whig fucked!"
posted by languagehat at 8:56 AM on June 21, 2016 [27 favorites]
I wonder how many other campaign fund recipients are equally sketchy/nonexistent but smart enough not to name themselves CLEARLY FICTIONAL AD AGENCY, INC.
I hate the human cheeto just as much as any leftie pinko but people make up CLEARLY FICTIONAL NAME LLC all the time and it shouldn't be treated as sketchy. If you want to perform work for someone as a vendor/service creating a random LLC is the quickest way to make sure a person doesn't have to bother with employment taxes or 1099s.
posted by Talez at 8:56 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I hate the human cheeto just as much as any leftie pinko but people make up CLEARLY FICTIONAL NAME LLC all the time and it shouldn't be treated as sketchy. If you want to perform work for someone as a vendor/service creating a random LLC is the quickest way to make sure a person doesn't have to bother with employment taxes or 1099s.
posted by Talez at 8:56 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have this vision of Trump bragging to one of his staff about what a great scam campaign spending is when someone comes up and says
"Hey Mister Trump, when you've got a minute I have a couple questions about campaign expenditures for our FEC disclosure report."
"FEC what now?"
posted by murphy slaw at 8:59 AM on June 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Hey Mister Trump, when you've got a minute I have a couple questions about campaign expenditures for our FEC disclosure report."
"FEC what now?"
posted by murphy slaw at 8:59 AM on June 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
but people make up CLEARLY FICTIONAL NAME LLC all the time and it shouldn't be treated as sketchy.
but Sterling Draper is from a TV show.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:59 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
but Sterling Draper is from a TV show.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:59 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
I had a thought last night about the Republican establishment using a disastrous Trump loss to abandon their angry white racist base and pivot towards a new party platform more welcoming to anyone outside the Duck Dynasty fandom.
But then I realized that without the voters, they can't actually do that. The Rs tried this by floating Rubio, a telegenic and vaguely non-insane* candidate that both appeals to the conservative base and also maybe a chunk of the Latin-American demographic they desperately need. Nobody voted for him.
As long as the main chunk of loyal Republican likely voters want candidates like Trump, I don't see any way out of that impasse. Which means it's unlikely that Trump is all part of the plan.
*I mean I disagree with the guy about literally everything, but you can hear him talk and agree, "OK, that's a political position."
posted by Sara C. at 9:04 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
But then I realized that without the voters, they can't actually do that. The Rs tried this by floating Rubio, a telegenic and vaguely non-insane* candidate that both appeals to the conservative base and also maybe a chunk of the Latin-American demographic they desperately need. Nobody voted for him.
As long as the main chunk of loyal Republican likely voters want candidates like Trump, I don't see any way out of that impasse. Which means it's unlikely that Trump is all part of the plan.
*I mean I disagree with the guy about literally everything, but you can hear him talk and agree, "OK, that's a political position."
posted by Sara C. at 9:04 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Haha sounds like they are doing a forensic audit of Lewandowski's expenditures in his role with the Trump campaign.
I'm not sure that is really going to stop the bleeding because it doesn't really look good to be a businessman and then having your handpicked lieutenant engage in embezzlement (or whatever they are looking for). Maybe that's a method for keeping intimidating Lewandowski from going to the press with whatever shady shit (and there has definitely been some shady shit) has been going down in the campaign but in the short term it just encourages press to look harder at Trump financials and it also kinda indicates that Trump has poor judgement in terms of picking business associates which is contrary to the image he portrays with his branding.
posted by vuron at 9:07 AM on June 21, 2016
I'm not sure that is really going to stop the bleeding because it doesn't really look good to be a businessman and then having your handpicked lieutenant engage in embezzlement (or whatever they are looking for). Maybe that's a method for keeping intimidating Lewandowski from going to the press with whatever shady shit (and there has definitely been some shady shit) has been going down in the campaign but in the short term it just encourages press to look harder at Trump financials and it also kinda indicates that Trump has poor judgement in terms of picking business associates which is contrary to the image he portrays with his branding.
posted by vuron at 9:07 AM on June 21, 2016
“I mean I disagree with the guy about literally everything, but you can hear him talk and agree, "OK, that's a political position.”
Nihilists! Fuck me, Dude…
posted by Going To Maine at 9:10 AM on June 21, 2016
Nihilists! Fuck me, Dude…
posted by Going To Maine at 9:10 AM on June 21, 2016
Headline of the day: The Trump Campaign Raised Less Money in May Than the Veronica Mars Movie Kickstarter
posted by Chrysostom at 9:16 AM on June 21, 2016 [29 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 9:16 AM on June 21, 2016 [29 favorites]
Still, I can't say I agree with him that the solution is to bring back and empower kingmakers, to close doors, to shut out daylight, and to encourage the corrupt practices that allowed the party aristocrats to make decisions against the will of the public.
That's right! Because we can all agree that the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Social Security, the Federal Highway System, and all those other major government projects were totally evil and shouldn't have been done.
Seriously, do you really believe what we have now is superior to what we had in the 60s? Do you think we could get a Medicare or Social Security passed now? Look at the ACA, crippled because of the lack of compromise, and in danger of being repealed the second a Republican president is elected. Hell, we can't even fund the programs we have properly now.
I'd say the obsession with "corruption" has indeed had recently the negative effect of making compromise bills impossible- and your solution would make things worse.
posted by happyroach at 9:21 AM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
That's right! Because we can all agree that the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Social Security, the Federal Highway System, and all those other major government projects were totally evil and shouldn't have been done.
Seriously, do you really believe what we have now is superior to what we had in the 60s? Do you think we could get a Medicare or Social Security passed now? Look at the ACA, crippled because of the lack of compromise, and in danger of being repealed the second a Republican president is elected. Hell, we can't even fund the programs we have properly now.
I'd say the obsession with "corruption" has indeed had recently the negative effect of making compromise bills impossible- and your solution would make things worse.
posted by happyroach at 9:21 AM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
I'm not sure that is really going to stop the bleeding because it doesn't really look good to be a businessman and then having your handpicked lieutenant engage in embezzlement (or whatever they are looking for)
I'm sure whatever they find, Trump and GOP will be able to spin it with the help of the fixers at Olivia Pope and Associates.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:24 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm sure whatever they find, Trump and GOP will be able to spin it with the help of the fixers at Olivia Pope and Associates.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:24 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sara C.,
The trouble that Republicans have is basically this.
Steer the course, get fucked by demographics because angry white people are dying off faster than they are being created and they are more or less being replaced with minority voters who tend to dislike the current nativist stance of the the party on issues.
Dump the racist chumps and take a beating in elections for a generation because you have to generate a new coalition to replace the current alliance of economic and social conservatives. The Democratic party had to go through a similar realignment following Johnson's Civil Rights legislation as the Southern White Democrats that had been willing to vote Democrat with Northern liberals started to abandon the party in droves (largely based upon social issues).
The old New Deal coalition of Southern and Northern Democrats was always somewhat strained due to there being differences over agrarian and industrial policies, etc but the Civil Rights legislation made remaining in the great Society coalition untenable for many Southern White voters and politicians.
At the same time the Republicans realized that their old coalition of Socially Liberal but Economical Conservative voters was no longer capable of winning national elections and without a radical realignment they would continue to see Democrats enjoy massive electoral success. So the two events coincided and many of the old Dixiecrats became Republicans.
The Republican party is beginning to feel a similar pressure as their current coalition is fracturing and even then it's not enough to win doing base only elections on the national level. Republican leaders though were anxious about damaging their current congressional dominance in favor of increased national relevance and there has been a thought that they could thread the needle with some creative strategies and appeals to minority voters that are also economically and socially conservative as the belief is that Democrats don't meet their needs.
So things like Citizens United are used to make up for Democratic people power with Republican Donor power and there has been a desire to mask economic and social conservativism in the facade of compassionate conservativism which should in theory appeal to more centrist Republicans (who like to at least pretend that they aren't "fuck you I got mine") and Hispanic voters who they feel are more open to conservative rhetoric as long as they drop the nativist rhetoric and put a PoC on the ticket.
Of course then the base of the party decided to go fucking nuts and get someone who is neither particularly economically conservative or socially conservative but who is willing to engage in all sorts of racebaiting in order to win the nomination.
posted by vuron at 9:24 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
The trouble that Republicans have is basically this.
Steer the course, get fucked by demographics because angry white people are dying off faster than they are being created and they are more or less being replaced with minority voters who tend to dislike the current nativist stance of the the party on issues.
Dump the racist chumps and take a beating in elections for a generation because you have to generate a new coalition to replace the current alliance of economic and social conservatives. The Democratic party had to go through a similar realignment following Johnson's Civil Rights legislation as the Southern White Democrats that had been willing to vote Democrat with Northern liberals started to abandon the party in droves (largely based upon social issues).
The old New Deal coalition of Southern and Northern Democrats was always somewhat strained due to there being differences over agrarian and industrial policies, etc but the Civil Rights legislation made remaining in the great Society coalition untenable for many Southern White voters and politicians.
At the same time the Republicans realized that their old coalition of Socially Liberal but Economical Conservative voters was no longer capable of winning national elections and without a radical realignment they would continue to see Democrats enjoy massive electoral success. So the two events coincided and many of the old Dixiecrats became Republicans.
The Republican party is beginning to feel a similar pressure as their current coalition is fracturing and even then it's not enough to win doing base only elections on the national level. Republican leaders though were anxious about damaging their current congressional dominance in favor of increased national relevance and there has been a thought that they could thread the needle with some creative strategies and appeals to minority voters that are also economically and socially conservative as the belief is that Democrats don't meet their needs.
So things like Citizens United are used to make up for Democratic people power with Republican Donor power and there has been a desire to mask economic and social conservativism in the facade of compassionate conservativism which should in theory appeal to more centrist Republicans (who like to at least pretend that they aren't "fuck you I got mine") and Hispanic voters who they feel are more open to conservative rhetoric as long as they drop the nativist rhetoric and put a PoC on the ticket.
Of course then the base of the party decided to go fucking nuts and get someone who is neither particularly economically conservative or socially conservative but who is willing to engage in all sorts of racebaiting in order to win the nomination.
posted by vuron at 9:24 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Republicans have an easy out. Give up on immigration. Go for social conservatism. The electorate has the institutional memory of a goldfish. It'll work when the GOP leadership sees no way out. All those Latinos are Catholics after all.
Meanwhile Republicans are in control of both the governor’s mansion and legislature in 24 states, 70 of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers, both chambers in 30 states, plus Nebraska’s single chamber, and 31 governor’s mansions. I don't think they want to give up the strategy they're on until it actually starts to crumble instead of risking everything to win the presidency. What are they? Democrats?
They can obstruct any federal liberal laws in Congress, states are being given free reign to do almost whatever the hell they want, they can stall out on SCOTUS noms as long as they need to given the electorate certainly isn't going to punish them. There's little to win and everything to lose by Republicans pivoting towards a multi-ethnic strategy.
posted by Talez at 9:34 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile Republicans are in control of both the governor’s mansion and legislature in 24 states, 70 of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers, both chambers in 30 states, plus Nebraska’s single chamber, and 31 governor’s mansions. I don't think they want to give up the strategy they're on until it actually starts to crumble instead of risking everything to win the presidency. What are they? Democrats?
They can obstruct any federal liberal laws in Congress, states are being given free reign to do almost whatever the hell they want, they can stall out on SCOTUS noms as long as they need to given the electorate certainly isn't going to punish them. There's little to win and everything to lose by Republicans pivoting towards a multi-ethnic strategy.
posted by Talez at 9:34 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
The problem is that social conservatism equals nativism.
What they really need to do is abandon both nativism and abortion as red meat issues and pivot for right-libertarians. The conservative immigrant narrative is fairly compatible with the "I did it all with my bootstraps and also LEGALIZE WEED MAN!" demographic, and you get rid of all the baggage of the devil's pact of the Southern Strategy that keeps the Republican brand centered on racism.
They already tried the "immigrants are Catholic and Catholics love us!" thing, and it didn't work, because Catholics aren't Evangelical Protestants. This election proves hard that the Religious Right is finished in this country.
posted by Sara C. at 9:40 AM on June 21, 2016
What they really need to do is abandon both nativism and abortion as red meat issues and pivot for right-libertarians. The conservative immigrant narrative is fairly compatible with the "I did it all with my bootstraps and also LEGALIZE WEED MAN!" demographic, and you get rid of all the baggage of the devil's pact of the Southern Strategy that keeps the Republican brand centered on racism.
They already tried the "immigrants are Catholic and Catholics love us!" thing, and it didn't work, because Catholics aren't Evangelical Protestants. This election proves hard that the Religious Right is finished in this country.
posted by Sara C. at 9:40 AM on June 21, 2016
I'm not sure that there isn't bombshells waiting to happen in regards to Trump as there are a lot of his business dealings that have been less than ethical.
What's really hilarious about this to me is, Hillary Clinton has been investigated so thoroughly and on so many fronts that these days she doesn't need brush her own teeth—she just smiles and waits for the world to pick them clean. Yet Trump, the walking dumpster fire, has waltzed into the most high-stakes competition on the planet, without any "close examination", other than people knowing that Trump is a walking dumpster fire whose various crimes are easily Googleable.
Yet another way in which there is this massive blindspot surrounding... geez, what even is the category here? Men? Celebrities? Republicans? All three and another five categorizations in tandem?
posted by rorgy at 9:43 AM on June 21, 2016 [29 favorites]
What's really hilarious about this to me is, Hillary Clinton has been investigated so thoroughly and on so many fronts that these days she doesn't need brush her own teeth—she just smiles and waits for the world to pick them clean. Yet Trump, the walking dumpster fire, has waltzed into the most high-stakes competition on the planet, without any "close examination", other than people knowing that Trump is a walking dumpster fire whose various crimes are easily Googleable.
Yet another way in which there is this massive blindspot surrounding... geez, what even is the category here? Men? Celebrities? Republicans? All three and another five categorizations in tandem?
posted by rorgy at 9:43 AM on June 21, 2016 [29 favorites]
That's right! Because we can all agree that the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Social Security, the Federal Highway System, and all those other major government projects were totally evil and shouldn't have been done.
Seriously, do you really believe what we have now is superior to what we had in the 60s?
I'm not sure that the reason that we don't have Nice Things Anymore (assuming your premise) is because we're too democratic. There's also the fact that the great postwar boom was partly a result of historical circumstances. Indeed, if you actually go back and read the criticisms of liberal/Left writers and activists at the time, the reason that those programs didn't go a whole lot farther was because of the very undemocratic governmental processes of the time.
I have a healthy respect for the role of gamesmanship in politics as demonstrated by the great liberal politicians of 1939-1968, but its worth pointing out that the same tricks that, for example, LBJ used to get Civil Rights legislation through Congress in the '60s were the same tricks he used for a couple decades previous to kill, gut or hinder such bills at the behest of Senator Russell and the Dixiecrats. The difference after 1960 was that LBJ saw that he needed Civil Rights, because of what was going on outside of Washington.
There's a reason that the so-called "Watergate babies" who arrived in Washington D.C. after 1972 pushed hard to dismantle the old methods and disarm the kingmakers. They understood that those methods are only ever used to do good things when overwhelming popular pressure is being brought to make those things happen. At all other times, they are used to defeat challenges to the status quo.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:46 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Seriously, do you really believe what we have now is superior to what we had in the 60s?
I'm not sure that the reason that we don't have Nice Things Anymore (assuming your premise) is because we're too democratic. There's also the fact that the great postwar boom was partly a result of historical circumstances. Indeed, if you actually go back and read the criticisms of liberal/Left writers and activists at the time, the reason that those programs didn't go a whole lot farther was because of the very undemocratic governmental processes of the time.
I have a healthy respect for the role of gamesmanship in politics as demonstrated by the great liberal politicians of 1939-1968, but its worth pointing out that the same tricks that, for example, LBJ used to get Civil Rights legislation through Congress in the '60s were the same tricks he used for a couple decades previous to kill, gut or hinder such bills at the behest of Senator Russell and the Dixiecrats. The difference after 1960 was that LBJ saw that he needed Civil Rights, because of what was going on outside of Washington.
There's a reason that the so-called "Watergate babies" who arrived in Washington D.C. after 1972 pushed hard to dismantle the old methods and disarm the kingmakers. They understood that those methods are only ever used to do good things when overwhelming popular pressure is being brought to make those things happen. At all other times, they are used to defeat challenges to the status quo.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:46 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
This election proves hard that the Religious Right is finished in this country.
But the nativist right isn't. Really, the depressing thing to me is that despite him being an obvious trash fire on every front, including the basic ability to run an administration, 40 percent of likely voters, more or less, are still planning to vote for Trump in November. That's really kind of horrifying. Yes, there's the 27 percent crazification factor, but that still leaves another 13 percent of people who are so blindly 'my team! my team!' they are still willing to vote a man who is both dangerous *and* incompetent into office.
This is why I can no longer take claims seriously that I am being too mean to Republicans, they are just true believers in different but valid ideologies. They are willing to give this guy control of the nukes! There are obviously a few members of what might be called the rump Republicans, like corb and surprisingly Romney, that have some ethics and responsibility left, but most of them were happy to jump on the bandwagon. The only reason some of them are sidling off it now is that Trump is starting to look like a loser.
posted by tavella at 9:50 AM on June 21, 2016 [16 favorites]
But the nativist right isn't. Really, the depressing thing to me is that despite him being an obvious trash fire on every front, including the basic ability to run an administration, 40 percent of likely voters, more or less, are still planning to vote for Trump in November. That's really kind of horrifying. Yes, there's the 27 percent crazification factor, but that still leaves another 13 percent of people who are so blindly 'my team! my team!' they are still willing to vote a man who is both dangerous *and* incompetent into office.
This is why I can no longer take claims seriously that I am being too mean to Republicans, they are just true believers in different but valid ideologies. They are willing to give this guy control of the nukes! There are obviously a few members of what might be called the rump Republicans, like corb and surprisingly Romney, that have some ethics and responsibility left, but most of them were happy to jump on the bandwagon. The only reason some of them are sidling off it now is that Trump is starting to look like a loser.
posted by tavella at 9:50 AM on June 21, 2016 [16 favorites]
Warren, Kaine, Castro on Clinton running-mate short list: AP: U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tim Kaine of Virginia, and Julian Castro, the U.S. housing secretary, are on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's short list of vice presidential picks, the Associated Press reported on Tuesday, citing Democratic sources.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:50 AM on June 21, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:50 AM on June 21, 2016
The Republicans have an easy out. Give up on immigration. Go for social conservatism. The electorate has the institutional memory of a goldfish. It'll work when the GOP leadership sees no way out. All those Latinos are Catholics after all.
But the GOP leadership took precisely this path during this election. Their favorites were Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, neither of whom based their appeal on hard anti-immigration platforms. The electorate said no. That's the fascinating thing about this election, I feel - the nativism has breached the surface and is visibly driving the GOP campaign. That "out" isn't easy at all, however much the GOP kingpins would like to take it.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:55 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
But the GOP leadership took precisely this path during this election. Their favorites were Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, neither of whom based their appeal on hard anti-immigration platforms. The electorate said no. That's the fascinating thing about this election, I feel - the nativism has breached the surface and is visibly driving the GOP campaign. That "out" isn't easy at all, however much the GOP kingpins would like to take it.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:55 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
CLINTON: If only...I could combine them...into one person! One perfect Vice-Presidential candidate!
MOOK: That...that's not possible...
CLINTON: BRING ME MAESTER QYBURN
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:55 AM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
MOOK: That...that's not possible...
CLINTON: BRING ME MAESTER QYBURN
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:55 AM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
I like Kaine, but I wouldn't exactly call him charismatic. Plus as is standard for Virginia Democrats he is thoroughly centrist and unlikely to excite the more left-leaning bits of the party. Fine for a 'vote for us, we are boring and competent, as opposed to the trash fire on the other side' ticket, but I am not sure that is what this election needs. Especially if the Republicans get the trash fire to quit.
posted by tavella at 9:56 AM on June 21, 2016
posted by tavella at 9:56 AM on June 21, 2016
Trump has written a lot of books about business—but they all seem to end at Chapter 11.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:56 AM on June 21, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:56 AM on June 21, 2016 [19 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: "but Sterling Draper is from a TV show."
TBH, if Clinton has expenditures billed to Holloway and Harris (or even Harris Olson), I'd be pretty stoked.
posted by mhum at 9:57 AM on June 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
TBH, if Clinton has expenditures billed to Holloway and Harris (or even Harris Olson), I'd be pretty stoked.
posted by mhum at 9:57 AM on June 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
happyroach That's right! Because we can all agree that the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Social Security, the Federal Highway System, and all those other major government projects were totally evil and shouldn't have been done.
And if I'd ever spoken against any of those things you'd have a point.
Seriously, do you really believe what we have now is superior to what we had in the 60s?
Yes. Absolutely. No doubt. My partner and I are married and she's black and I'm white. My cousin and her partner just got married and they're both women.
My wife grew up seeing "white only" signs everywhere. My son knows of them only through history books.
Hell yes what we have now is better!
Do you think we could get a Medicare or Social Security passed now? Look at the ACA, crippled because of the lack of compromise, and in danger of being repealed the second a Republican president is elected. Hell, we can't even fund the programs we have properly now.
As I said, I agree that there's a problem. But I don't think that the solution is to abandon democracy and go back to letting the aristocrats run things. Despite the success of the programs you list, mostly they happened due to overwhelming majorities and massive social pressure and social problems, not due to the wise aristocrats of the parties agreeing on them and then forcing the mere citizens to accept their wisdom.
We have most of the programs FDR started because he packed the Supreme Court in order to change earlier rulings against him.
The problem is real.
The proposed solution (more secrecy, more smoke filled back rooms, less democracy) is a bad solution that I doubt will work even if we were willing to try.
What we need is to finish some reforms and break up some of the structural problems we've got left over from the aristocratic era.
There are numerous ways to fix gerrymandering, for example. The solution is not to keep gerrymandered districts but rely on party elders to restrain the tendency towards radicalism they produce, but to fix the gerrymandered districts. Or just scrap districts altogether (my preferred approach, I've got nothing in common with my neighbors why should my political representation be tied to their wrong headed political beliefs?).
We could clear out a huge number of problems simply by increasing the number of people in the House of Representatives, scrapping things like the filibuster and the Hastert Rule.
You mentioned the ACA. If there had been no filibuster we'd have gotten a vastly better version passed. See, no need for party aristocrats.
posted by sotonohito at 10:00 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
And if I'd ever spoken against any of those things you'd have a point.
Seriously, do you really believe what we have now is superior to what we had in the 60s?
Yes. Absolutely. No doubt. My partner and I are married and she's black and I'm white. My cousin and her partner just got married and they're both women.
My wife grew up seeing "white only" signs everywhere. My son knows of them only through history books.
Hell yes what we have now is better!
Do you think we could get a Medicare or Social Security passed now? Look at the ACA, crippled because of the lack of compromise, and in danger of being repealed the second a Republican president is elected. Hell, we can't even fund the programs we have properly now.
As I said, I agree that there's a problem. But I don't think that the solution is to abandon democracy and go back to letting the aristocrats run things. Despite the success of the programs you list, mostly they happened due to overwhelming majorities and massive social pressure and social problems, not due to the wise aristocrats of the parties agreeing on them and then forcing the mere citizens to accept their wisdom.
We have most of the programs FDR started because he packed the Supreme Court in order to change earlier rulings against him.
The problem is real.
The proposed solution (more secrecy, more smoke filled back rooms, less democracy) is a bad solution that I doubt will work even if we were willing to try.
What we need is to finish some reforms and break up some of the structural problems we've got left over from the aristocratic era.
There are numerous ways to fix gerrymandering, for example. The solution is not to keep gerrymandered districts but rely on party elders to restrain the tendency towards radicalism they produce, but to fix the gerrymandered districts. Or just scrap districts altogether (my preferred approach, I've got nothing in common with my neighbors why should my political representation be tied to their wrong headed political beliefs?).
We could clear out a huge number of problems simply by increasing the number of people in the House of Representatives, scrapping things like the filibuster and the Hastert Rule.
You mentioned the ACA. If there had been no filibuster we'd have gotten a vastly better version passed. See, no need for party aristocrats.
posted by sotonohito at 10:00 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was always under the understanding that major party candidates for office had to sit down for a vetting session so the party could make sure they hadn't killed someone in a bar fight in college or been a member of the Klan or something.
GOP operatives: Hello, Mr. Trump. We've called this meeting in order to determine whether there is anything in your past that might potentially be used against you during the campaign. Anything at all. Go right ahead.
Trump: Naw, it's fine. Everything's fine.
GOP: Are you sure? Because...
Trump: I SAID EVERYTHING'S FINE. *walks out*
GOP: *blinks*
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:06 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
GOP operatives: Hello, Mr. Trump. We've called this meeting in order to determine whether there is anything in your past that might potentially be used against you during the campaign. Anything at all. Go right ahead.
Trump: Naw, it's fine. Everything's fine.
GOP: Are you sure? Because...
Trump: I SAID EVERYTHING'S FINE. *walks out*
GOP: *blinks*
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:06 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
The problem with removing the filibuster is essentially without it all it takes is a party controlling the Presidency and Congress by narrow majorities and you can do all sorts of damage. Presumably the electorate through voting people out and the SCOTUS through judicial review (thank you Chief Justice Marshall) but the unfortunate reality is that the electorate only votes periodically and democratically elected governments can do some really shitty things. The SCOTUS of course has the problem of being somewhat slow in responding to these sort of things and the fact that they have no enforcement capabilities whatsoever meaning that at least theoretically they could be ignored by a strong leader with dictatorial ambitions.
If we accept that certain limits are placed on the majority to prevent the equivalent of mob rule we have to accept that even when something is extremely popular it can be blocked by a committed minority.
Thus no public option.
posted by vuron at 10:13 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
If we accept that certain limits are placed on the majority to prevent the equivalent of mob rule we have to accept that even when something is extremely popular it can be blocked by a committed minority.
Thus no public option.
posted by vuron at 10:13 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
The Hill: Trump questions Clinton’s religion
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:15 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:15 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think that's a semi-valid attack that the Republicans make on the Democratic candidate every time. But coming from Trump? He's not exactly a devoted member of a religion, except for the one that worships Trump.
posted by mmoncur at 10:19 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 10:19 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Donald "Two Corinthians" Trump.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:21 AM on June 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:21 AM on June 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
sotonohito: "We have most of the programs FDR started because he packed the Supreme Court in order to change earlier rulings against him."
Pedantry: The court was not actually packed. The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 was sent back to committee by the full Senate, where the court packing bits were stripped out.
There's an argument that the SC was cowed and started ruling in favor of New Deal laws, but there was no change in court composition.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:21 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Pedantry: The court was not actually packed. The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 was sent back to committee by the full Senate, where the court packing bits were stripped out.
There's an argument that the SC was cowed and started ruling in favor of New Deal laws, but there was no change in court composition.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:21 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
I really want Clinton to say she she doesn't remotely find about anyone's faith, including her own, relevant to the job.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:23 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:23 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Semi-valid?
Conservatives don't own religion or get to define only acceptable public expressions thereof.
"Go pray in your closet ffs" -- Matthew 6:6
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:25 AM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
Conservatives don't own religion or get to define only acceptable public expressions thereof.
"Go pray in your closet ffs" -- Matthew 6:6
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:25 AM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
I suepect Trump has likely had a similar conversation to Boston Legal's Denny Crane on the matter of his faith:
Bethany Horowitz: My faith is important to me.posted by zachlipton at 10:28 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Denny Crane: As mine is to me.
Bethany Horowitz: Oh, please. What denomination are you?
Denny Crane: I’m a . . . Lutheran.
Bethany Horowitz: I see. And what do Lutherans believe in, Denny?
Denny Crane: We believe in a great many things, Bethany. But mostly we believe . . . in, uh, Luther.
Trump told a 2015 South Carolina campaign audience he attends Marble Collegiate Church, where he married his first wife Ivana in 1977. Marble has said that, though Trump has a longstanding history with the church, he is a Presbyterian and not an active member of Marble.mote, meet beam
posted by murphy slaw at 10:29 AM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
Someone who knows what the hell they are doing should really sit down and media train him immediately. She's a lot more religious than he is, and he may find out that he's poked a hornet's nest in a Republican core constituency.
George H.W. Bush had a similar problem when he ran against her husband and Al Gore. The Episcopalian Bush simply couldn't claim any religious superiority in the Bible Belt. Bill Clinton and Al Gore grew up Southern Baptist. They were *very* comfortable speaking in front of church-going crowds, could quote the Bible extensively and speak about their faith and how it related to their politics until the proverbial cows came home.
Hillary Clinton has spoken and written extensively and pretty eloquently about being a Methodist, especially on topics of charity, service, abortion and gay marriage.... and other ways her religious faith has informed her positions on a whole slew of topics. She's clearly thought long and hard about the subject and is most likely a lot more comfortable on the topic than Trump. The moment she turns the conversation to "what did Jesus actually teach about how we ought to treat people" he's going to look like a complete ass.
posted by zarq at 10:32 AM on June 21, 2016 [29 favorites]
George H.W. Bush had a similar problem when he ran against her husband and Al Gore. The Episcopalian Bush simply couldn't claim any religious superiority in the Bible Belt. Bill Clinton and Al Gore grew up Southern Baptist. They were *very* comfortable speaking in front of church-going crowds, could quote the Bible extensively and speak about their faith and how it related to their politics until the proverbial cows came home.
Hillary Clinton has spoken and written extensively and pretty eloquently about being a Methodist, especially on topics of charity, service, abortion and gay marriage.... and other ways her religious faith has informed her positions on a whole slew of topics. She's clearly thought long and hard about the subject and is most likely a lot more comfortable on the topic than Trump. The moment she turns the conversation to "what did Jesus actually teach about how we ought to treat people" he's going to look like a complete ass.
posted by zarq at 10:32 AM on June 21, 2016 [29 favorites]
Here's an example of what happens when people ask Clinton about her faith. She gives long, unscripted, thoughtful responses that should resonate well with other Christians.
posted by zarq at 10:34 AM on June 21, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by zarq at 10:34 AM on June 21, 2016 [17 favorites]
Everybody knows about Trump's religious beliefs. He believes HE is God.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:35 AM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:35 AM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
Oh no no no, then where would I get my daily trainwreck S & Gs?
I know, but it's less fun when you can see it coming. :)
posted by zarq at 10:36 AM on June 21, 2016
I know, but it's less fun when you can see it coming. :)
posted by zarq at 10:36 AM on June 21, 2016
Trump totally would have been the guy at Sinai being all "what? They want us to worship this thing that's just a bush on fire? [scrunches up face] Is this Moses guy for real? Look at this calf we got here, look how beautiful it is, this is solid gold, it was very, very expensive, believe me, isn't this the most tremendous golden calf you've ever seen..."
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:38 AM on June 21, 2016 [52 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:38 AM on June 21, 2016 [52 favorites]
...Trump is still counting on the media to save him. He doesn’t need as much money as a traditional candidate would, he believes, because of his unmatched ability to seize the attention of the media, leaving the Trump name on the lips of every TV watcher, radio listener and newspaper reader.The entire rationale for Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy is crumbling
The problem with that strategy is that these days, media coverage of Trump consists largely of 1) him saying appalling things that turn off key segments of the electorate; 2) people criticizing him, even members of his own party; and 3) reports on more alarming stories from his past. And if you think we’ve seen the last of those, think again. At some point, there will be a reason for reporters to take a new look at things like the Trump Network (his vitamin-selling pyramid scheme), and it won’t be pretty.
One should never assume that the way things are in June is the way they’re going to stay until November. This may be just a period of bad news Trump will get past, then regain his footing. But when the entire rationale for your campaign rests on your ability to obtain and manage money, stories like the ones we’re now seeing about Trump are likely to stick in people’s minds.
posted by y2karl at 10:39 AM on June 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
The moment she turns the conversation to "what did Jesus actually teach about how we ought to treat people" he's going to look like a complete ass.
A giant chunk of this country claims faith in Jesus above all else while clearly not giving a rat's ass about what he actually taught. Watching Clinton shut Trump down on religion may be entertaining, but I wouldn't expect it to shift anyone's votes.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:39 AM on June 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
A giant chunk of this country claims faith in Jesus above all else while clearly not giving a rat's ass about what he actually taught. Watching Clinton shut Trump down on religion may be entertaining, but I wouldn't expect it to shift anyone's votes.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:39 AM on June 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
And she's been attacked from the left for being too religious, for being a secret theocrat.
posted by peeedro at 10:39 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 10:39 AM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Molly Ivins, September 1, 1992:
posted by zarq at 10:41 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Clinton and Al Gore have a lot of material to work with, given George Bush's record, his dingbat mode and his latest goofy proposals. Both men needle the president constantly and are rapidly turning the "family values" convention to their own advantage. Meanwhile, the Bush team, now under Jim Baker, is already quicker at responding and has now dropped family values.
Bush probably made a mistake when he told the evangelical crowd in Dallas last weekend that the Democrats left G-O-D out of their platform (that was before Baker nixed "family values").
An Episcopalian really should know better than to try to out-Bible a couple of Baptist boys. Both Clinton and Gore can quote Scripture to a faretheewell, but the ever-magisterial Barbara Jordan, daughter of a Baptist preacher, used it most witheringly at the enormous rally in Austin. "Everyone who calleth to me, `Lord, Lord,' will not get in. Who will get in? Those who do the Lord's work."
posted by zarq at 10:41 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Gawker: How Is Donald Trump Going to Quit?
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:41 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:41 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't know. My sense is that a lot of very religious people are deeply uncomfortable with Trump. They might not vote for Hillary, but they could stay home or abstain.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:42 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:42 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Prepared text for Wednesday's speech was just leaked: link
posted by theodolite at 10:47 AM on June 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 10:47 AM on June 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
scaryblackdeath: A giant chunk of this country claims faith in Jesus above all else while clearly not giving a rat's ass about what he actually taught.
True. But being hypocritical may still cost him. For one thing, not all religious Americans are so superficial about their faiths. For another, he's trying to prove to the American public that he's an outsider who's just like them and has their best interests at heart. Not like those cynical, crooked, lying opportunistic politicians.
Watching Clinton shut Trump down on religion may be entertaining, but I wouldn't expect it to shift anyone's votes.
Guess we'll have to see. I think ArbitraryAndCapricious is right -- people might just stay home rather than vote for him.
posted by zarq at 10:48 AM on June 21, 2016
True. But being hypocritical may still cost him. For one thing, not all religious Americans are so superficial about their faiths. For another, he's trying to prove to the American public that he's an outsider who's just like them and has their best interests at heart. Not like those cynical, crooked, lying opportunistic politicians.
Watching Clinton shut Trump down on religion may be entertaining, but I wouldn't expect it to shift anyone's votes.
Guess we'll have to see. I think ArbitraryAndCapricious is right -- people might just stay home rather than vote for him.
posted by zarq at 10:48 AM on June 21, 2016
They might not vote for Hillary, but they could stay home or abstain.
Or go to church and pray for deliverance, hmm ?
posted by y2karl at 10:56 AM on June 21, 2016
Or go to church and pray for deliverance, hmm ?
posted by y2karl at 10:56 AM on June 21, 2016
...or another flood.
posted by zarq at 10:59 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zarq at 10:59 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, no, there was some kind of warranty that we wouldn't see that again.
posted by Chrysostom at 11:03 AM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Chrysostom at 11:03 AM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm coming to the realization that this situation just isn't sustainable. How are we going to keep up with this sort of non-stop barrage of what would usually be campaign-killing revelations and bad news dumps?
And so, maybe that's the plan. Bury us under so *much* bad news that when Trump finally emerges for his (one and only, I'm sure) debate appearance against Clinton, we'll all be blown away by the fact that he didn't drool, he formed complete sentences, and he wasn't an abnormal shade of radioactive orange.
Hmm. That's a pretty good step 2 for the underpants gnomes campaign. (Step 3, Profit, is of course what it's all about.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:06 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
And so, maybe that's the plan. Bury us under so *much* bad news that when Trump finally emerges for his (one and only, I'm sure) debate appearance against Clinton, we'll all be blown away by the fact that he didn't drool, he formed complete sentences, and he wasn't an abnormal shade of radioactive orange.
Hmm. That's a pretty good step 2 for the underpants gnomes campaign. (Step 3, Profit, is of course what it's all about.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:06 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Irin Carmon: Sounds like we're in for the Secret Muslim treatment of Clinton, vocal Methodist.
Yep. "It's going to be an extension of Obama but it's going to be worse, because with Obama you had your guard up. With Hillary you don't, and it's going to be worse.”."
Methodist, Muslim, both start with "M" and who can tell them apart, really?
posted by taz at 11:07 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yep. "It's going to be an extension of Obama but it's going to be worse, because with Obama you had your guard up. With Hillary you don't, and it's going to be worse.”."
Methodist, Muslim, both start with "M" and who can tell them apart, really?
posted by taz at 11:07 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
...because with Obama you had your guard up...
Aw crap. I didn't have my guard up. What was the problem with President Obama's religion?
Fuck trump.
posted by Cookiebastard at 11:12 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Aw crap. I didn't have my guard up. What was the problem with President Obama's religion?
Fuck trump.
posted by Cookiebastard at 11:12 AM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, no, there was some kind of warranty that we wouldn't see that again.
The warranty was on the whole world flooding. If you read the fine print it says that "$DEITY reserves the right to rain down on humans and flood them on a local basis".
posted by Talez at 11:15 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
The warranty was on the whole world flooding. If you read the fine print it says that "$DEITY reserves the right to rain down on humans and flood them on a local basis".
posted by Talez at 11:15 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder if I registered a dummy LLC as something like "TRUMP Melonballers" and started invoicing the Trump campaign if they would pay out.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:18 AM on June 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:18 AM on June 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
Might want to name it Little Rascals LLC.
posted by peppermind at 11:20 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by peppermind at 11:20 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder if I registered a dummy LLC as something like "TRUMP Melonballers" and started invoicing the Trump campaign if they would pay out.
In any sensible organization accounts payable would have a purchase order to match it up against before paying out. So they probably would pay out.
posted by Talez at 11:21 AM on June 21, 2016 [17 favorites]
In any sensible organization accounts payable would have a purchase order to match it up against before paying out. So they probably would pay out.
posted by Talez at 11:21 AM on June 21, 2016 [17 favorites]
The Draper Sterling story gets even weirder how did it possibly get weirder
This morning, the bios of Jon Adkins and Paul Holzer, two individuals associated with Draper Sterling, were deleted from the website of Xeno Therapeutics, the medical device company they founded.posted by murphy slaw at 11:44 AM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
…
UPDATE JUN 21, 2016 12:53 PM
The entire website for Xeno Therapeutics, the medical device company founded by the Jon Adkins and Paul Holzer, has been taken offline. It now goes to a password protected page.
I’ve gone from fearing a Trump presidency to now actively hoping he still is the nominee on Election Day. Because that's not only a win for Hillary, it might energize people to vote more progressive down the ticket.
There's all this talk of DT being dumped/ quitting, but I don't see as much speculation how the R voters will react. If he's pushed out, it’s a terrible breach of democracy to overturn the will of the primary voters. [Oh wait, then those people could know how I felt seeing duly elected *President* Gore taken down.]
But people who supported Resting-Nothing-Face Cruz might be more motivated. Even staunch Trumpers might still vote for the Substitute Candidate. Especially if there's some backroom deal for him to save face while quitting.
(Oh, also, because I don’t know where else to put this, fuck to hell every NRA-fellating Senator and Rep.)
posted by NorthernLite at 11:46 AM on June 21, 2016
There's all this talk of DT being dumped/ quitting, but I don't see as much speculation how the R voters will react. If he's pushed out, it’s a terrible breach of democracy to overturn the will of the primary voters. [Oh wait, then those people could know how I felt seeing duly elected *President* Gore taken down.]
But people who supported Resting-Nothing-Face Cruz might be more motivated. Even staunch Trumpers might still vote for the Substitute Candidate. Especially if there's some backroom deal for him to save face while quitting.
(Oh, also, because I don’t know where else to put this, fuck to hell every NRA-fellating Senator and Rep.)
posted by NorthernLite at 11:46 AM on June 21, 2016
What are "medical device[s]" in this context (and more generally)?
Could this have something to do with Trump's hair?
posted by stolyarova at 11:49 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Could this have something to do with Trump's hair?
posted by stolyarova at 11:49 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Apparently Paul Holzer was a Navy Seal who went back to med school and
posted by murphy slaw at 11:54 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Holzer founded a startup company—Xeno Therapeutics—that in 2016 will conduct the first human clinical trial of the skin graft material he helped develop based on his combat experiencebecause clearly this story wasn't weird enough
posted by murphy slaw at 11:54 AM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
TRUMP TOWERS WITH HUUUGE TAX SAVINGS
Over a five-year period, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, saved an estimated $800,000-plus in property taxes on his 89th-floor Trump International Hotel & Tower penthouse thanks to a Cook County government policy allowing hefty tax breaks for developers of new residential units that are vacant and for sale.
posted by readery at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2016
Over a five-year period, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, saved an estimated $800,000-plus in property taxes on his 89th-floor Trump International Hotel & Tower penthouse thanks to a Cook County government policy allowing hefty tax breaks for developers of new residential units that are vacant and for sale.
posted by readery at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2016
Recipients of payments from Trump campaign with “Trump” in name, through May 31 (Not including Mar-a-Lago or his own planes). So roughly 10% of his campaign spending is to his own companies.
posted by zakur at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2016
posted by zakur at 11:57 AM on June 21, 2016
Why Trump's Xeno Flesh Mask Scandal Could Help Him Beat Hillary (Slate, 6/23/2016)
posted by theodolite at 11:58 AM on June 21, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 11:58 AM on June 21, 2016 [15 favorites]
What are "medical device[s]" in this context (and more generally)?
XenoTherapeutics, Inc., specializes in xenotransplantation, which is the grafting and transplantation of tissues and organs from one species onto another. They're working on a skin alternative for people who have suffered from severe burns and other traumas. Their site is currently live, and not password protected: http://xenotherapeutics.org/about-xenotherapeutics/
Could this have something to do with Trump's hair?
I doubt it? Unless he's a lizard person, a la V.
posted by zarq at 11:59 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
XenoTherapeutics, Inc., specializes in xenotransplantation, which is the grafting and transplantation of tissues and organs from one species onto another. They're working on a skin alternative for people who have suffered from severe burns and other traumas. Their site is currently live, and not password protected: http://xenotherapeutics.org/about-xenotherapeutics/
Could this have something to do with Trump's hair?
I doubt it? Unless he's a lizard person, a la V.
posted by zarq at 11:59 AM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, Xeno Therapeutics? Xeno????
this shit just writes itself
posted by Existential Dread at 12:00 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
this shit just writes itself
posted by Existential Dread at 12:00 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
major party candidates for office had to sit down for a vetting session so the party could make sure they hadn't killed someone in a bar fight
Or, in the case of Ben Carson, make sure that they had.
posted by jackbishop at 12:01 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or, in the case of Ben Carson, make sure that they had.
posted by jackbishop at 12:01 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is this the we-slipped-into-a-Vonnegut-story timeline?
posted by stolyarova at 12:03 PM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 12:03 PM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
Poll Gives Hillary Clinton Good News in Three Crucial States
A survey from Quinnipiac University found Mrs. Clinton leading Mr. Trump by a margin of 47 percent to 39 percent in Florida, where they were essentially tied in May. Mrs. Clinton also erased Mr. Trump’s narrow lead in Ohio, where the candidates are now deadlocked at 40 percent. In Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton leads by a single percentage point.On Today this morning Trump called in to say how these new polls came out that were great news for him (which Savannah Guthrie just sort of reflexively agreed with) and also Ivanka loves Corey Lewandowski, there's no problem there, they're just taking things in a different direction now is all
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:05 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
zarq: "I doubt it? Unless he's a lizard person, a la V."
Nah, this guy's hair is too dark to be Trump.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:13 PM on June 21, 2016
Nah, this guy's hair is too dark to be Trump.
posted by Chrysostom at 12:13 PM on June 21, 2016
At some point, there will be a reason for reporters to take a new look at things like the Trump Network (his vitamin-selling pyramid scheme), and it won’t be pretty.
WOAH I had never heard of that and can't wait for THAT to come out in a big way.
posted by Theta States at 12:16 PM on June 21, 2016
WOAH I had never heard of that and can't wait for THAT to come out in a big way.
posted by Theta States at 12:16 PM on June 21, 2016
Accounting problems in Trump camp possibly explained? (MJ: Watch Donald Not Be Able to Multiply 17 By 6. Painful.)
posted by taz at 12:18 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by taz at 12:18 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Depressing reminder of how very little actually separates Trump's overt racism from the bog-standard racism of the modern day GOP:
Rick Wilson, noted conservative columnist and prominent Never-Trumper:
"#TrumpSoPoor his next trophy wife will be from Mexico."
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:18 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Rick Wilson, noted conservative columnist and prominent Never-Trumper:
"#TrumpSoPoor his next trophy wife will be from Mexico."
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:18 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Considering how many Trump supporters probably participate in MLM schemes and/or are true believers in "supplements", I kind of doubt that a vitamin-selling pyramid scheme is going to change any minds.
At best, some more establishment Republican voters who were tempted to vote for Trump out of party unity might think he is "too trashy".
posted by Sara C. at 12:21 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
At best, some more establishment Republican voters who were tempted to vote for Trump out of party unity might think he is "too trashy".
posted by Sara C. at 12:21 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
And speaking of Trump Business..
The Hill:
He's the King of Debt! I think we should award him that title and make him wear that crown everyday.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:21 PM on June 21, 2016
The Hill:
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Tuesday boasted about being “the king of debt,” saying he made a "fortune" with it as a businessman.
In the same tweet, however, the billionaire said debt is “bad for the country.”In an Instagram post coinciding with the tweet, he slammed President Obama and presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over the increasing U.S. debt.
“They have bankrupted America while making their donors rich!" the post's caption read.
Trump also repeated his claim that he’s made “a fortune with debt.”
He's the King of Debt! I think we should award him that title and make him wear that crown everyday.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:21 PM on June 21, 2016
Sanders accidentally visits GOP lunch
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:22 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:22 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump also repeated his claim that he’s made “a fortune with debt.”
unfortunately the debt is larger than the fortune so
posted by murphy slaw at 12:25 PM on June 21, 2016
unfortunately the debt is larger than the fortune so
posted by murphy slaw at 12:25 PM on June 21, 2016
The Atlantic: Trump Is on the Verge of Losing Even Republicans
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:27 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
A CNN poll released on Tuesday shows that a stunning 48 percent of Republicans polled would prefer that the party dump Trump in favor of another candidate. The presumptive nominee maintains the thinnest margin of majority support, at 51 percent. Unfortunately, it’s the first time CNN has asked the question, so it’s hard to get a good sense of how that number has changed over time. Trump did win the popular vote in the GOP primary handily, per RealClearPolitics’s count. But he still won only a plurality of the vote, not a majority.It means that 51% still think they should keep him. I don't know what he would have to do to get his supporters to drop kick him to the curb.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:27 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why? You think she has some sort of self-respecting moral center she wouldn't sell out in a heartbeat? Were you even paying attention to the entire G. W. Bust administration I mean G. W. Bush administration?
Personally, I doubt she would want to sully her academic reputation at a major university slumming with low-brow Trump. It's more of a class thing than a moral thing.
posted by aught at 12:30 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Personally, I doubt she would want to sully her academic reputation at a major university slumming with low-brow Trump. It's more of a class thing than a moral thing.
posted by aught at 12:30 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why? You think she has some sort of self-respecting moral center she wouldn't sell out in a heartbeat? Were you even paying attention to the entire G. W. Bust administration I mean G. W. Bush administration?
Seriously? I would posit that one can be fine with military interventions overseas and still find racism, nativism, or economic protectionism to be acceptable morally or pragmatically...seriously, there's more to the world than a neat division into "people who I agree with on every morally significant subject" and "folks who have no soul or principles".
posted by AdamCSnider at 12:35 PM on June 21, 2016 [13 favorites]
Seriously? I would posit that one can be fine with military interventions overseas and still find racism, nativism, or economic protectionism to be acceptable morally or pragmatically...seriously, there's more to the world than a neat division into "people who I agree with on every morally significant subject" and "folks who have no soul or principles".
posted by AdamCSnider at 12:35 PM on June 21, 2016 [13 favorites]
As sad as I was that Molly Ivins didn't live to see Dubya leave office, I'm even sadder that we don't have her hard work, wit, and deep political insight applied to this election.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:36 PM on June 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:36 PM on June 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
51% still think they should keep him
But he did get 60+% of the delegates by getting around 45% of the popular vote (slightly more than what Sanders got in the Democratic primaries... explains some about Bernie's attitude).
" I made a fortune off of debt, will fix U.S. "
as he intends to do with Public Debt as President. But, obviously, all of it will end up in HIS pockets.
At some point, there will be a reason for reporters to take a new look at things like the Trump Network (his vitamin-selling pyramid scheme), and it won’t be pretty.
If Journalists, Regulators and Prosecutors had done THEIR JOBS over the last 20 years, Trump would be sharing a country-club-prison cell with Bernie Madoff. Period.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:38 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
But he did get 60+% of the delegates by getting around 45% of the popular vote (slightly more than what Sanders got in the Democratic primaries... explains some about Bernie's attitude).
" I made a fortune off of debt, will fix U.S. "
as he intends to do with Public Debt as President. But, obviously, all of it will end up in HIS pockets.
At some point, there will be a reason for reporters to take a new look at things like the Trump Network (his vitamin-selling pyramid scheme), and it won’t be pretty.
If Journalists, Regulators and Prosecutors had done THEIR JOBS over the last 20 years, Trump would be sharing a country-club-prison cell with Bernie Madoff. Period.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:38 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Philadelphia Magazine plays it real subtle and coy with their endorsement
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:39 PM on June 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:39 PM on June 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
Here's some quality Fox News headline writing:
Trump lags behind Clinton fundraising – but both candidates off the 2012 pace
Put the "both sides" in the headline, even though the real story is that Clinton raised 9x more money in May, and has a cash reserve 32x larger.
posted by Theta States at 12:47 PM on June 21, 2016 [15 favorites]
Trump lags behind Clinton fundraising – but both candidates off the 2012 pace
Put the "both sides" in the headline, even though the real story is that Clinton raised 9x more money in May, and has a cash reserve 32x larger.
posted by Theta States at 12:47 PM on June 21, 2016 [15 favorites]
A CNN poll released on Tuesday shows that a stunning 48 percent of Republicans polled would prefer that the party dump Trump in favor of another candidate.
With the question phrased that way, I'm honestly surprised the number is so low, since an ideal "other candidate" onto which each individual polled person can project everything they think a Republican candidate should be sounds pretty appealing. I doubt the numbers are nearly as high when you plug in specific other potential candidates.
And it's not at all clear who those potential other candidates are anyways. Ted Cruz? Nobody much likes him and I'm not entirely certain he would take the nomination if offered—2016 promises to be such a clusterfuck for the Republicans that any candidate who seriously wants to be President some day is going to be keeping their distance from this election and holding out hope for 2020.
posted by jackbishop at 12:49 PM on June 21, 2016
With the question phrased that way, I'm honestly surprised the number is so low, since an ideal "other candidate" onto which each individual polled person can project everything they think a Republican candidate should be sounds pretty appealing. I doubt the numbers are nearly as high when you plug in specific other potential candidates.
And it's not at all clear who those potential other candidates are anyways. Ted Cruz? Nobody much likes him and I'm not entirely certain he would take the nomination if offered—2016 promises to be such a clusterfuck for the Republicans that any candidate who seriously wants to be President some day is going to be keeping their distance from this election and holding out hope for 2020.
posted by jackbishop at 12:49 PM on June 21, 2016
Did anyone hear Hillary's speech today? Also accompanied by the launch of Art of the Steal.
posted by apcmwh at 12:52 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by apcmwh at 12:52 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Come on Pennsylvania, get your shit together. How can a Democratic candidate be 8 points ahead in Florida and only 1 point ahead in Pennsylvania?
I wouldn't call that poll "good news in 3 battleground states". It's excellent news in one, decent news in another, and bad news in a third. Still early, not yet conventions, blah blah etc.
posted by Justinian at 12:58 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't call that poll "good news in 3 battleground states". It's excellent news in one, decent news in another, and bad news in a third. Still early, not yet conventions, blah blah etc.
posted by Justinian at 12:58 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Reality Show King Mark Burnett Says He's Not Helping Donald Trump
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:01 PM on June 21, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:01 PM on June 21, 2016
> Rick Wilson, noted conservative columnist and prominent Never-Trumper:
I'm not going to delve through his Twitter feed to find it, but he was making AR-15 jokes a few days ago. As you do after a horrible atrocity is committed with one. If you're a hateful asshole.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:04 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not going to delve through his Twitter feed to find it, but he was making AR-15 jokes a few days ago. As you do after a horrible atrocity is committed with one. If you're a hateful asshole.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:04 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't call that poll "good news in 3 battleground states". It's excellent news in one, decent news in another, and bad news in a third. Still early, not yet conventions, blah blah etc.
But using Obama's 2012 electoral count as a baseline, Clinton could afford to lose both Pennsylvania and Ohio, whereas if Trump doesn't flip Florida, it's hard to see how he cobbles together an electoral majority.
posted by Gelatin at 1:05 PM on June 21, 2016
But using Obama's 2012 electoral count as a baseline, Clinton could afford to lose both Pennsylvania and Ohio, whereas if Trump doesn't flip Florida, it's hard to see how he cobbles together an electoral majority.
posted by Gelatin at 1:05 PM on June 21, 2016
That Art of the Steal page is entertaining.
So how does the way he got rich influence his policy proposals? It’ll sound familiar. They all seek to help billionaires – and millionaires like Donald Trump--at the expense of working families. We’ll have more on that soon.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:08 PM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
So how does the way he got rich influence his policy proposals? It’ll sound familiar. They all seek to help billionaires – and millionaires like Donald Trump--at the expense of working families. We’ll have more on that soon.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:08 PM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yup, use the wonderful map editor seen on Sam Wang's site and try and see ANY way for Trump to win with Florida blue. (spoiler alert: the only scenarios Trump can win are at the extreme ends of the bellcurve.)
posted by Theta States at 1:09 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Theta States at 1:09 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't be the only one waiting with bated breath for a #nevertrump update from corb.
posted by bardophile at 1:09 PM on June 21, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 1:09 PM on June 21, 2016 [19 favorites]
Any contention that Condoleezza Rice is going to be involved in the Trump administration is based on serious ignorance about her character and background. Before joining the Bush administration, she had been a tenured professor, then provost, at a top-tier research university for many years. Since the Bush administration, she has returned to a comfortable sinecure at Stanford and is on at least 7 corporate boards of directors in the Bay Area and throughout the country. She accompanies Yo Yo Ma on the piano. She helps run the football BCS and, from what I'm told, attends all the home games in box seats. She has tons of academic reputation and creature comfort to lose by joining forces with Trump in any way. And for what? There is no chance at all she could reach a higher executive post than she did last time so there is really no upside in terms of legacy.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 1:12 PM on June 21, 2016 [43 favorites]
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 1:12 PM on June 21, 2016 [43 favorites]
Something like this map would be Trump's path without Florida. Basically he has to take OH, PA, VA, and one midwestern state. Could be Iowa, could be Wisconsin. Plus NH.
That's not a prediction on my part, but certainly it would be better for Clinton to win either PA or OH. If a Dem wins two out of FL, OH, PA she wins the election without question.
Like I said, get your shit together Pennsylvania.
posted by Justinian at 1:14 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's not a prediction on my part, but certainly it would be better for Clinton to win either PA or OH. If a Dem wins two out of FL, OH, PA she wins the election without question.
Like I said, get your shit together Pennsylvania.
posted by Justinian at 1:14 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
man I'm terrible, I messed up that link like 3 times before I finally got it right. Thank god for the edit window.
posted by Justinian at 1:15 PM on June 21, 2016
posted by Justinian at 1:15 PM on June 21, 2016
Virginia seems awfully unlikely for Trump thanks to Beltway Republicans and newly-enfranchised felons, and his numbers in Florida are catastrophic. Fret about Pennsylvania and the Midwest all you like, but those seem like insurmountable problems for his campaign.
posted by jackbishop at 1:27 PM on June 21, 2016
posted by jackbishop at 1:27 PM on June 21, 2016
Winning Virginia while losing Pennsylvania goes against all conventional political sense for a Democrat. Maybe Trump explodes the map like that but I'll feel better about the theory once we get a poll out of Virginia showing Clinton ahead.
posted by Justinian at 1:29 PM on June 21, 2016
posted by Justinian at 1:29 PM on June 21, 2016
WaPo:
“As top Republicans expressed astonishment and alarm over Donald Trump’s paltry campaign fundraising totals, the presumptive nominee blamed party leaders Tuesday and threatened to rely on his personal fortune instead of helping the GOP seek the cash it needs. Such a move would effectively amount to abandonment of the Republican National Committee and the rest of the GOP ticket, which relies on the presidential nominee to help raise hundreds of millions to fund a national field organization for the fall elections.”
posted by Chrysostom at 1:38 PM on June 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
“As top Republicans expressed astonishment and alarm over Donald Trump’s paltry campaign fundraising totals, the presumptive nominee blamed party leaders Tuesday and threatened to rely on his personal fortune instead of helping the GOP seek the cash it needs. Such a move would effectively amount to abandonment of the Republican National Committee and the rest of the GOP ticket, which relies on the presidential nominee to help raise hundreds of millions to fund a national field organization for the fall elections.”
posted by Chrysostom at 1:38 PM on June 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
Justinian, that map requires him to get New Mexico, which wasn't even close in 2012. If Florida goes blue, even if Trump gets NC, Virginia, NH, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, he still has to come up with 9 more, either from Colorado, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, or from a combination of Iowa and Nevada. That's seriously running the board in terms if getting anything even vaguely competitive.
posted by tavella at 1:39 PM on June 21, 2016
posted by tavella at 1:39 PM on June 21, 2016
I'll feel better about the theory once we get a poll out of Virginia showing Clinton ahead.
Take your pick. PPP has it at 42-39; Gravis gives 45-41; CNU gives 44-35. Pretty much everyone who does poll aggregating agrees with a Clinton lead somewhere from 2.5 to 4 points.
posted by jackbishop at 1:44 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Take your pick. PPP has it at 42-39; Gravis gives 45-41; CNU gives 44-35. Pretty much everyone who does poll aggregating agrees with a Clinton lead somewhere from 2.5 to 4 points.
posted by jackbishop at 1:44 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
I am temporarily mollified. Hopefully something new to worry about will arrive soon.
posted by Justinian at 1:48 PM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 1:48 PM on June 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
She has tons of academic reputation and creature comfort to lose by joining forces with Trump in any way. And for what?
Trump would return her children to her?
posted by happyroach at 1:52 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump would return her children to her?
posted by happyroach at 1:52 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
At some point, there will be a reason for reporters to take a new look at things like the Trump Network (his vitamin-selling pyramid scheme), and it won’t be pretty.
There was a great article on the Trump Network (with videos!) that I found and posted about waaaay back in the March primaries thread. The most bizarre thing about the vitamin business was it required folks to send a urine sample in the mail to be tested. And the Trump Network wasn't even the only MLM scheme that Trump was involved in! He also backed a company that sold video phones!
Yes, I was kind of reading about Donald Trump almost everyday back then.
posted by FJT at 1:57 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
There was a great article on the Trump Network (with videos!) that I found and posted about waaaay back in the March primaries thread. The most bizarre thing about the vitamin business was it required folks to send a urine sample in the mail to be tested. And the Trump Network wasn't even the only MLM scheme that Trump was involved in! He also backed a company that sold video phones!
Yes, I was kind of reading about Donald Trump almost everyday back then.
posted by FJT at 1:57 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pennsylvania being more in play than Virginia is one of the more explicable elements of this year's election, really.
Pennsylvania is a pretty easy state to analyze: highly Democratic strongholds in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Republican strength elsewhere, and a population distribution favoring Democrats. In most years, that's a medium-reliable Democratic win, but those nonurban Republicans are pretty much precisely Trump's base: overwhelmingly white, working-class, not tremendously religious. They'll turn out for him.
Virginia, on the other hand, may have a Republican lean, but it's a very heterogeneous Republican lean, with a good number of DC-suburb "elites", evangelicals, and even conservative Latinos. These are groups where Trump is not exactly well-supported, and their lack of enthusiasm can offset the Democratic disadvantage.
posted by jackbishop at 1:57 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Pennsylvania is a pretty easy state to analyze: highly Democratic strongholds in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Republican strength elsewhere, and a population distribution favoring Democrats. In most years, that's a medium-reliable Democratic win, but those nonurban Republicans are pretty much precisely Trump's base: overwhelmingly white, working-class, not tremendously religious. They'll turn out for him.
Virginia, on the other hand, may have a Republican lean, but it's a very heterogeneous Republican lean, with a good number of DC-suburb "elites", evangelicals, and even conservative Latinos. These are groups where Trump is not exactly well-supported, and their lack of enthusiasm can offset the Democratic disadvantage.
posted by jackbishop at 1:57 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Trump is still counting on the media to save him. ... The problem with that strategy is that these days, media coverage of Trump consists largely of 1) him saying appalling things that turn off key segments of the electorate
The trick is that you have to say things that are outrageous enough to be newsworthy while not losing more voters than you pick up due to your attention and street cred. In the primary, he could just piss off Democrats and independents who couldn't vote for him anyway.
But in the general, who can he alienate that won't be able to vote against him? Undocumented immigrants and felons, sure, but there aren't enough to matter and that's not news worthy because every Republican does it.
I guess he could attack children? Ban candy, more homework! Seems like a pretty high-risk strategy though.
posted by msalt at 2:11 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
The trick is that you have to say things that are outrageous enough to be newsworthy while not losing more voters than you pick up due to your attention and street cred. In the primary, he could just piss off Democrats and independents who couldn't vote for him anyway.
But in the general, who can he alienate that won't be able to vote against him? Undocumented immigrants and felons, sure, but there aren't enough to matter and that's not news worthy because every Republican does it.
I guess he could attack children? Ban candy, more homework! Seems like a pretty high-risk strategy though.
posted by msalt at 2:11 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I have really big doubts about the voter screens that Quinnipac is using in regards to those Ohio and Pennsylvania polls.
They have partisan ID of Republicans being extremely close to partisan ID of democrats even though that tends to actually not be the case. The Quinn poll for instance uses a 37D — 33R split whereas the 2012 breakdown was actually closer 45 D - 35 R.
It isn't a landline only poll which are more or less garbage these days so that's good but even the crosstabs indicate the margin of error regarding younger voters and minority voters are extremely high.
When pollers use crosstabs with a huge percentage of independent voters represented (even though most independents are lean towards one direction or another) there can be significant discrepancies between the poll results and what is likely to happen. I kind of wish that more pollsters would push leaners harder but them are the breaks.
Now I don't want to encourage unskewing the polls because they could be accurate it's just that I also tend to ignore any single data point and focus more on trend lines at this point.
I also don't mind if Trump tries to take on the Blue Wall of Pennsylvania because it's been a mirage for Republicans for ages and inevitably Philly comes through with big turnout in Presidential elections and those Republican hopes are dashed. I would rather have Republicans dump resources in a quixotic attempt to turn Pennsylvania Red than let them have endless resources for more competitive races.
posted by vuron at 2:14 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
They have partisan ID of Republicans being extremely close to partisan ID of democrats even though that tends to actually not be the case. The Quinn poll for instance uses a 37D — 33R split whereas the 2012 breakdown was actually closer 45 D - 35 R.
It isn't a landline only poll which are more or less garbage these days so that's good but even the crosstabs indicate the margin of error regarding younger voters and minority voters are extremely high.
When pollers use crosstabs with a huge percentage of independent voters represented (even though most independents are lean towards one direction or another) there can be significant discrepancies between the poll results and what is likely to happen. I kind of wish that more pollsters would push leaners harder but them are the breaks.
Now I don't want to encourage unskewing the polls because they could be accurate it's just that I also tend to ignore any single data point and focus more on trend lines at this point.
I also don't mind if Trump tries to take on the Blue Wall of Pennsylvania because it's been a mirage for Republicans for ages and inevitably Philly comes through with big turnout in Presidential elections and those Republican hopes are dashed. I would rather have Republicans dump resources in a quixotic attempt to turn Pennsylvania Red than let them have endless resources for more competitive races.
posted by vuron at 2:14 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
quixotic
"I'm telling you, there's something going on with these windmills. There's something going on. A lot of people are very, very concerned that these windmills might be giants, and they won't come out and say they're not giants..."
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:49 PM on June 21, 2016 [23 favorites]
"I'm telling you, there's something going on with these windmills. There's something going on. A lot of people are very, very concerned that these windmills might be giants, and they won't come out and say they're not giants..."
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:49 PM on June 21, 2016 [23 favorites]
If you donate RIGHT NOW to Donald Trump's campaign he will personally match every dollar that comes in up to $2 million!!!!!!!Act Fast before this once in a lifetime event ends...but wait there's more! If you act RIGHT NOW you will be making history!!!!!!
Meanwhile
Hillary Clinton Wants ‘Hamilton’ and Lin-Manuel Miranda to Perform at the DNC Don't get too excited, "So far, though, Hamilton‘s star either hasn’t wanted to commit, or simply can’t fit Hillary Clinton into his busy schedule." This part confuses me
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:36 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Meanwhile
Hillary Clinton Wants ‘Hamilton’ and Lin-Manuel Miranda to Perform at the DNC Don't get too excited, "So far, though, Hamilton‘s star either hasn’t wanted to commit, or simply can’t fit Hillary Clinton into his busy schedule." This part confuses me
The Democratic National Committee is looking to spice up the prime time offerings — and is thus pursuing some of Clinton’s pop star supporters (likely Katy Perry, maybe Kim Kardashian)Since when is Kim Kardashian a pop star? Does she perform? I thought all she did was wear form-fitting clothing. Unless. Is she recreating her famous sex video?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:36 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
The GOP convention, on the other hand, is struggling just to get underwritten. Bloomberg confirmed yesterday that Wells Fargo & Co., United Parcel Service Inc., Motorola Solutions Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ford Motor Co., and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. will all be pulling their funds for next month’s gathering at Quicken Loans Arena.
Bloomberg listed Apple Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Xerox Corp., and Adobe Systems Inc. as among the biggest names who have yet to comment on their future plans for sponsoring the convention this year as they did in 2012.posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:41 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bloomberg confirmed yesterday that Wells Fargo & Co., United Parcel Service Inc., Motorola Solutions Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ford Motor Co., and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. will all be pulling their funds for next month’s gathering at Quicken Loans Arena.
is gold bond powder still in?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:49 PM on June 21, 2016 [18 favorites]
is gold bond powder still in?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:49 PM on June 21, 2016 [18 favorites]
The GOP convention, on the other hand, is struggling just to get underwritten. Bloomberg confirmed yesterday that Wells Fargo & Co., United Parcel Service Inc., Motorola Solutions Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ford Motor Co., and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. will all be pulling their funds for next month’s gathering at Quicken Loans Arena.
Surely the ten-billionaire in their midst can drop a few hundred milli to make up for the deficit, right?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:54 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Surely the ten-billionaire in their midst can drop a few hundred milli to make up for the deficit, right?
posted by Going To Maine at 3:54 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bloomberg listed Apple Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Xerox Corp., and Adobe Systems Inc. as among the biggest names who have yet to comment on their future plans for sponsoring the convention this year as they did in 2012.
Apple already pulled out.
posted by Talez at 3:59 PM on June 21, 2016
Apple already pulled out.
posted by Talez at 3:59 PM on June 21, 2016
Hillary on Twitter: What is Trump spending his meager campaign resources on? Why, himself, of course.
I had never looked at her Twitter profile before now. The responses she gets to her tweets are truly hateful.
posted by kisch mokusch at 4:07 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I had never looked at her Twitter profile before now. The responses she gets to her tweets are truly hateful.
posted by kisch mokusch at 4:07 PM on June 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
The corporations pulling out of the GOP convention is fascinating to me. Big Business and the Republican Party have always been inseparable (at least in my lifetime.) Now with the internet Big Business has to be more careful about their image and try not to piss off the consumers because brand damaging and national boycotts are easier and faster.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:13 PM on June 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:13 PM on June 21, 2016 [10 favorites]
I've been looking at this headline for a couple of hours. I really don't know what to make of it. It could be nothing or it could blow up. California woman's rape lawsuit against Donald Trump resurfaces in New York court
the complaint’s core allegations remain unchanged, that Trump and Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at a series of Manhattan sex parties Epstein hosted in 1994.posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:19 PM on June 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
“Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I would be physically harmed if not killed,” the plaintiff said in an affidavit.[snip]
Epstein has also denied the allegations. Epstein is alleged to have preyed on dozens of underage girls in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor in just one case in 2008.
Well, can't Trump Delegate-and-Pal Peter Thiel make up the shortfall with money from Facebook and PayPal? (Truly "new economy" billionaire fodder) Although seeing PayPal get mixed up with Quicken Loans will be fun to observe.
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:28 PM on June 21, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:28 PM on June 21, 2016
...because with Obama you had your guard up...
He's usually so blatant that my dog-whistle decoding is getting rusty. But am I catching that "you had your guard up" because (according to him) you would never trust a black guy to be a trustworthy American, but Hillary's white so, hey ho, he trusted her for awhile before adding her to his list of people he hates?
My blood pressure is rising and my eyebrows are shooting off my face. Is there a different way to interpret it that does sound hugely racist and just sounds hugely assholish?
posted by puddledork at 4:32 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
He's usually so blatant that my dog-whistle decoding is getting rusty. But am I catching that "you had your guard up" because (according to him) you would never trust a black guy to be a trustworthy American, but Hillary's white so, hey ho, he trusted her for awhile before adding her to his list of people he hates?
My blood pressure is rising and my eyebrows are shooting off my face. Is there a different way to interpret it that does sound hugely racist and just sounds hugely assholish?
posted by puddledork at 4:32 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
I guess you could say he's referring to a Muslim name versus just blackness, but yeah, bigoted regardless.
posted by chris24 at 4:39 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by chris24 at 4:39 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Man vs woman? Suspicious newcomer vs sleeper agent familiar face?
Yeah, there's no saving it.
posted by Superplin at 4:42 PM on June 21, 2016
Yeah, there's no saving it.
posted by Superplin at 4:42 PM on June 21, 2016
Trump was one of the most famous "birthers", challenging Obama's eligibility to be President. But then, he also has given political contributions to the Clintons, so he probably has first-hand knowledge of her dishonesty... (and as the contributions to Florida and Texas officials when he wanted to stop investigations of Trump U. show, he doesn't give anything to politicians that isn't quid-pro-quo)
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:51 PM on June 21, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:51 PM on June 21, 2016
But then, he also has given political contributions to the Clintons, so he probably has first-hand knowledge of her dishonesty
Alternate hot take: Trump is a crazy dude who believes a lot of crazy things.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:04 PM on June 21, 2016 [27 favorites]
Alternate hot take: Trump is a crazy dude who believes a lot of crazy things.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:04 PM on June 21, 2016 [27 favorites]
According to Reuters, "Trump said on Tuesday his "unlimited" trove of personal wealth would help compensate for his poor presidential campaign fundraising, even as he took steps to court new donors to help win the White House."
He's trying to ask for donations while claiming he has unlimited wealth? I think he finds it humiliating to ask for money and I think he will NEVER release his tax returns because they will show he is not that wealthy. If he is not a yugely successful billionaire businessman then he is nothing but a conman with funny hair.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:20 PM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
He's trying to ask for donations while claiming he has unlimited wealth? I think he finds it humiliating to ask for money and I think he will NEVER release his tax returns because they will show he is not that wealthy. If he is not a yugely successful billionaire businessman then he is nothing but a conman with funny hair.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:20 PM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
More updates to the Draper Sterling story:
posted by murphy slaw at 5:26 PM on June 21, 2016 [21 favorites]
Holzer spoke to Fortune and confirmed that he worked for Draper Sterling but refused to discuss the nature of his work, citing “a non-disclosure agreement.” He also compared his work to the Wright Brothers.Okay cool, that makes more sense.
posted by murphy slaw at 5:26 PM on June 21, 2016 [21 favorites]
They're building a terrifying death trap that can only stay in the air for mere seconds when everyone already knows how to fly with a balloon candidate full of hot air?
posted by zachlipton at 5:35 PM on June 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 5:35 PM on June 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
With every last absurd crappy thing coming out about Trump and his campaign's complete ineffectiveness, I still have Sanders-supporting friends who insist a Stein/Sanders run could beat Trump and that Clinton is just so uniquely awful they can't possibly vote for her even to stop Trump. It's maddening. Fortunately, despite their presence in my social media feed, links that folks in here have posted seem to suggest they are actually a pretty tiny minority of Sanders voters (and almost certainly doesn't include Sanders himself.) So thanks all for posting encouraging stuff (sort of.)
posted by R343L at 5:35 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by R343L at 5:35 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ok so Trump's plan for winning basically involves throwing money into crowds because he's totally like Scrooge McDuck.
Maybe he build a giant gold plated mecha like Pacific Rim instead of the wall and just defend America with his yuuge power cannon because that would be much more interesting than his current plans.
posted by vuron at 5:36 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe he build a giant gold plated mecha like Pacific Rim instead of the wall and just defend America with his yuuge power cannon because that would be much more interesting than his current plans.
posted by vuron at 5:36 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I still know a small number of Sanders dead-enders in real life that seem to be getting all of their news from reddit and salon and similar sources. Completely bonkers of course but when you only see negative stories about Shillary and lots of delusional stuff about Stein and Sanders teaming up to fight corruption then you start believing all sorts of bullshit especially when narratives about how the MSM is totally in the bag for Hillary and they are concealing the imminent felony indictments man.
Normally the tin foil hat brigade is easy to ignore but various online communities allow them to reach critical mass and then spew their venom all over the internet.
posted by vuron at 5:41 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Normally the tin foil hat brigade is easy to ignore but various online communities allow them to reach critical mass and then spew their venom all over the internet.
posted by vuron at 5:41 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
A fascinating twitter thread from @ThomasHCrown about how Trump's behavior is straight out of the real estate developer's playbook.
posted by murphy slaw at 5:56 PM on June 21, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by murphy slaw at 5:56 PM on June 21, 2016 [18 favorites]
I still know a small number of Sanders dead-enders in real life that seem to be getting all of their news from reddit and salon and similar sources.
It can't be overstated how rabidly, misogynistically, insanely anti-Clinton reddit is. Other online places tend to be rabidly anti-Clinton but without quite the conspiracy theory emphasis.
For example, right now even with all the crazy bad stuff coming out of the Trump campaign lately, the front page of /r/politics has 25 stories. 15 are anti-Clinton, 4 are anti-Trump, 4 are pro-Sanders, and 2 are misc. And that's /r/politics, not /r/sandersforpresident or /r/the_donald or whatever.
posted by Justinian at 5:58 PM on June 21, 2016 [13 favorites]
It can't be overstated how rabidly, misogynistically, insanely anti-Clinton reddit is. Other online places tend to be rabidly anti-Clinton but without quite the conspiracy theory emphasis.
For example, right now even with all the crazy bad stuff coming out of the Trump campaign lately, the front page of /r/politics has 25 stories. 15 are anti-Clinton, 4 are anti-Trump, 4 are pro-Sanders, and 2 are misc. And that's /r/politics, not /r/sandersforpresident or /r/the_donald or whatever.
posted by Justinian at 5:58 PM on June 21, 2016 [13 favorites]
guys it's ok to cut toxic shit (people, websites, whatevs) out of your life
you're not even obligated to state a reason
posted by dersins at 6:01 PM on June 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
you're not even obligated to state a reason
posted by dersins at 6:01 PM on June 21, 2016 [14 favorites]
you know how some people in the Game of Thrones threads are hate-watching Game of Thrones? I'm hate watching /r/politics.
posted by Justinian at 6:02 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:02 PM on June 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Reddit: The Front Page of the Internet Version of the National Enquirer
And has been for years. You're just starting to notice?
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:03 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
And has been for years. You're just starting to notice?
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:03 PM on June 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump tells Norah O'Donnell that the money Clinton has raised is "blood money."
posted by nubs at 6:06 PM on June 21, 2016
posted by nubs at 6:06 PM on June 21, 2016
But it's not really ok to cut people out. Or I don't think it is fair to reduce it to "toxic people". Sure I'll unfriend someone I barely know (e.g. met once in a bar with some friends) but in some cases they are friends. As in was there for me in a rough time and generally we have similar values (or know where we disagree.) Some of these folks extreme anti-Clinton opinions are just surprising to me and I feel I can't just cut them out. People not talking and demonizing people who don't really disagree THAT much is part of why politics is so awful.
posted by R343L at 6:06 PM on June 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by R343L at 6:06 PM on June 21, 2016 [5 favorites]
I learned a long time ago that trying to be tolerant of intolerance was just a logical trap that the intolerant use to show the "hypocrisy" of people pushing for a better more tolerant society.
I really don't have to tolerate people whose world view is aimed at harming other people or encouraging others to harm people. I try to be compassionate and empathetic but at a certain point I try to just let people know enough is enough.
posted by vuron at 6:13 PM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
I really don't have to tolerate people whose world view is aimed at harming other people or encouraging others to harm people. I try to be compassionate and empathetic but at a certain point I try to just let people know enough is enough.
posted by vuron at 6:13 PM on June 21, 2016 [9 favorites]
I do wish Clinton would hold more press conferences, though. At present it gives her little, but the lack is frustrating.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:21 PM on June 21, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 6:21 PM on June 21, 2016
A fascinating twitter thread from @ThomasHCrown about how Trump's behavior is straight out of the real estate developer's playbook.
This is a fun read, but looking at his profile I see no particular evidence of authority, and a bunch of opinions I dislike (“#DefundPP”, “#IStandWithBabies”, etc. Not that opinions are invalidating, or anything, but this seems more of a case of Twitter finding “some guy at a bar” rather than a secret expert.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:27 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is a fun read, but looking at his profile I see no particular evidence of authority, and a bunch of opinions I dislike (“#DefundPP”, “#IStandWithBabies”, etc. Not that opinions are invalidating, or anything, but this seems more of a case of Twitter finding “some guy at a bar” rather than a secret expert.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:27 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
So a group of hardcore Bernie supporters are still bringing a RICO suit in Ohio.
posted by Talez at 6:29 PM on June 21, 2016
posted by Talez at 6:29 PM on June 21, 2016
a stopped uh, guy at a bar is, er right at happy hour i guess?
posted by murphy slaw at 6:38 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by murphy slaw at 6:38 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Somebody made a joke that Trump was a Russian plant, and then because we were talking about it I started idly googling Russian spies, and what do you know:
The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia is a 1997 geopolitical book by Alexander Dugin. The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites and was allegedly used as a textbook in the General Staff Academy of Russian military.
...In the United States, Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."
Um... you guys I think Trump might be a Russian plant
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:57 PM on June 21, 2016 [34 favorites]
The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia is a 1997 geopolitical book by Alexander Dugin. The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites and was allegedly used as a textbook in the General Staff Academy of Russian military.
...In the United States, Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."
Um... you guys I think Trump might be a Russian plant
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:57 PM on June 21, 2016 [34 favorites]
If Trump were a Russian spy, he'd spend all his time running around talking about how he's the best spy, how he always wins at spying, and how Putin calls him up all the time and saying things like "Donald, you're too good at spying. You're always winning. I don't know if we can keep you as a spy because you make all the other spies look weak."
posted by zachlipton at 7:07 PM on June 21, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 7:07 PM on June 21, 2016 [30 favorites]
So... Sterling Archer?
posted by dumbland at 7:10 PM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dumbland at 7:10 PM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
Mod note: While I think the site is united in its opinion of Scott Adams, posting his stuff here is likely to cause a sizeable derail.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:40 PM on June 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 7:40 PM on June 21, 2016 [8 favorites]
The 24th Congressional District of New York has changed parties in the past four elections, so is very swingy. It is currently held by Rep. John Katko (R) and he is running without a primary opponent.
On the Democratic party side, three people are running but it isn't very close, Colleen Deacon (who worked with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and was picked as a good red to blue bet) is polling with a substantial lead over Steven Williams, (a Syracuse lawyer and former military lawyer) and Eric Kingson (a University of Syracuse professor with a interest in social security).
They had a debate last night, it was a fairly sedate affair.
posted by phoque at 7:40 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
On the Democratic party side, three people are running but it isn't very close, Colleen Deacon (who worked with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and was picked as a good red to blue bet) is polling with a substantial lead over Steven Williams, (a Syracuse lawyer and former military lawyer) and Eric Kingson (a University of Syracuse professor with a interest in social security).
They had a debate last night, it was a fairly sedate affair.
posted by phoque at 7:40 PM on June 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Um... you guys I think Trump might be a Russian plant
If he isn't, then his hair is.
posted by Strange Interlude at 10:36 PM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
If he isn't, then his hair is.
posted by Strange Interlude at 10:36 PM on June 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
Um... you guys I think Trump might be a Russian plant
If he isn't, then his hair is.
Some kind of creeper, perhaps.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:43 PM on June 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
If he isn't, then his hair is.
Some kind of creeper, perhaps.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:43 PM on June 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
a chernobyl carrot
posted by pyramid termite at 12:40 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 12:40 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Utah v Strieff - dissenting opinions: Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg. SCOTUS appointments matter.
posted by bardophile at 2:40 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bardophile at 2:40 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Virginia, on the other hand, may have a Republican lean, but it's a very heterogeneous Republican lean, with a good number of DC-suburb "elites", evangelicals, and even conservative Latinos. These are groups where Trump is not exactly well-supported, and their lack of enthusiasm can offset the Democratic disadvantage.
I agree with that analysis, but I don't think you can even describe Virginia as having a Republican lean at the statewide level anymore - it's been twelve years now since a Republican presidential nominee won Virginia, fourteen years since Virginia elected a Republican US Senator, and every year the demographics shift that much bluer. Of course, the House delegation and state legislature are still Republican-majority, but they're also all gerrymandered to hell and back.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 2:59 AM on June 22, 2016
I agree with that analysis, but I don't think you can even describe Virginia as having a Republican lean at the statewide level anymore - it's been twelve years now since a Republican presidential nominee won Virginia, fourteen years since Virginia elected a Republican US Senator, and every year the demographics shift that much bluer. Of course, the House delegation and state legislature are still Republican-majority, but they're also all gerrymandered to hell and back.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 2:59 AM on June 22, 2016
I just had a horrible thought.
What if these dueling cable-tv speeches are all this campaign is going to be?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:39 AM on June 22, 2016
What if these dueling cable-tv speeches are all this campaign is going to be?
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:39 AM on June 22, 2016
Waiting for the new Trump
The political press is just dying to start writing "pivot" stories about the new Donald and how he's turned a new leaf and is ready to run a real campaign.
posted by octothorpe at 4:09 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
The political press is just dying to start writing "pivot" stories about the new Donald and how he's turned a new leaf and is ready to run a real campaign.
posted by octothorpe at 4:09 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Heh they can't even promise that Trump will do even the minimum of fund raising much less run a modern disciplined campaign.
Even politico which is the home to right wing puff pieces and basically reprints talking points and press releases without fact checking seems to doubt Trump can change.
posted by vuron at 4:35 AM on June 22, 2016
Even politico which is the home to right wing puff pieces and basically reprints talking points and press releases without fact checking seems to doubt Trump can change.
posted by vuron at 4:35 AM on June 22, 2016
What if these dueling cable-tv speeches are all this campaign is going to be?
What else are you hoping for? More ad buys? Bigger rallies? Twitter feuds? A literal whistle stop tour?
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:23 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
What else are you hoping for? More ad buys? Bigger rallies? Twitter feuds? A literal whistle stop tour?
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:23 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
I love how the media just gives Trump that kind of leeway. "He might be a lunatic racist basket case right now, but he could CHANGE!"
Somehow I don't hear any of them saying that Hillary Clinton is going to "pivot" into an even better candidate. Or pivot into a worse one. They assume Clinton will remain Clinton, but are standing by for "New Trump" to show up.
One of my worst fears is that Trump will indeed "pivot" and start acting like a rational candidate. Maybe he gets a new handler or the right medication or something. And then the media will start acting like "New Trump" is the only Trump, and completely forget all of his past nonsense, and I'll be part of a small group of people saying "WAIT, YOU FORGOT!"
posted by mmoncur at 5:29 AM on June 22, 2016 [14 favorites]
Somehow I don't hear any of them saying that Hillary Clinton is going to "pivot" into an even better candidate. Or pivot into a worse one. They assume Clinton will remain Clinton, but are standing by for "New Trump" to show up.
One of my worst fears is that Trump will indeed "pivot" and start acting like a rational candidate. Maybe he gets a new handler or the right medication or something. And then the media will start acting like "New Trump" is the only Trump, and completely forget all of his past nonsense, and I'll be part of a small group of people saying "WAIT, YOU FORGOT!"
posted by mmoncur at 5:29 AM on June 22, 2016 [14 favorites]
One of my worst fears is that Trump will indeed "pivot" and start acting like a rational candidate. Maybe he gets a new handler or the right medication or something. And then the media will start acting like "New Trump" is the only Trump, and completely forget all of his past nonsense, and I'll be part of a small group of people saying "WAIT, YOU FORGOT!"
...and then you'll feel like Veronica Cartwright in Invasion of the Body Snatchers when she figures out that Donald Sutherland, too, has turned into an alien and everybody will be pointing and shrieking at you.
posted by sour cream at 6:05 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
...and then you'll feel like Veronica Cartwright in Invasion of the Body Snatchers when she figures out that Donald Sutherland, too, has turned into an alien and everybody will be pointing and shrieking at you.
posted by sour cream at 6:05 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah, um, that dude is not going to pivot, and the memory of him is going to be pretty indelible.
posted by Artw at 6:05 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:05 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's more likely there'll come a day where everyone in the media is praising Republicans for being alright now and you'll be the one saying "but we saw their naked faces with Trump!" but mysteriously it doesn't count.
posted by Artw at 6:07 AM on June 22, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:07 AM on June 22, 2016 [14 favorites]
Alternate hot take: Trump is a crazy dude who believes a lot of crazy things.
Alternate alternate and most likely take: Many rich people give to both sides in politics to hedge their political bets. And don't forget that Trump has jumped back and forth between the parties and being "independent" a number of times over the decades. He's an opportunist who will work and source of political or financial power that he can.
posted by aught at 6:09 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Alternate alternate and most likely take: Many rich people give to both sides in politics to hedge their political bets. And don't forget that Trump has jumped back and forth between the parties and being "independent" a number of times over the decades. He's an opportunist who will work and source of political or financial power that he can.
posted by aught at 6:09 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
How long has he been doing his birther thing? I don't think the crazy is an act.
posted by Artw at 6:13 AM on June 22, 2016
posted by Artw at 6:13 AM on June 22, 2016
How long has he been doing his birther thing? I don't think the crazy is an act.
I think he's about as cynical and dishonest a public figure as has ever existed, but I don't know if that counts as "crazy" (and to be honest I am reluctant, for reasons that have been detailed by MeFites concerned about serious mental health issues, to casually throw around the term "crazy" in relation to Trump, unless there is some particular DSM diagnosis of megalomania or pathological liar you had in mind).
posted by aught at 6:26 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think he's about as cynical and dishonest a public figure as has ever existed, but I don't know if that counts as "crazy" (and to be honest I am reluctant, for reasons that have been detailed by MeFites concerned about serious mental health issues, to casually throw around the term "crazy" in relation to Trump, unless there is some particular DSM diagnosis of megalomania or pathological liar you had in mind).
posted by aught at 6:26 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
My father was a psychiatrist and die hard New Deal Democrat, and if he were still alive, he would have a field day analyzing Trump, as he did with Nixon.
I do not think that Trump is mentally ill, but I do think he has some sort of personality disorder.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:34 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
I do not think that Trump is mentally ill, but I do think he has some sort of personality disorder.
posted by haiku warrior at 6:34 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
The reality is that Trump had no money to fund an independent campaign he probably would've done so.
The Democratic party isn't completely immune to foreign invaders trying to take it over but it has pretty strong antibodies and there just isn't room for a unskilled wannabe like Trump to come in and infect it with all sorts of xenophobic intent. Most of the Democrats with nativist tendencies have already jumped ship to the Republican party anyway.
On the other hand the Paulites showed that there was room for someone to seize the narrative in the Republican party and that you could basically take some of the nativist and isolationist tendencies of the Libertarian base and made them text an turned up the dial to 11.
So basically Trump is the virus and the Republican party is the host. What's kind of interesting is that basically all the standard antiviral defenses more or less failed because there wasn't a charismatic party leader in the race, there was no ability to cut off his funding or his access to news outlets, there was no ability to buy him off with promises, etc.
Trump has skillfully inserted himself into the toxic mess that is the Republican base and managed to get enough of it thinking he's a legitimate part of the whole that his message is being transmitted out like a virus. The interesting thing is that while the Republican party seems unable to resist the invader the Trump virus is failing to take over the larger body of the US electorate.
posted by vuron at 6:39 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Democratic party isn't completely immune to foreign invaders trying to take it over but it has pretty strong antibodies and there just isn't room for a unskilled wannabe like Trump to come in and infect it with all sorts of xenophobic intent. Most of the Democrats with nativist tendencies have already jumped ship to the Republican party anyway.
On the other hand the Paulites showed that there was room for someone to seize the narrative in the Republican party and that you could basically take some of the nativist and isolationist tendencies of the Libertarian base and made them text an turned up the dial to 11.
So basically Trump is the virus and the Republican party is the host. What's kind of interesting is that basically all the standard antiviral defenses more or less failed because there wasn't a charismatic party leader in the race, there was no ability to cut off his funding or his access to news outlets, there was no ability to buy him off with promises, etc.
Trump has skillfully inserted himself into the toxic mess that is the Republican base and managed to get enough of it thinking he's a legitimate part of the whole that his message is being transmitted out like a virus. The interesting thing is that while the Republican party seems unable to resist the invader the Trump virus is failing to take over the larger body of the US electorate.
posted by vuron at 6:39 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
We hope.
posted by Artw at 6:40 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:40 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
I do not think that Trump is mentally ill, but I do think he has some sort of personality disorder.
Well, one can argue whether Donald Trump's high levels of narcissism, selfishness, and mendacity constitute a treatable mental illness, but I'm not sure it's a productive conversation to be had in this thread. And honestly any number of other corporate executives, celebrities, and political leaders could also be described in similar terms.
I find it more useful and accurate to just say he's a very dishonest and unpleasant man, and a terrible fit for the public office he is campaigning for.
posted by aught at 6:44 AM on June 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
Well, one can argue whether Donald Trump's high levels of narcissism, selfishness, and mendacity constitute a treatable mental illness, but I'm not sure it's a productive conversation to be had in this thread. And honestly any number of other corporate executives, celebrities, and political leaders could also be described in similar terms.
I find it more useful and accurate to just say he's a very dishonest and unpleasant man, and a terrible fit for the public office he is campaigning for.
posted by aught at 6:44 AM on June 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
I'm wondering how these people think this would work. Even if they change the rules to free up delegates on the first ballot, Trump has 65% of delegates and all of his opponents combined have only 35%.
Now, Trump's 65% aren't just randomly selected delegates. In most states each candidate gets to select their own slate of delegates. Presumably Trump's campaign directors in each state have selected delegates to represent him based on their loyalty to Trump. So the only way to overturn the results is if they can somehow persuade roughly 25% of Trump's hand-selected rabidly loyal delegates to betray him. How likely is that?
Augh okay sorry apparently organizing delegates to reject Trump is an INSANE AMOUNT OF WORK /and/ I am planning a fundraiser for myself and other rebel delegates and I didn't even try to log into Metafilter until like yesterday. SO
The thing to remember is that Trump does not actually have 65% of delegates if the delegates are unbound. Yes, in many states each candidate gets to select a slate of delegates BUT Trump doesn't really have effective campaign directors in each state. His organization is shit. And especially ones chosen from later states after people saw which way the wind was blowing are not necessarily serious Trump loyalists - they may be the people who saw that at a certain point, the game in town was Trump, and jumped on board. Another thing is that Trump is losing supporters as he gets crazier and crazier - so former Trump supporters now may be "oh, fuck this" supporters.
I'm running numbers right now for one of the major delegate revolt organizations, and we just are not seeing these loyal Trump delegates - if they exist, they're either in hiding, or completely out of touch with larger Republican methods of communication (which may well be real)
HOWEVER partially as a result of Priebus running around like a chicken with his head cut off, they're starting to poll the delegates, so assuming someone other than the RNC is doing it, we should have some hard data soon.
posted by corb at 6:56 AM on June 22, 2016 [43 favorites]
Now, Trump's 65% aren't just randomly selected delegates. In most states each candidate gets to select their own slate of delegates. Presumably Trump's campaign directors in each state have selected delegates to represent him based on their loyalty to Trump. So the only way to overturn the results is if they can somehow persuade roughly 25% of Trump's hand-selected rabidly loyal delegates to betray him. How likely is that?
Augh okay sorry apparently organizing delegates to reject Trump is an INSANE AMOUNT OF WORK /and/ I am planning a fundraiser for myself and other rebel delegates and I didn't even try to log into Metafilter until like yesterday. SO
The thing to remember is that Trump does not actually have 65% of delegates if the delegates are unbound. Yes, in many states each candidate gets to select a slate of delegates BUT Trump doesn't really have effective campaign directors in each state. His organization is shit. And especially ones chosen from later states after people saw which way the wind was blowing are not necessarily serious Trump loyalists - they may be the people who saw that at a certain point, the game in town was Trump, and jumped on board. Another thing is that Trump is losing supporters as he gets crazier and crazier - so former Trump supporters now may be "oh, fuck this" supporters.
I'm running numbers right now for one of the major delegate revolt organizations, and we just are not seeing these loyal Trump delegates - if they exist, they're either in hiding, or completely out of touch with larger Republican methods of communication (which may well be real)
HOWEVER partially as a result of Priebus running around like a chicken with his head cut off, they're starting to poll the delegates, so assuming someone other than the RNC is doing it, we should have some hard data soon.
posted by corb at 6:56 AM on June 22, 2016 [43 favorites]
Normally the tin foil hat brigade is easy to ignore but various online communities allow them to reach critical mass and then spew their venom all over the internet.
Selective reality is one of the more negative aspects of a more interconnected society. We can watch, read and listen to news sources that agree with our established preconceptions rather than challenge them, dismiss dissenting opinions as biased, then speak online only with people who share our views and reinforce them.
The problem is, selective reality (by definition) doesn't give us a full picture. So our preconceived notions about the way the world works and the motivations propelling behavior will inevitably crumble and shatter in the face of actual reality. This gives rise to conspiracy theories and rants about oppression and injustice.
posted by zarq at 6:58 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Selective reality is one of the more negative aspects of a more interconnected society. We can watch, read and listen to news sources that agree with our established preconceptions rather than challenge them, dismiss dissenting opinions as biased, then speak online only with people who share our views and reinforce them.
The problem is, selective reality (by definition) doesn't give us a full picture. So our preconceived notions about the way the world works and the motivations propelling behavior will inevitably crumble and shatter in the face of actual reality. This gives rise to conspiracy theories and rants about oppression and injustice.
posted by zarq at 6:58 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
vuron Trump has skillfully inserted himself into the toxic mess that is the Republican base and managed to get enough of it thinking he's a legitimate part of the whole that his message is being transmitted out like a virus. The interesting thing is that while the Republican party seems unable to resist the invader the Trump virus is failing to take over the larger body of the US electorate.
There's where I disagree with you. If we're going to push the analogy, Trump is more like an autoimmune disorder. He isn't a foreign invader colonizing he Republican Party, he's nothing new, nothing exotic, his only difference is that he's louder and less willing to stifle the true nature of the Republican message.
Like an autoimmune disorder he's the "pure" nature of the critter with the volume turned up to 11, and it turns out that's a problem.
The Republican Party has been paving the way for a Trump since the late 1960's. I'm honestly kind of surprised that it took so long to get a Trump, Pat Buchanan tried it earlier but even he was more of a dog whistler than Trump is and maybe that last faint shred of an attempt to seem like a decent human being was what made him fail.
When the entire Party is just a thin layer of bullshit covering up an agenda straight out of the KKK I don't think it's entirely correct to call someone who finally just stops with the bullshit an invasive force.
Yeah, he's technically an outsider in that Donald J Trump personally hasn't been a lifelong Republican climbing the ladder in the normal way, but from an ideological standpoint he's squarely in the center of Republicanism on the truly core issues.
I'd define the actual core issues of the Republican Party as straight white male supremacy, plutocracy, and bellicose displays of military triumphalism. Everything else is either a mask for those three or a support for those three, and really the first two could be lumped together as "support for a rigid social hierarchy".
Ronald Wilson Reagan pledged his support for the first through dog whistles and coded language. He stood, not quite literally but pretty damn close, on top of the graves of civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney and used coded language to declare to the nation that he intended to empower local authorities so that future murders of that nature could be properly covered up rather than uncovered by Federal intervention.
He did it through coded language and his choice of venue.
Trump does it through explicit language.
So yeah, Trump the man may well be an invader. But the ideology of Trumpism has been the very heart of the Republican party since Johnson passed the Civil Rights act and the plutocrats realized they could join forces with the white racists.
That this core of Republicanism, when the mask is lifted and the volume is turned up, is harmful to the Party doesn't make it invasive.
posted by sotonohito at 7:10 AM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
There's where I disagree with you. If we're going to push the analogy, Trump is more like an autoimmune disorder. He isn't a foreign invader colonizing he Republican Party, he's nothing new, nothing exotic, his only difference is that he's louder and less willing to stifle the true nature of the Republican message.
Like an autoimmune disorder he's the "pure" nature of the critter with the volume turned up to 11, and it turns out that's a problem.
The Republican Party has been paving the way for a Trump since the late 1960's. I'm honestly kind of surprised that it took so long to get a Trump, Pat Buchanan tried it earlier but even he was more of a dog whistler than Trump is and maybe that last faint shred of an attempt to seem like a decent human being was what made him fail.
When the entire Party is just a thin layer of bullshit covering up an agenda straight out of the KKK I don't think it's entirely correct to call someone who finally just stops with the bullshit an invasive force.
Yeah, he's technically an outsider in that Donald J Trump personally hasn't been a lifelong Republican climbing the ladder in the normal way, but from an ideological standpoint he's squarely in the center of Republicanism on the truly core issues.
I'd define the actual core issues of the Republican Party as straight white male supremacy, plutocracy, and bellicose displays of military triumphalism. Everything else is either a mask for those three or a support for those three, and really the first two could be lumped together as "support for a rigid social hierarchy".
Ronald Wilson Reagan pledged his support for the first through dog whistles and coded language. He stood, not quite literally but pretty damn close, on top of the graves of civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney and used coded language to declare to the nation that he intended to empower local authorities so that future murders of that nature could be properly covered up rather than uncovered by Federal intervention.
He did it through coded language and his choice of venue.
Trump does it through explicit language.
So yeah, Trump the man may well be an invader. But the ideology of Trumpism has been the very heart of the Republican party since Johnson passed the Civil Rights act and the plutocrats realized they could join forces with the white racists.
That this core of Republicanism, when the mask is lifted and the volume is turned up, is harmful to the Party doesn't make it invasive.
posted by sotonohito at 7:10 AM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
It's certainly impossible to have any sympathy for any Republucans seeking to distance themselves from him, after okaying a lightly disguised version of the same sentiments for so many years.
posted by Artw at 7:25 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:25 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Poll: Nearly Half of Sanders Supporters Won't Support Clinton
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:31 AM on June 22, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:31 AM on June 22, 2016
Poll: Clinton Has 12-Point Edge Over Trump in Bloomberg National Poll (same poll, even, run through a different filter :-)
posted by effbot at 7:42 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by effbot at 7:42 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
I would like to know how many of them are abstaining for voting, voting for someone else but not Trump, or voting for Trump.
Abstaining: They get my contempt for not participating in the democratic process.
Voting for someone else, not Trump: Fair enough, you do you.
Voting for Trump: GTFO
posted by like_neon at 7:45 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Abstaining: They get my contempt for not participating in the democratic process.
Voting for someone else, not Trump: Fair enough, you do you.
Voting for Trump: GTFO
posted by like_neon at 7:45 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
like_neon, per the link A June 14th Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson.
Which I guess leaves about 5 percent at home.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:48 AM on June 22, 2016
Which I guess leaves about 5 percent at home.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:48 AM on June 22, 2016
this is just bewildering nonsense:
If Sanders does endorse Clinton, even some of his staunchest “Never Clinton” supporters could ultimately come around. “I do follow her on Facebook, and I don’t care about her emails,” says Armes, the Beeville, Texas, homemaker planning to vote for Trump. “Ugh, this is so hard. I guess an endorsement would probably sway me.”
posted by zutalors! at 7:50 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
If Sanders does endorse Clinton, even some of his staunchest “Never Clinton” supporters could ultimately come around. “I do follow her on Facebook, and I don’t care about her emails,” says Armes, the Beeville, Texas, homemaker planning to vote for Trump. “Ugh, this is so hard. I guess an endorsement would probably sway me.”
posted by zutalors! at 7:50 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Poll: Nearly Half of Sanders Supporters Won't Support Clinton
If correct, all that does really does is confirm that Sanders was drawing a ton of his support from people who were never going to vote Dem anyway.
posted by dersins at 7:52 AM on June 22, 2016 [36 favorites]
A June 14th Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson.So 40% of Sanders supporters plan to vote for either Trump or Johnson?
If correct, all that does really does is confirm that Sanders was drawing a ton of his support from people who were never going to vote Dem anyway.
posted by dersins at 7:52 AM on June 22, 2016 [36 favorites]
There is absolutely no way that 45% of current Sanders supporters move to Trump or Johnson or Stein in the long term. It simply will not happen.
I think what is being reflected right now is remaining bitterness on the part of the Sanders supporters regarding the Primary process and the lack of a definite attempt by Sanders to reintegrate with the rest of the Party.
Short term I'm not really worried about it because Sanders is continuing to fade into obscurity in terms of being able to get his message out and his fundraising is drying up quickly. Long term I figure more and more "Never Shillary" voters will back themselves down from the ledge especially as they continue to see evidence that Trump is clearly unsuitable to be President.
Yes some will be unable to hold their noses because of whatever but the truth of the matter is that most voters realize that 3rd party candidates are spoilers at best and having spoilers in this race probably doesn't help the future look any brighter.
posted by vuron at 7:55 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think what is being reflected right now is remaining bitterness on the part of the Sanders supporters regarding the Primary process and the lack of a definite attempt by Sanders to reintegrate with the rest of the Party.
Short term I'm not really worried about it because Sanders is continuing to fade into obscurity in terms of being able to get his message out and his fundraising is drying up quickly. Long term I figure more and more "Never Shillary" voters will back themselves down from the ledge especially as they continue to see evidence that Trump is clearly unsuitable to be President.
Yes some will be unable to hold their noses because of whatever but the truth of the matter is that most voters realize that 3rd party candidates are spoilers at best and having spoilers in this race probably doesn't help the future look any brighter.
posted by vuron at 7:55 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also, quotes like this
Which, well.
posted by dersins at 7:57 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
Eric Brooks, 52, a community organizer in San Francisco, won’t be among them. “I will absolutely never vote for Clinton,” says Brooks, a Sanders supporter who participated in the Bloomberg poll. Although Brooks indicated in the poll that he’ll support Johnson, that is not his intention. “I’d be okay voting for Johnson as a protest vote,” says Brooks. “But as a Green Party member, I’m going to vote for [Green Party candidate] Jill Stein...kind of call the validity of the poll into question just a teeny bit. Dude is outright admitting "Well, I said this, but actually I was lying."
Which, well.
posted by dersins at 7:57 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
There is absolutely no way that 45% of current Sanders supporters move to Trump or Johnson or Stein in the long term. It simply will not happen.
I think it's absolutely possible, but like dersins mentioned above, they were never voting for the Democrat to begin with.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:57 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think it's absolutely possible, but like dersins mentioned above, they were never voting for the Democrat to begin with.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:57 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was a bit stunned to see a group of people in Bernie shirts congregating to organize...something...at a bar in NYC
posted by zutalors! at 7:57 AM on June 22, 2016
posted by zutalors! at 7:57 AM on June 22, 2016
I agree dersin, it seems like there were a lot of "independents" that don't want to admit to voting Republican consistently propping up the Sanders campaign. Perhaps that was because of an affinity to his policies but it could've been because of a anti-Hillary sentiment and a complete lack of faith in any of the former Republican offerings.
When you look at how poorly Sanders did in states with closed primaries it would seem to suggest that while some percentage of Sanders supporters were obviously Democrats and some were Democrat leaning independents that there were definitely a whole host of Sanders supporters that operate in this weird mixing pot of socialist, libertarian, and-alt-right ideologies even though I don't really see how you can be consistent with any of them while also promoting the other ones.
posted by vuron at 8:01 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
When you look at how poorly Sanders did in states with closed primaries it would seem to suggest that while some percentage of Sanders supporters were obviously Democrats and some were Democrat leaning independents that there were definitely a whole host of Sanders supporters that operate in this weird mixing pot of socialist, libertarian, and-alt-right ideologies even though I don't really see how you can be consistent with any of them while also promoting the other ones.
posted by vuron at 8:01 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump speaking now, giving a teleprompter speech on Hillary's flaws. It's so weird hearing him try to act like a normal person.
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:01 AM on June 22, 2016
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:01 AM on June 22, 2016
I think it's absolutely possible, but like dersins mentioned above, they were never voting for the Democrat to begin with.
And, honestly, they clearly had/have zero understanding of the actual policy positions of any of the candidates. Sanders, Trump and Johnson really only have one thing in common.
OK, three:
Old
White
Men
posted by dersins at 8:02 AM on June 22, 2016 [18 favorites]
And, honestly, they clearly had/have zero understanding of the actual policy positions of any of the candidates. Sanders, Trump and Johnson really only have one thing in common.
OK, three:
Old
White
Men
posted by dersins at 8:02 AM on June 22, 2016 [18 favorites]
Also supporters in the comments are getting excited that 30k are watching the youtube livestream, but I watched Lin-Manuel Miranda draw over 20k yesterday on a spur of the moment periscope romp through his dressing room so....
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:03 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:03 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
I've been wondering WTF Sanders is thinking for weeks now.
I could understand waiting until after the DC primary. But he should have conceded and endorsed Clinton after that.
Now he's just quietly fading into obscurity, his movement stalled and lashing out randomly for lack of leadership, and he's what, doing the Achilles sulking in his tent thing I guess?
He could be out there really doing good, and I don't just mean helping Clinton beat Trump, though that alone would be great, I mean using the power and momentum he once had to actually influence the Democratic Party in a more leftward direction.
I'm all but certain that opportunity has passed and at this point the only positive thing he can do is endorse Clinton and campaign enthusiastically for her. He pissed away his chance to do anything to make the Democratic Party better.
As a leftist I believe that Sanders has really bungled things and as a result the standard Democratic Party disdain and contempt for the left is going to be even stronger than it was before he stared. It could have been great Bernie, but you fucked it up with your ego.
Christ, what an asshole.
posted by sotonohito at 8:04 AM on June 22, 2016 [28 favorites]
I could understand waiting until after the DC primary. But he should have conceded and endorsed Clinton after that.
Now he's just quietly fading into obscurity, his movement stalled and lashing out randomly for lack of leadership, and he's what, doing the Achilles sulking in his tent thing I guess?
He could be out there really doing good, and I don't just mean helping Clinton beat Trump, though that alone would be great, I mean using the power and momentum he once had to actually influence the Democratic Party in a more leftward direction.
I'm all but certain that opportunity has passed and at this point the only positive thing he can do is endorse Clinton and campaign enthusiastically for her. He pissed away his chance to do anything to make the Democratic Party better.
As a leftist I believe that Sanders has really bungled things and as a result the standard Democratic Party disdain and contempt for the left is going to be even stronger than it was before he stared. It could have been great Bernie, but you fucked it up with your ego.
Christ, what an asshole.
posted by sotonohito at 8:04 AM on June 22, 2016 [28 favorites]
30,000 watching a livestream is nothing berniebros.
Right this second, I just checked, a random person playing Overwatch is getting 7,800 people watching his livestream.
When J. Random Gamer can get almost a third as many people watching him talk while he plays a video game as a theoretically major league politician gets with a major speech, well, that politician is not major league. Maybe he was once, but he's a has been now.
posted by sotonohito at 8:08 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right this second, I just checked, a random person playing Overwatch is getting 7,800 people watching his livestream.
When J. Random Gamer can get almost a third as many people watching him talk while he plays a video game as a theoretically major league politician gets with a major speech, well, that politician is not major league. Maybe he was once, but he's a has been now.
posted by sotonohito at 8:08 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yep as a progressive who also likes socialist policies I can't help but think that Sanders failures of leadership over the last couple of months have actually weakened the standing of the progressive movement within the Democratic party.
Fundamentally the absolute failure to recognize reality and now the stubborn resistance to actually endorsing just seem like Sanders was never about US but was all about ME and his personal desires and grudges. I understand that I am engaging in a bit of blaming and that it's incumbent on progressives to show the rest of the party that no we aren't a bunch of spoiled kids wanting to run home with the ball because we lost the game but damn dude realize that right now your actions can result in a little guilt by association.
posted by vuron at 8:09 AM on June 22, 2016 [13 favorites]
Fundamentally the absolute failure to recognize reality and now the stubborn resistance to actually endorsing just seem like Sanders was never about US but was all about ME and his personal desires and grudges. I understand that I am engaging in a bit of blaming and that it's incumbent on progressives to show the rest of the party that no we aren't a bunch of spoiled kids wanting to run home with the ball because we lost the game but damn dude realize that right now your actions can result in a little guilt by association.
posted by vuron at 8:09 AM on June 22, 2016 [13 favorites]
Trump speaking now
I listened to him for a couple of minutes, and its his same old way of just rambling through crap. Sounds like there are about 20 people in the room because when there is applause, you can hear individual claps.
It's so weird hearing him try to act like a normal person.
Saw this a few days ago:
"As long as he continues to say crazy shit, he will continue to dominate the news and will continue to attract crowds. The moment he ceases to entertain – to say crazy shit – he will evaporate."
I hope this turns out to be true.
posted by cashman at 8:11 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
I listened to him for a couple of minutes, and its his same old way of just rambling through crap. Sounds like there are about 20 people in the room because when there is applause, you can hear individual claps.
It's so weird hearing him try to act like a normal person.
Saw this a few days ago:
"As long as he continues to say crazy shit, he will continue to dominate the news and will continue to attract crowds. The moment he ceases to entertain – to say crazy shit – he will evaporate."
I hope this turns out to be true.
posted by cashman at 8:11 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
vuron, well I think from a strategic standpoint there could be value in threatening to pack up and leave.
Look at how much leverage Lieberman got for his extreme right wing agenda by doing exactly that, he crippled the ACA just for starters. Same with Ben Nelson.
Admittedly I believe that there is a strong pro-right bias in the Democratic Party, at least to the extent that Democrats voting for and strongly advocating a rightist agenda seem to get a lot less flack from the mainline Democrats than Democrats voting for and advocating a leftist agenda do.
For the Democratic Party there's no such thing as being too right wing, but it is shockingly easy to be too left wing.
But a threat to pack up and go home is made not on any strategic basis but just out of a snit and has no hope of gaining anything than it is clearly harmful to the cause.
posted by sotonohito at 8:20 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Look at how much leverage Lieberman got for his extreme right wing agenda by doing exactly that, he crippled the ACA just for starters. Same with Ben Nelson.
Admittedly I believe that there is a strong pro-right bias in the Democratic Party, at least to the extent that Democrats voting for and strongly advocating a rightist agenda seem to get a lot less flack from the mainline Democrats than Democrats voting for and advocating a leftist agenda do.
For the Democratic Party there's no such thing as being too right wing, but it is shockingly easy to be too left wing.
But a threat to pack up and go home is made not on any strategic basis but just out of a snit and has no hope of gaining anything than it is clearly harmful to the cause.
posted by sotonohito at 8:20 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
He's banging on about donations from the Middle East and China to the Clintons, which is a high stakes game given the history of Republican ties thereto...
posted by Devonian at 8:21 AM on June 22, 2016
posted by Devonian at 8:21 AM on June 22, 2016
I'm surprised that people are surprised that Sanders is acting this way. I was interested in his campaign but I felt like I couldn't support him because his whole supermajority strategy wasn't a strategy, it was just "trust me, I got this." And I don't think ultimately people do trust him.
posted by zutalors! at 8:25 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:25 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
A June 14th Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters
I was wondering about their reliability and bias, and I see Bloomberg doesn't show up in 538's ratings of poll takers. I'm not sure what that means.
posted by aught at 8:26 AM on June 22, 2016
I was wondering about their reliability and bias, and I see Bloomberg doesn't show up in 538's ratings of poll takers. I'm not sure what that means.
posted by aught at 8:26 AM on June 22, 2016
For the Democratic Party there's no such thing as being too right wing
No, this is not accurate.
posted by zutalors! at 8:26 AM on June 22, 2016 [28 favorites]
vuron: There is absolutely no way that 45% of current Sanders supporters move to Trump or Johnson or Stein in the long term. It simply will not happen.
I bet that a large portion of them will. And I further bet that some of them will be mefites.
A bunch of election threads here over the last few months have been filled with Sanders supporters who haaaaated Clinton. Loathed her. She was vilified for being in Wall Street's pocket, or for being too hawkish. Or for being an establishment politician, defined as an untrustworthy, corrupt liar. Some of those mefite Sanders supporters told Clinton supporters that we were supporting a warmongering murderer.
From the article:
posted by zarq at 8:27 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
I bet that a large portion of them will. And I further bet that some of them will be mefites.
A bunch of election threads here over the last few months have been filled with Sanders supporters who haaaaated Clinton. Loathed her. She was vilified for being in Wall Street's pocket, or for being too hawkish. Or for being an establishment politician, defined as an untrustworthy, corrupt liar. Some of those mefite Sanders supporters told Clinton supporters that we were supporting a warmongering murderer.
From the article:
Eric Brooks, 52, a community organizer in San Francisco, won’t be among them. “I will absolutely never vote for Clinton,” says Brooks, a Sanders supporter who participated in the Bloomberg poll. Although Brooks indicated in the poll that he’ll support Johnson, that is not his intention. “I’d be okay voting for Johnson as a protest vote,” says Brooks. “But as a Green Party member, I’m going to vote for [Green Party candidate] Jill Stein. If you care about the climate, like I do, it makes a lot of sense strategically to vote for Stein, because she could get five percent, which has implications for the Green Party getting federal funding.”I see no reason why they won't carry that attitude all the way to election day.
Brooks says he doesn’t worry that supporting Stein could throw the election to Trump because he expects Johnson, the Libertarian, to siphon Republican votes from Trump: “Nobody in this election has to worry about being a spoiler.”
posted by zarq at 8:27 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
A bunch of election threads here over the last few months have been filled with Sanders supporters who haaaaated Clinton. Loathed her. She was vilified for being in Wall Street's pocket, or for being too hawkish. Or for being an establishment politician, defined as an untrustworthy, corrupt liar. Some of those mefite Sanders supporters told Clinton supporters that we were supporting a warmongering murderer.
This was 100% me. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:28 AM on June 22, 2016 [49 favorites]
This was 100% me. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:28 AM on June 22, 2016 [49 favorites]
Look at how much leverage Lieberman got for his extreme right wing agenda by doing exactly that, he crippled the ACA just for starters.
And where is he now? From what I understand, the last time he was up for re-election, his numbers came back so bad that he decided to just retire. And prior to that, he was successfully primaried, and the party supported Lamont - it just didn't help that Lieberman was a long standing politician who could successfully run on his own image in his home state. And then his behavior after undermined that enough to kill his support.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:30 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
And where is he now? From what I understand, the last time he was up for re-election, his numbers came back so bad that he decided to just retire. And prior to that, he was successfully primaried, and the party supported Lamont - it just didn't help that Lieberman was a long standing politician who could successfully run on his own image in his home state. And then his behavior after undermined that enough to kill his support.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:30 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
This was 100% me. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.
Which is great, but I have no idea if you're representative or not.
posted by zarq at 8:31 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which is great, but I have no idea if you're representative or not.
posted by zarq at 8:31 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Trump stream ended abruptly with an enormous electronic howl - just like the scene in 2001 when the monolith at TMA-1 activated and deafened the astronauts.
I think he just summoned the Overlords.
posted by Devonian at 8:34 AM on June 22, 2016 [9 favorites]
I think he just summoned the Overlords.
posted by Devonian at 8:34 AM on June 22, 2016 [9 favorites]
Is anyone depressed by media coverage? NPR this morning did a story about Trump being about to give a speech and it was basically "here's all the awful things he's likely to say about Clinton" which was structured in a way that it just re-enforces all the awful (and untrue) claims. It was exactly how misinformation is maintained and propagated because the most memorable part of the story were the awful stories which is the thing that sticks in your mind, not that they were false or even that Trump might say them. :(
posted by R343L at 8:39 AM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by R343L at 8:39 AM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
Is anyone depressed by media coverage?
Watch more Rachel Maddow. She praised Trump last night for having tweets that were mostly spelled correctly and had proper grammar.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:40 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Watch more Rachel Maddow. She praised Trump last night for having tweets that were mostly spelled correctly and had proper grammar.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:40 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
The New York Times fact checked Trump's speech today in real time.
posted by zarq at 8:44 AM on June 22, 2016
posted by zarq at 8:44 AM on June 22, 2016
The Trump stream ended abruptly with an enormous electronic howl
DEAN SCREAM 2016
posted by Existential Dread at 8:45 AM on June 22, 2016
DEAN SCREAM 2016
posted by Existential Dread at 8:45 AM on June 22, 2016
R317: sure I could watch other media that's more overtly left wing. I just find it depressing when even NPR is falling into obvious traps. :(
posted by R343L at 8:47 AM on June 22, 2016
posted by R343L at 8:47 AM on June 22, 2016
NPR this morning did a story about Trump being about to give a speech and it was basically "here's all the awful things he's likely to say about Clinton" which was structured in a way that it just re-enforces all the awful (and untrue) claims.
Yup. They also let conservative evangelical leader Ralph Reed claim, unchallenged, that there's "IRS harassment" of churches that violate the rules about not engaging in overt political activity.
To be fair, on the Trump preview story, NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson did acknowledge that five investigations ruled Vince Foster's death a suicide, not a murder, but it also sounded like she couldn't wait for Trump to throw her some red meat to report on all those terrible things Hillary Clinton did.
posted by Gelatin at 8:49 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yup. They also let conservative evangelical leader Ralph Reed claim, unchallenged, that there's "IRS harassment" of churches that violate the rules about not engaging in overt political activity.
To be fair, on the Trump preview story, NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson did acknowledge that five investigations ruled Vince Foster's death a suicide, not a murder, but it also sounded like she couldn't wait for Trump to throw her some red meat to report on all those terrible things Hillary Clinton did.
posted by Gelatin at 8:49 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
NPR has been awful for election coverage for like 16 years.
I don't know what the problem is but there is only the minimum amount of reporting going on and some of their reporters might as well be paid by the campaigns.
Even if you exclude Mara Liassons relationship as Fox News contributor it just seems like she consistently goes with the false equivalency bullshit all the time. That and NPRs stubborn requirement to give both sides of an argument equal time even if one side is obviously stupid as fuck and has no basis in fact create a situation where in an attempt to seem fair and balanced NPR gives many right wing ideas undue consideration.
The inevitably helps shift the Overton window further to the right simply by legitimizing fringe positions.
posted by vuron at 8:49 AM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
I don't know what the problem is but there is only the minimum amount of reporting going on and some of their reporters might as well be paid by the campaigns.
Even if you exclude Mara Liassons relationship as Fox News contributor it just seems like she consistently goes with the false equivalency bullshit all the time. That and NPRs stubborn requirement to give both sides of an argument equal time even if one side is obviously stupid as fuck and has no basis in fact create a situation where in an attempt to seem fair and balanced NPR gives many right wing ideas undue consideration.
The inevitably helps shift the Overton window further to the right simply by legitimizing fringe positions.
posted by vuron at 8:49 AM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
Also I imagine many general election voters don't actually care about proper grammar. I don't really: it's only funny because there's so much more awful about Trump-the-candidate that we have to take our minds off the "kick out the Muslims" rhetoric and make jokes about small hands or grammar because that at least feels like normal political nonsense. :(
posted by R343L at 8:50 AM on June 22, 2016
posted by R343L at 8:50 AM on June 22, 2016
That and NPRs stubborn requirement to give both sides of an argument equal time even if one side is obviously stupid as fuck and has no basis in fact create a situation where in an attempt to seem fair and balanced NPR gives many right wing ideas undue consideration.
Yup. I love NPR and listen to it my entire commute, but this consistently drives me nuts.
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:52 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yup. I love NPR and listen to it my entire commute, but this consistently drives me nuts.
posted by DynamiteToast at 8:52 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
It was interestimg. listening to that Trump speech, how similar it was to the Brexit hymnbook - lots of 'unshackle ourselves from these hopeless corrupt people who just want to destroy your lives, especially all the foreign influences' and 'take back the jobs and give them to ourselves', all in a framework of not so much economic illiteracy as ignoring the economics altogether. He's going to cut taxes and restrict trade, but invest yugely in infrastructure, the military and inner cities.
The depressing thing is that a similarly economically blind message has resonated well in the \uk - where nobody doubts that a Brexit will be very damaging economically, but lots of people think that's a price worth paying for... uh... Putting Britain First (aka, keeping the foreigners out - at least we spread our xenophobia to white Europe as well as all those places filled with dusky faces).
I hope that doesn't play as well in the US, which is so much more diverse anyway. It doesn't play in London, after all.
posted by Devonian at 8:52 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
The depressing thing is that a similarly economically blind message has resonated well in the \uk - where nobody doubts that a Brexit will be very damaging economically, but lots of people think that's a price worth paying for... uh... Putting Britain First (aka, keeping the foreigners out - at least we spread our xenophobia to white Europe as well as all those places filled with dusky faces).
I hope that doesn't play as well in the US, which is so much more diverse anyway. It doesn't play in London, after all.
posted by Devonian at 8:52 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
For the Democratic Party there's no such thing as being too right wing, but it is shockingly easy to be too left wing.
Which is why Jim Webb is still a strong contender, forcing Clinton to consider the possibility that she might lose in a tight neck-and-neck -
Oh wait.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:56 AM on June 22, 2016 [16 favorites]
Which is why Jim Webb is still a strong contender, forcing Clinton to consider the possibility that she might lose in a tight neck-and-neck -
Oh wait.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:56 AM on June 22, 2016 [16 favorites]
I'm dyslexic. I'm also an educator. Spelling and grammar are extremely important to me. Our president should be able to set an example of proper language use, even on Twitter. Trump writes like a YouTube commenter not like a role model.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:59 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:59 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
If you're ever wondering why elections matter, the GOP members of the House have turned off the cameras in reaction to the Democrats sitting on the floor to protest the lack of gun votes.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:01 AM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:01 AM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
The last couple of days have been pretty eventful, what with the Trump campaign in chaos, revelations about wide disparities among Democrats and GOP in fundraising and ground support, HRC's anti-Trump speech yesterday and this morning's "I Know You Are, but What Am I?" response from the vulgar slumlord.
Sure could make for an interesting new thread, eh?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:05 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
Sure could make for an interesting new thread, eh?
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:05 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
I do not think that Trump is mentally ill, but I do think he has some sort of personality disorder.
It's come in threads before, and i think even MeTa... But i really wish we could avoid doing the calling people crazy/internet psychoanalysis thing here.
Like, as a non neurotypical person, it just generally bugs the shit out of me and doesn't add all that much to the thread. Definitely a net negative.
posted by emptythought at 9:06 AM on June 22, 2016 [16 favorites]
It's come in threads before, and i think even MeTa... But i really wish we could avoid doing the calling people crazy/internet psychoanalysis thing here.
Like, as a non neurotypical person, it just generally bugs the shit out of me and doesn't add all that much to the thread. Definitely a net negative.
posted by emptythought at 9:06 AM on June 22, 2016 [16 favorites]
There have been a shitton of polls of Sanders supporters showing that the vast majority of them are voting for Clinton. Let's not freak out over the one outlier poll, for god's sake.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:10 AM on June 22, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:10 AM on June 22, 2016 [22 favorites]
Hillary Clinton will campaign Monday in Cincinnati with progressive U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts – marking Clinton's first public appearance in Cincinnati this election cycle and her first campaign stop with Warren, a possible vice presidential pick.
posted by cashman at 9:11 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by cashman at 9:11 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
>>Trump directed ~20% of his campaign spending in May—$1.1M—to firms he owns & travel reimbursements for his kids
>i don't know what's worse, that this is how he's spending his money, or that he only spent 5.5 million in may
One of the things I found out from one of my well-connected Republican friends (former office-holder, candidate, etc etc) is that one of the unusual things Trump is doing is using existing Trump business staffers as his on-the-ground campaign staff across the country.
So instead of hiring some of the 'usual suspects' in the state Republican Party machine, the folks who have helped run five dozen campaigns over the past 30 years or whatever, who know everyone and have all the local party connections, who have personal connections with the local party volunteers, and all the rest Trump is relying to a great degree on employees of his various companies to do this type of work.
I would guess that is where at least some of this money is going. It also explains at least to a degree, how he is able to get along with only 30 full-time campaign staff etc. $1.1 million buys the time of something like 200-300 full time employees for a month.
It still doesn't catch him up to Clinton by any means, in terms of having an actual organized, funded campaign, but it does help explain how he is doing a little more than you might expect with a lot less than other candidates.
Also, "didn't hire any of the local Republican party campaign workers" is a great way to ensure that the Republican party organization in every state around the country doesn't have any particular loyalty to your campaign . . .
posted by flug at 9:20 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
>i don't know what's worse, that this is how he's spending his money, or that he only spent 5.5 million in may
One of the things I found out from one of my well-connected Republican friends (former office-holder, candidate, etc etc) is that one of the unusual things Trump is doing is using existing Trump business staffers as his on-the-ground campaign staff across the country.
So instead of hiring some of the 'usual suspects' in the state Republican Party machine, the folks who have helped run five dozen campaigns over the past 30 years or whatever, who know everyone and have all the local party connections, who have personal connections with the local party volunteers, and all the rest Trump is relying to a great degree on employees of his various companies to do this type of work.
I would guess that is where at least some of this money is going. It also explains at least to a degree, how he is able to get along with only 30 full-time campaign staff etc. $1.1 million buys the time of something like 200-300 full time employees for a month.
It still doesn't catch him up to Clinton by any means, in terms of having an actual organized, funded campaign, but it does help explain how he is doing a little more than you might expect with a lot less than other candidates.
Also, "didn't hire any of the local Republican party campaign workers" is a great way to ensure that the Republican party organization in every state around the country doesn't have any particular loyalty to your campaign . . .
posted by flug at 9:20 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
I listened to him for a couple of minutes, and its his same old way of just rambling through crap.
There's an interesting compare and contrast between Hugo Chavez and Donald Trump. Lots of stylistic similarities; obvious policy differences.
"Chávez also improvised and zigzagged from the personal to the political, whimsical to the serious. It injected energy and tension into speeches because anything could happen. He would discuss his favourite book, then veer to trade deals, housing construction, baseball, phone calls from Havana, conversations with his daughters, Latin American solidarity, socialist cities, Barack Obama, alleged coup attempts and his desire to jail opponents and “traitors”, who in many cases were subsequently jailed . ......... Trump revels in his persona from The Apprentice: a boss unafraid to usher his signature catchphrase “you’re fired”. Chávez gloried in such power. In 2002 he went on TV to dispatch executives of the national oil company, PDVSA, naming and shaming with gusto. “Eddy Ramírez, general director, until today, of the Palmaven division. You’re out!” He grinned and blew a whistle with each firing."
posted by Rumple at 9:23 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
There's an interesting compare and contrast between Hugo Chavez and Donald Trump. Lots of stylistic similarities; obvious policy differences.
"Chávez also improvised and zigzagged from the personal to the political, whimsical to the serious. It injected energy and tension into speeches because anything could happen. He would discuss his favourite book, then veer to trade deals, housing construction, baseball, phone calls from Havana, conversations with his daughters, Latin American solidarity, socialist cities, Barack Obama, alleged coup attempts and his desire to jail opponents and “traitors”, who in many cases were subsequently jailed . ......... Trump revels in his persona from The Apprentice: a boss unafraid to usher his signature catchphrase “you’re fired”. Chávez gloried in such power. In 2002 he went on TV to dispatch executives of the national oil company, PDVSA, naming and shaming with gusto. “Eddy Ramírez, general director, until today, of the Palmaven division. You’re out!” He grinned and blew a whistle with each firing."
posted by Rumple at 9:23 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
But don't you still have to pay those people, whether they're reservationists picking up extra shifts phone-banking donors or Official Campaign Employees?
I guess the money flow could look different if you lump that into "spending on Trump properties" rather than "payroll", but money is money, and he doesn't have it, isn't raising it, and certainly isn't spending it.
posted by Sara C. at 9:25 AM on June 22, 2016
I guess the money flow could look different if you lump that into "spending on Trump properties" rather than "payroll", but money is money, and he doesn't have it, isn't raising it, and certainly isn't spending it.
posted by Sara C. at 9:25 AM on June 22, 2016
Donald Trump’s problems are making it too easy for Democrats to ignore their own
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:27 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:27 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
It also explains at least to a degree, how he is able to get along with only 30 full-time campaign staff etc. $1.1 million buys the time of something like 200-300 full time employees for a month.
Why do that? What benefit does it have to under- or mis-report staff numbers and strength?
There are a couple of reasons I can think of off the top of my head: One is that it's easier to dodge taxes, reporters, and other meddlers if you fly under the radar with a small "iceberg tip" campaign staff, while all the inner workings are kept in your private film. The second possibility is that Trump is fighting an insurgency campaign and thinks this will lull his opponents into a false sense of confidence and make him look like a scrappy, lean, and nimble candidate fighting against the machine.
posted by FJT at 9:34 AM on June 22, 2016
Why do that? What benefit does it have to under- or mis-report staff numbers and strength?
There are a couple of reasons I can think of off the top of my head: One is that it's easier to dodge taxes, reporters, and other meddlers if you fly under the radar with a small "iceberg tip" campaign staff, while all the inner workings are kept in your private film. The second possibility is that Trump is fighting an insurgency campaign and thinks this will lull his opponents into a false sense of confidence and make him look like a scrappy, lean, and nimble candidate fighting against the machine.
posted by FJT at 9:34 AM on June 22, 2016
Yeah, I'm just really tired of the hyperbole that the entire Democratic Party is a bunch of frothing fascists. It's inaccurate, minimizing and unproductive.
posted by zutalors! at 9:34 AM on June 22, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 9:34 AM on June 22, 2016 [17 favorites]
In a two-party system, in a massive country with 300 million people, neither party is going to be in uniform lockstep doctrinal agreement, nor should they be.
Broadly speaking, the Dems represent the leftmost half of the mainstream and the Republicans represent the rightmost half of the mainstream. The Dems ought to be listening to both moderate voices and leftist voices, and I would argue that they are, because if they were not, they would never have allowed Sanders - who is not a Democrat, really - to run for president as a Democrat in the first place. And his astonishing success - yes, success, not winning the whole damn thing does not mean this wasn't an unprecedented success - is a demonstration that the national policy platform of the Democrats can support a move leftward from where they've been the past couple of decades. Which is great. It means that 'the leftmost half of the mainstream' is itself moving further left.
But it would be unreasonable for the leftmost quarter of the party to totally dictate policy. Even if I, personally, think that quarter is 100% correct on every issue. Because those other 3/4ths of the party also deserve representation. We can work to pull them further left in a number of ways, but we can't just say "this entire party is super-left now, deal with it," because 1) we don't have the numbers and 2) we don't have the right. Sadly enough, other people's opinions also count for something even if I personally don't agree with them.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:42 AM on June 22, 2016 [30 favorites]
Broadly speaking, the Dems represent the leftmost half of the mainstream and the Republicans represent the rightmost half of the mainstream. The Dems ought to be listening to both moderate voices and leftist voices, and I would argue that they are, because if they were not, they would never have allowed Sanders - who is not a Democrat, really - to run for president as a Democrat in the first place. And his astonishing success - yes, success, not winning the whole damn thing does not mean this wasn't an unprecedented success - is a demonstration that the national policy platform of the Democrats can support a move leftward from where they've been the past couple of decades. Which is great. It means that 'the leftmost half of the mainstream' is itself moving further left.
But it would be unreasonable for the leftmost quarter of the party to totally dictate policy. Even if I, personally, think that quarter is 100% correct on every issue. Because those other 3/4ths of the party also deserve representation. We can work to pull them further left in a number of ways, but we can't just say "this entire party is super-left now, deal with it," because 1) we don't have the numbers and 2) we don't have the right. Sadly enough, other people's opinions also count for something even if I personally don't agree with them.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:42 AM on June 22, 2016 [30 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments removed. sotonohito, I already left a note a couple days ago about your whole arguing-repeatedly-with-everybody dynamic, and it's been an ongoing thing that has gotta stop, one way or the other.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:44 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:44 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also, "didn't hire any of the local Republican party campaign workers" is a great way to ensure that the Republican party organization in every state around the country doesn't have any particular loyalty to your campaign . . .
And it has knock-on effects down the road. It erodes GOP's ability to run future elections. Choosing not to build on to existing voter information data or digital infrastructure or running a ground game or recruiting volunteers will hurt whoever is running in 2020.
posted by peeedro at 9:51 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
And it has knock-on effects down the road. It erodes GOP's ability to run future elections. Choosing not to build on to existing voter information data or digital infrastructure or running a ground game or recruiting volunteers will hurt whoever is running in 2020.
posted by peeedro at 9:51 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Donald Trump’s problems are making it too easy for Democrats to ignore their own
Not another purity puff piece by Freddie. LGM had a good takedown of what they called "his quadrennial Dramatic Exit from the Democratic Party."
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:52 AM on June 22, 2016 [19 favorites]
Not another purity puff piece by Freddie. LGM had a good takedown of what they called "his quadrennial Dramatic Exit from the Democratic Party."
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:52 AM on June 22, 2016 [19 favorites]
LGM had a good takedown of what they called "his quadrennial Dramatic Exit from the Democratic Party."
That was really good. Thanks for linking to it.
posted by zarq at 9:59 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
That was really good. Thanks for linking to it.
posted by zarq at 9:59 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
Secret Life of Gravy: "If you donate RIGHT NOW to Donald Trump's campaign he will personally match every dollar that comes in up to $2 million!!!!!!!"
A day later and I'm still shaking my head at this. What is the logic here? "If you give me money, then I will also give myself some money, too. Not that much, though. But some." But dude, you already had those $2 million (or, as Josh from TPM points out, maybe not?). The fact that it's in your personal and/or business accounts rather than your campaign accounts is just... immaterial. How can this possibly be an inducement to donate?
posted by mhum at 10:01 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
A day later and I'm still shaking my head at this. What is the logic here? "If you give me money, then I will also give myself some money, too. Not that much, though. But some." But dude, you already had those $2 million (or, as Josh from TPM points out, maybe not?). The fact that it's in your personal and/or business accounts rather than your campaign accounts is just... immaterial. How can this possibly be an inducement to donate?
posted by mhum at 10:01 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
The Onion: Trump’s Potential VP Picks
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:04 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:04 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
LGM had a good takedown of what they called "his quadrennial Dramatic Exit from the Democratic Party."
I wish this piece were written in a more measured way (so that I could share it with a few semi-holdouts I know), but I want to highlight the part about gay marriage, because as a person who might want to go get gay-married one day, it drives me up the fucking wall when people attack Clinton from the left on gay marriage:
The national right to same-sex marriage was created through a path that deBoer repeatedly assures us can never work. Did the LBGT community leave the Democratic Party because Democratic leaders continued to nominally oppose same-sex marriage? No, they did not. They recognized that politicians who can potentially be pressured to adopted your favored positions are better than those who cannot be. They also recognized that what presidents do is a lot more important than what they say. Bill Clinton nominally opposed same-sex marriage when he took office, and so did Barack Obama when he took office. And yet, the four Supreme Court justices they appointed were all in the Obergefell majority. And the four first choice Republican nominees all dissented. And it’s also worth noting that the swing vote that lead to victory, Anthony Kennedy, was on the Court because a lot of liberal voters held their noses and voted for Democratic senators like Howell Heflin and Richard Shelby and Sam Nunn, who were a good sight less than ideal but were still with the party on some key issues like “should Robert Bork be confirmed to the Supreme Court?” Same-sex marriage is a perfect illustration that the White House is generally where changes end, not where they begin. And it’s also an excellent illustration that you don’t walk away from the political coalition that’s closer to your interests because you don’t win immediately.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:09 AM on June 22, 2016 [50 favorites]
I wish this piece were written in a more measured way (so that I could share it with a few semi-holdouts I know), but I want to highlight the part about gay marriage, because as a person who might want to go get gay-married one day, it drives me up the fucking wall when people attack Clinton from the left on gay marriage:
The national right to same-sex marriage was created through a path that deBoer repeatedly assures us can never work. Did the LBGT community leave the Democratic Party because Democratic leaders continued to nominally oppose same-sex marriage? No, they did not. They recognized that politicians who can potentially be pressured to adopted your favored positions are better than those who cannot be. They also recognized that what presidents do is a lot more important than what they say. Bill Clinton nominally opposed same-sex marriage when he took office, and so did Barack Obama when he took office. And yet, the four Supreme Court justices they appointed were all in the Obergefell majority. And the four first choice Republican nominees all dissented. And it’s also worth noting that the swing vote that lead to victory, Anthony Kennedy, was on the Court because a lot of liberal voters held their noses and voted for Democratic senators like Howell Heflin and Richard Shelby and Sam Nunn, who were a good sight less than ideal but were still with the party on some key issues like “should Robert Bork be confirmed to the Supreme Court?” Same-sex marriage is a perfect illustration that the White House is generally where changes end, not where they begin. And it’s also an excellent illustration that you don’t walk away from the political coalition that’s closer to your interests because you don’t win immediately.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:09 AM on June 22, 2016 [50 favorites]
Donald Trump’s problems are making it too easy for Democrats to ignore their own
Yes, my hair being on fire makes it easy to ignore the splinter in my finger. Dude writes column "but what about that splinter?"
posted by bongo_x at 10:11 AM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yes, my hair being on fire makes it easy to ignore the splinter in my finger. Dude writes column "but what about that splinter?"
posted by bongo_x at 10:11 AM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
A literal whistle stop tour?
A dog-whistle stop tour, surely.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:21 AM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
A dog-whistle stop tour, surely.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:21 AM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
roomthreeseventeen: "The Onion: Trump’s Potential VP Picks"
No Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage? That's my pick.
posted by octothorpe at 10:22 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
No Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage? That's my pick.
posted by octothorpe at 10:22 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
No Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage? That's my pick.
It had a face off with a Red Hot Nickel Ball, and somehow managed to lose. RHNB had a better grasp on foreign affairs, I believe.
posted by Existential Dread at 10:24 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
It had a face off with a Red Hot Nickel Ball, and somehow managed to lose. RHNB had a better grasp on foreign affairs, I believe.
posted by Existential Dread at 10:24 AM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
The Washington Post's coverage of Trump has only improved since they were banned from his events: Trump’s top example of foreign experience: A Scottish golf course losing millions
posted by peeedro at 10:34 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 10:34 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
You don't say.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:38 AM on June 22, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:38 AM on June 22, 2016 [26 favorites]
The Onion: Trump’s Potential VP Picks
There's one for Clinton too... and I know this is not a major concern, but can someone who's up on Los Angeles chatter explain the Garcetti jab: is he considered that much a lightweight?
posted by psoas at 10:43 AM on June 22, 2016
There's one for Clinton too... and I know this is not a major concern, but can someone who's up on Los Angeles chatter explain the Garcetti jab: is he considered that much a lightweight?
posted by psoas at 10:43 AM on June 22, 2016
I like Garcetti and all, but he is definitely very light on experience to be in consideration for the VP role. I thought the general consensus was that he's a rising star in the Democratic party, but that national office is years down the line.
posted by yasaman at 10:47 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by yasaman at 10:47 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Our society is so dominated by homophobia that a man just killed 50 people because he hates gay people that much. It's nice if a politician can help behind the scenes, but it's not really enough when we live in a world where LGBT people are still targeted by hatred. Public positions matter, and Clinton deserves to be attacked for having to be dragged to her current position when she is supposed to be a leader.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:51 AM on June 22, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 10:51 AM on June 22, 2016
Bernie Sanders: “It doesn't appear that I’m going to be the nominee”
Sad peanuts music plays
posted by Going To Maine at 10:53 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sad peanuts music plays
posted by Going To Maine at 10:53 AM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Clinton deserves to be attacked for having to be dragged to her current position
Maybe she deserves it, but what purpose is served by attacking people for something they used to think? Why Clinton and not Obama, Biden and almost every other national Democrat? Why not use attack politicians for positions they currently hold?
posted by fitnr at 10:58 AM on June 22, 2016 [18 favorites]
Maybe she deserves it, but what purpose is served by attacking people for something they used to think? Why Clinton and not Obama, Biden and almost every other national Democrat? Why not use attack politicians for positions they currently hold?
posted by fitnr at 10:58 AM on June 22, 2016 [18 favorites]
Why Clinton and not Obama, Biden and almost every other national Democrat?
Yep. Why indeed.
posted by zutalors! at 11:01 AM on June 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
Yep. Why indeed.
posted by zutalors! at 11:01 AM on June 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
Public positions matter, and Clinton deserves to be attacked for having to be dragged to her current position when she is supposed to be a leader.
In a strategic sense, sure. Criticism is a way of applying political pressure on her and on other politicians who may not be inclined to lead on an issue of social justice. But seeing it as worthy of criticism and seeing it as a reason not to vote for her, in the context of the available choices, are two different things.
posted by bardophile at 11:02 AM on June 22, 2016 [9 favorites]
In a strategic sense, sure. Criticism is a way of applying political pressure on her and on other politicians who may not be inclined to lead on an issue of social justice. But seeing it as worthy of criticism and seeing it as a reason not to vote for her, in the context of the available choices, are two different things.
posted by bardophile at 11:02 AM on June 22, 2016 [9 favorites]
Why Clinton and not Obama, Biden and almost every other national Democrat?
Or Sanders, for that matter, who for years supported civil unions over full marriage equality because states' rights and also reasons.
posted by dersins at 11:02 AM on June 22, 2016 [24 favorites]
Or Sanders, for that matter, who for years supported civil unions over full marriage equality because states' rights and also reasons.
posted by dersins at 11:02 AM on June 22, 2016 [24 favorites]
I can't be the only one waiting with bated breath for a #nevertrump update from corb.
Okay! So the state of #nevertrump is both more positive and less positive than the news media would have you believe.
A lot of attention is being paid to Kendal Unruh's group of delegates, loosely organized under #freethedelegates. This is kind of good, because Kendal Unruh is on the Rules Committee and is thus kind of encouraging other members of the Rules Committee that it's okay to rebel. One of the major paths to #nevertrump is getting 57 of the 112 Rules Committee members to pass rules that unbind the delegates and allow them to vote their conscience. It's also kind of bad, because unfortunately that 'organizational structure' is a shitshow, and eventually the news media may figure that out and stop reporting so glowingly about it. Disorganized conference calls, kind of random approach to ally-building, no unified message, everyone going every which way, ignoring alternates (which are especially important if the Credentialing Committee decides to pull credentials from revolting delegates). News media are reporting "hundreds" to "a thousand" delegates, but they are reporting based on self-report of the participants on one conference call that was designed to gain media attention, and most of those participants were mass-muted and only there to hear information, with no delegate verification. They are supposedly looking to raise money to hire staff and get a website and lawyers, but as of last checking, they don't have it, and are relying mainly on a lot of hellishly incomplete googledocs.
SaveOurParty is the group of delegates who thinks that the Rules Committee coup will fail, as will an attempt to allow the delegates to vote their consciences, and the only way to succeed is to deny quorum until a second, unbound, vote takes place. While I think this approach is the most technically correct, it's also the least appealing to the majority of delegates - no big name is endorsing it, and it's just not as dramatic to deny the nomination by hiding in a room somewhere. Everybody dreams of a big floor fight. They are somewhat more organized, but perhaps ultimately doomed to fail.
The third group is the....I guess Establishment NeverTrumpers? These folks are relative moderates in the Republican Party that were hoping to various degrees that Trump could be led, and are rapidly realizing that this is actually impossible and he is a trainwreck in every direction. StopTrumpPAC I would put in this category at the moment. They have the most organization, actual funds, and the best chance if they get their heads out of their asses and actually get their hands dirty rather than making cautious gestures towards the pool, which seems to be happening, but veeeeery slowly. The other real problem that I see is that a lot of the grassroots delegates who are eager to stop Trump, also really, really hate Establishment Republicans, and blame them for getting them into this position, so they're not eager to work together.
When I say herding cats, I mean literally herding cats. This whole mess is insane. But hey, Betfair has us at 14% chance of stopping him, which is not nothing!
posted by corb at 11:07 AM on June 22, 2016 [50 favorites]
Okay! So the state of #nevertrump is both more positive and less positive than the news media would have you believe.
A lot of attention is being paid to Kendal Unruh's group of delegates, loosely organized under #freethedelegates. This is kind of good, because Kendal Unruh is on the Rules Committee and is thus kind of encouraging other members of the Rules Committee that it's okay to rebel. One of the major paths to #nevertrump is getting 57 of the 112 Rules Committee members to pass rules that unbind the delegates and allow them to vote their conscience. It's also kind of bad, because unfortunately that 'organizational structure' is a shitshow, and eventually the news media may figure that out and stop reporting so glowingly about it. Disorganized conference calls, kind of random approach to ally-building, no unified message, everyone going every which way, ignoring alternates (which are especially important if the Credentialing Committee decides to pull credentials from revolting delegates). News media are reporting "hundreds" to "a thousand" delegates, but they are reporting based on self-report of the participants on one conference call that was designed to gain media attention, and most of those participants were mass-muted and only there to hear information, with no delegate verification. They are supposedly looking to raise money to hire staff and get a website and lawyers, but as of last checking, they don't have it, and are relying mainly on a lot of hellishly incomplete googledocs.
SaveOurParty is the group of delegates who thinks that the Rules Committee coup will fail, as will an attempt to allow the delegates to vote their consciences, and the only way to succeed is to deny quorum until a second, unbound, vote takes place. While I think this approach is the most technically correct, it's also the least appealing to the majority of delegates - no big name is endorsing it, and it's just not as dramatic to deny the nomination by hiding in a room somewhere. Everybody dreams of a big floor fight. They are somewhat more organized, but perhaps ultimately doomed to fail.
The third group is the....I guess Establishment NeverTrumpers? These folks are relative moderates in the Republican Party that were hoping to various degrees that Trump could be led, and are rapidly realizing that this is actually impossible and he is a trainwreck in every direction. StopTrumpPAC I would put in this category at the moment. They have the most organization, actual funds, and the best chance if they get their heads out of their asses and actually get their hands dirty rather than making cautious gestures towards the pool, which seems to be happening, but veeeeery slowly. The other real problem that I see is that a lot of the grassroots delegates who are eager to stop Trump, also really, really hate Establishment Republicans, and blame them for getting them into this position, so they're not eager to work together.
When I say herding cats, I mean literally herding cats. This whole mess is insane. But hey, Betfair has us at 14% chance of stopping him, which is not nothing!
posted by corb at 11:07 AM on June 22, 2016 [50 favorites]
Oh yeah, and for the tl;dr breakdown, the paths to #nevertrump are as follows:
1) Majority of Rules Committee (57/112) adopts rules unbinding the delegates. The delegates at broad convention endorse these rules. Unbound delegates vote in someone other than Cruz, which could be literally anyone.
2) Majority of Rules Committee (57/112) adopts some rule that disqualifies Trump. The new nominee is either Kasich or Cruz, as last men standing (far less likely, as only the Cruz supporters would be likely to vote for this, and if they had the numbers, they'd pass the first one)
3) Delegates take Curly Haughland's advice to heart, and vote their conscience regardless of what the Rules Committee says. The Credentials Committee does not disqualify them, or it does, but the vote stands and state chairs pass it along.
4) Minority of Rules Committee recommends rules counter to the majority-proposed rules. 2/3 of the delegates must vote to select these rules instead.
5) A walkout occurs, denying quorum/enough votes for the first bound vote to count, allowing only unbound counts after that.
posted by corb at 11:13 AM on June 22, 2016 [49 favorites]
1) Majority of Rules Committee (57/112) adopts rules unbinding the delegates. The delegates at broad convention endorse these rules. Unbound delegates vote in someone other than Cruz, which could be literally anyone.
2) Majority of Rules Committee (57/112) adopts some rule that disqualifies Trump. The new nominee is either Kasich or Cruz, as last men standing (far less likely, as only the Cruz supporters would be likely to vote for this, and if they had the numbers, they'd pass the first one)
3) Delegates take Curly Haughland's advice to heart, and vote their conscience regardless of what the Rules Committee says. The Credentials Committee does not disqualify them, or it does, but the vote stands and state chairs pass it along.
4) Minority of Rules Committee recommends rules counter to the majority-proposed rules. 2/3 of the delegates must vote to select these rules instead.
5) A walkout occurs, denying quorum/enough votes for the first bound vote to count, allowing only unbound counts after that.
posted by corb at 11:13 AM on June 22, 2016 [49 favorites]
Thanks so much for the update, corb. I'm one of those who's been looking forward to hearing your news, and it doesn't disappoint.
posted by Superplin at 11:14 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 11:14 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
But seeing it as worthy of criticism and seeing it as a reason not to vote for her, in the context of the available choices, are two different things.
Right. Freddie de Boer, the patron saint of Bro Liberalism, is simply using Clinton's late arrival to the marriage equality party as a justification to defend his vote for Jill Stein, or a potted plant, or any other non-Clinton candidate that increases the GOP nominee's chance of winning. Left unspecified is the theory of political change in which this action has any positive impact on the LGBTQ+ community, or literally anyone else, but with no actual skin in the game on these issues, he can't be bothered to care about the eggs that may be broken so that his omelette can be made.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:16 AM on June 22, 2016 [30 favorites]
Right. Freddie de Boer, the patron saint of Bro Liberalism, is simply using Clinton's late arrival to the marriage equality party as a justification to defend his vote for Jill Stein, or a potted plant, or any other non-Clinton candidate that increases the GOP nominee's chance of winning. Left unspecified is the theory of political change in which this action has any positive impact on the LGBTQ+ community, or literally anyone else, but with no actual skin in the game on these issues, he can't be bothered to care about the eggs that may be broken so that his omelette can be made.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:16 AM on June 22, 2016 [30 favorites]
1) Majority of Rules Committee (57/112) adopts rules unbinding the delegates. The delegates at broad convention endorse these rules. Unbound delegates vote in someone other than Cruz, which could be literally anyone.
2) Majority of Rules Committee (57/112) adopts some rule that disqualifies Trump. The new nominee is either Kasich or Cruz, as last men standing (far less likely, as only the Cruz supporters would be likely to vote for this, and if they had the numbers, they'd pass the first one)
Quick question here: regarding number (2), you say that Cruz supporters would rather pass (1) instead, which would vote in someone other than Cruz. Does that imply that these aren't Cruz supporters per se, but rather nevertrumpers who support Cruz because he was basically in second place?
posted by Existential Dread at 11:16 AM on June 22, 2016
2) Majority of Rules Committee (57/112) adopts some rule that disqualifies Trump. The new nominee is either Kasich or Cruz, as last men standing (far less likely, as only the Cruz supporters would be likely to vote for this, and if they had the numbers, they'd pass the first one)
Quick question here: regarding number (2), you say that Cruz supporters would rather pass (1) instead, which would vote in someone other than Cruz. Does that imply that these aren't Cruz supporters per se, but rather nevertrumpers who support Cruz because he was basically in second place?
posted by Existential Dread at 11:16 AM on June 22, 2016
I do really hope #nevertrump goes away. He's going to be the nominee. She should be the nominee. And he's going to lose badly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:17 AM on June 22, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:17 AM on June 22, 2016
Thanks for the updates, corb - I can't decide whether to order more popcorn or lay in supplies for the collapse of civilization.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:17 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:17 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Just a reminder:
CNN: The Libertarian presidential candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and his running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, will face voters Wednesday evening in a town hall live on CNN.
The 9 p.m. event moderated by CNN's Chris Cuomo marks one of the highest-profile moments in the Libertarian Party's history, thanks to Donald Trump, whose victory in the GOP presidential primary has some conservatives and moderates alike looking elsewhere for an alternative to both Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Will be interesting to see if they can pivot the libertarian message to something even vaguely acceptable to mainstream voters. Or to what degree they will even try.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:18 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
CNN: The Libertarian presidential candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, and his running mate, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, will face voters Wednesday evening in a town hall live on CNN.
The 9 p.m. event moderated by CNN's Chris Cuomo marks one of the highest-profile moments in the Libertarian Party's history, thanks to Donald Trump, whose victory in the GOP presidential primary has some conservatives and moderates alike looking elsewhere for an alternative to both Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Will be interesting to see if they can pivot the libertarian message to something even vaguely acceptable to mainstream voters. Or to what degree they will even try.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:18 AM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
When I say herding cats, I mean literally herding cats.
Wait, some of the delegates are literally cats? Because if so, I might actually try to get to the convention. (Deregato Atsume! DL now for iOS and Android.)
posted by The Bellman at 11:20 AM on June 22, 2016 [17 favorites]
Wait, some of the delegates are literally cats? Because if so, I might actually try to get to the convention. (Deregato Atsume! DL now for iOS and Android.)
posted by The Bellman at 11:20 AM on June 22, 2016 [17 favorites]
Instead of fish, they give you tax breaks.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:21 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Huffy Puffy at 11:21 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
The reason Trump scares the fuck out of me--and makes my heart hurt--even though he will be crushed in the general, is that his mere existence as part of the conversation contributes to making this bullshit seem even remotely OK to some people.
posted by dersins at 11:23 AM on June 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by dersins at 11:23 AM on June 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
All in favor say meow. All opposed say hiss. The meows have it.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:23 AM on June 22, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:23 AM on June 22, 2016 [14 favorites]
making this bullshit seem even remotely OK to some people.
He says the sign's message is that America should go back to a "1960s, Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver time when there were no break-ins; no violent crime; no mass immigration."
This is the problem when you get your vision of the world from entertainment. Delusion.
posted by bongo_x at 11:29 AM on June 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
He says the sign's message is that America should go back to a "1960s, Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver time when there were no break-ins; no violent crime; no mass immigration."
This is the problem when you get your vision of the world from entertainment. Delusion.
posted by bongo_x at 11:29 AM on June 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
America should go back to a "1960s, Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver time when there were no break-ins; no violent crime
Delusion, indeed.
posted by Gelatin at 11:35 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Delusion, indeed.
posted by Gelatin at 11:35 AM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
> When I say herding cats, I mean literally herding cats.
So the official GOP organization is made up to a large extent of literal cats? That explains so much...
posted by languagehat at 11:35 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
So the official GOP organization is made up to a large extent of literal cats? That explains so much...
posted by languagehat at 11:35 AM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mr. Beanbag McPoopypaws, Director of Strategic Naps
posted by dersins at 11:45 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by dersins at 11:45 AM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
corb, a procedural question - if SaveOurParty does what they plan to do, and denies a quorum at the first vote, what's there to stop the RNC from refusing to hold the first vote until you guys show back up again?
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:48 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:48 AM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mr. Beanbag McPoopypaws, Director of Strategic Naps
Objection! This is clearly a dog’s name.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [13 favorites]
Objection! This is clearly a dog’s name.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [13 favorites]
dersins I'm with you. In terms of an easier win for Clinton, not to mention possible downticket wins, Trump as the Republican Candidate is great.
But having Trump as the nominee is encouraging the worst elements in America to come out and that's encouraging still more to come out. It's directly harmful and quite likely to be physically harmful, to minorities of all sorts.
Much as I complain that Trump is nothing but standard Republicanism minus the mask of BS, that mask of BS was probably helping keep the violent types isolated and unwilling to be as violent. But with Trump out there telling them it's ok to be openly racist it'll get worse.
posted by sotonohito at 12:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
But having Trump as the nominee is encouraging the worst elements in America to come out and that's encouraging still more to come out. It's directly harmful and quite likely to be physically harmful, to minorities of all sorts.
Much as I complain that Trump is nothing but standard Republicanism minus the mask of BS, that mask of BS was probably helping keep the violent types isolated and unwilling to be as violent. But with Trump out there telling them it's ok to be openly racist it'll get worse.
posted by sotonohito at 12:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
The Hill: Trump questions Clinton’s religion
Ah yes. The inevitable pivot to 'The Big Lie' mode.
posted by srboisvert at 12:08 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ah yes. The inevitable pivot to 'The Big Lie' mode.
posted by srboisvert at 12:08 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
He says the sign's message is that America should go back to a "1960s, Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver time when there were no break-ins; no violent crime; no mass immigration."
No violent crime at all. Just civil rights workers being murdered, four acknowledged lynchings, and of course the omnipresent threat of violence to keep people of color oppressed.
Also:
Murders per 100,000 in 2014: 4.5
Lowest rate of murder in the 1960's: 4.6
Murder rate in 1969: 7.3
Tell me again that the 1960's was a better time.
posted by sotonohito at 12:09 PM on June 22, 2016 [17 favorites]
No violent crime at all. Just civil rights workers being murdered, four acknowledged lynchings, and of course the omnipresent threat of violence to keep people of color oppressed.
Also:
Murders per 100,000 in 2014: 4.5
Lowest rate of murder in the 1960's: 4.6
Murder rate in 1969: 7.3
Tell me again that the 1960's was a better time.
posted by sotonohito at 12:09 PM on June 22, 2016 [17 favorites]
Objection! This is clearly a dog’s name.
Don't tell this dude. He'll be even more pissed at me.
posted by dersins at 12:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Don't tell this dude. He'll be even more pissed at me.
posted by dersins at 12:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Quick question here: regarding number (2), you say that Cruz supporters would rather pass (1) instead, which would vote in someone other than Cruz. Does that imply that these aren't Cruz supporters per se, but rather nevertrumpers who support Cruz because he was basically in second place?
It's kind of complicated. (1) has a lot of...shall we say ideological backing? It's broader-minded, it has more support, there's a lot of history that can be pulled to say that it's what the Republican Party should have been doing all along, and it doesn't seeeeem like a shitty power grab. It appeals to "freedom of conscience", which is a big platform plank for a lot of people. However, it's also more dangerous - it lets the delegates vote in, say, Paul Ryan if he makes a really great speech. So it's better in some ways to attain, worse in others.
(2) has had a couple paths suggested - one is "nomineee must release his tax returns", another is "nominee must have been a registered Republican for X years". It's safer in some ways, and would definitely leave only those candidates already marked as candidates as choices, but also, who's to say that Trump wouldn't just release the tax returns or somehow show that he's always been a Republican or turn it somehow.
corb, a procedural question - if SaveOurParty does what they plan to do, and denies a quorum at the first vote, what's there to stop the RNC from refusing to hold the first vote until you guys show back up again?
Procedurally, there are ways to force votes, but it's important to remember also that in realpolitik, it is absolutely impossible to know what Big RNC - and more importantly, Paul Ryan - will do. We're all just spitballing based on rules here - but to maintain their power, they will undoubtedly do whatever they think they can get away with.
posted by corb at 12:14 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's kind of complicated. (1) has a lot of...shall we say ideological backing? It's broader-minded, it has more support, there's a lot of history that can be pulled to say that it's what the Republican Party should have been doing all along, and it doesn't seeeeem like a shitty power grab. It appeals to "freedom of conscience", which is a big platform plank for a lot of people. However, it's also more dangerous - it lets the delegates vote in, say, Paul Ryan if he makes a really great speech. So it's better in some ways to attain, worse in others.
(2) has had a couple paths suggested - one is "nomineee must release his tax returns", another is "nominee must have been a registered Republican for X years". It's safer in some ways, and would definitely leave only those candidates already marked as candidates as choices, but also, who's to say that Trump wouldn't just release the tax returns or somehow show that he's always been a Republican or turn it somehow.
corb, a procedural question - if SaveOurParty does what they plan to do, and denies a quorum at the first vote, what's there to stop the RNC from refusing to hold the first vote until you guys show back up again?
Procedurally, there are ways to force votes, but it's important to remember also that in realpolitik, it is absolutely impossible to know what Big RNC - and more importantly, Paul Ryan - will do. We're all just spitballing based on rules here - but to maintain their power, they will undoubtedly do whatever they think they can get away with.
posted by corb at 12:14 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
He says the sign's message is that America should go back to a '1960s, Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver time when there were no break-ins; no violent crime; no mass immigration.'
For public safety, it's a golden age: Crime just keeps falling (from 2011):
The 1950s are often recalled as a golden age in American life — stable families, rising incomes, wholesome TV shows and low crime rates. Doesn't sound like 2011, does it? When it comes to crime, though, there is a striking similarity: We are, believe it or not, in a new golden age.Violent crime rates, which not as low as in 1960, have dramatically declined since around 1990.
The US murder rate per 100,000 People was lower in 1984 (4.5) than it was in 1960 (5.1). Burglary rates are similar (542.5 in 1984 vs. 508.6 in 1960). Violent crimes, while considerably higher that they were in 1960, are the lowest they've been since 1970.
U.S. Immigrant Population and Share over Time, 1850-Present
posted by kirkaracha at 12:17 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Was just gonna say, "no violent crime" as a reason to be nostalgic for the 1960s made more sense in the 1980s than it does now that violent crime levels have gone way back down.
But I was gonna put it in the context of environmental lead exposure. I guess lead doesn't account for the entire rise and fall in violent crime all by itself, but it sure as heck correlates a lot better than immigration rates do.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:21 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
But I was gonna put it in the context of environmental lead exposure. I guess lead doesn't account for the entire rise and fall in violent crime all by itself, but it sure as heck correlates a lot better than immigration rates do.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:21 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
I suppose there's no way to finagle a Chelsea Clinton - Ivanka Trump debate but I would watch it.
posted by zutalors! at 12:24 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 12:24 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Salon has a fact-check on Trump's anti-Hillary speech from this morning. After starting off by calling her a "world class liar" and claiming he built a $10 Billion empire with a "small loan."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:24 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
Claim: “She has pledged to grant mass amnesty and in her first 100 days, end virtually all immigration enforcement, and thus create totally open borders in the United States.”And so much more.
Fact: Clinton proposes reforming our immigration system to make it easier for families to stay together, but there is no plan for “mass amnesty” or “open borders”.
Claim: “Under her plan, we would admit hundreds of thousands of refugees from the most dangerous countries on Earth – with no way to screen who they are or what they believe.”
Fact: Clinton does support helping more refugees, though she put the number at 65,000 rather than “hundreds of thousands”, but she wants to do so with “the mechanisms for vetting the people that we would take in”. The vetting process under Obama is already incredibly onerous, taking an average of 18-24 months.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:24 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
Salon has a fact-check on Trump's anti-Hillary speech from this morning.
And remember, this speech was supposed to be a rebuttal to Hillary Clinton's broadside about Trump being a guy who goes off on lying rants and is reckless and unfit for office.
posted by Gelatin at 12:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
And remember, this speech was supposed to be a rebuttal to Hillary Clinton's broadside about Trump being a guy who goes off on lying rants and is reckless and unfit for office.
posted by Gelatin at 12:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Has he been doing his pretending-to-be-religious thing much lately?
posted by Artw at 12:32 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 12:32 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump's speech is basically just a bunch of /r/politics comments strung together.
posted by octothorpe at 12:33 PM on June 22, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 12:33 PM on June 22, 2016 [12 favorites]
I suppose there's no way to finagle a Chelsea Clinton - Ivanka Trump debate but I would watch it.
I personally want to see more of Melania Trump. I watched a video this morning of her speaking at a rally back at the beginning of April and it was so strange. He, Trump, claimed she wrote the whole thing herself and it did sound like it was written by someone who did not speak English very well but the part that stood out was when she said matter-of-factly,"If you hit Donald, he will punch you back ten times harder." Sort of chilling hearing a wife say that about her husband. Another oddity was when Trump introduced his wife he said she was the greatest (naturally) and possibly he said she was incredible but the only concrete character quality he came up was that she loves her son very much. Nothing about how fun she is or how intelligent or what a great partner she has been-- just she loves her son.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:36 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I personally want to see more of Melania Trump. I watched a video this morning of her speaking at a rally back at the beginning of April and it was so strange. He, Trump, claimed she wrote the whole thing herself and it did sound like it was written by someone who did not speak English very well but the part that stood out was when she said matter-of-factly,"If you hit Donald, he will punch you back ten times harder." Sort of chilling hearing a wife say that about her husband. Another oddity was when Trump introduced his wife he said she was the greatest (naturally) and possibly he said she was incredible but the only concrete character quality he came up was that she loves her son very much. Nothing about how fun she is or how intelligent or what a great partner she has been-- just she loves her son.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:36 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
The fictitious "Hillary Policies" Trump blathered in his 'major address' contain a lot of stuff the more 'far-left' Bernie lovers would be willing to support... Dumb Donald may have just taken a step toward healing some of the Democrats' divisions...
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:37 PM on June 22, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:37 PM on June 22, 2016
Has he been doing his pretending-to-be-religious thing much lately?
Amidst the pack of lies spewed by religious conservative activist Ralph Reed on NPR this morning, Trump has long been using rhetoric that signals his deep moral character.
Interestingly given NPR's "we report what Republicans think of issues" format, the network broadcast in the same program what amounted to a rebuttal to Reed by conservative blogger Erick Erickson, who said Trump doesn't deserve the votes of devout christians.
As if it matters. The religious right showed its true colors when it voted overwhelmingly against a genuine born-again evangelical, Jimmy Carter, and for Ronald Reagan.
posted by Gelatin at 12:38 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Amidst the pack of lies spewed by religious conservative activist Ralph Reed on NPR this morning, Trump has long been using rhetoric that signals his deep moral character.
Interestingly given NPR's "we report what Republicans think of issues" format, the network broadcast in the same program what amounted to a rebuttal to Reed by conservative blogger Erick Erickson, who said Trump doesn't deserve the votes of devout christians.
As if it matters. The religious right showed its true colors when it voted overwhelmingly against a genuine born-again evangelical, Jimmy Carter, and for Ronald Reagan.
posted by Gelatin at 12:38 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
octothorpe: "Trump's speech is basically just a bunch of /r/politics comments strung together."
Someone on Twitter quipped that this year's campaign is going to be a battle of "the article vs. the comments section".
posted by mhum at 12:39 PM on June 22, 2016 [38 favorites]
Someone on Twitter quipped that this year's campaign is going to be a battle of "the article vs. the comments section".
posted by mhum at 12:39 PM on June 22, 2016 [38 favorites]
Has he been doing his pretending-to-be-religious thing much lately?
He met with evangelical leaders yesterday.
As president, he said, he’d work on things including: “freeing up your religion, freeing up your thoughts. You talk about religious liberty and religious freedom, you don’t have any religious freedom if you think about it,” he told the group, which broke in many times with applause.
Throughout the talk Trump emphasized that America was hurting due to what he described as Christianity’s slide to become “weaker, weaker, weaker.” He said he’d get department store employees to say “Merry Christmas” and would fight restrictions on public employees, such as public school coaches, from being allowed to lead sectarian prayer on the field.
But not everybody's buying it:
“This meeting marks the end of the Christian Right,” Michael Farris, a national homeschooling pioneer and longtime figure of the Christian Right, wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday. He noted that he was present at the first gathering of the Moral Majority in 1980: “The premise of the meeting in 1980 was that only candidates that reflected a biblical worldview and good character would gain our support. … Today, a candidate whose worldview is greed and whose god is his appetites (Philippians 3) is being tacitly endorsed by this throng. … This is a day of mourning.”
Catholic conservative Robert George, former chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and a Princeton professor, declined to attend the meeting, saying that while he may think even lower of Hillary Clinton, he fears Trump will “in the end, bring disgrace upon those individuals and organizations who publicly embrace him. For those of us who believe in limited government, the rule of law, flourishing institutions of civil society and traditional Judeo-Christian moral principles, and who believe that our leaders must be persons of integrity and good character, this election is presenting a horrible choice. May God help us.”
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:44 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
He met with evangelical leaders yesterday.
As president, he said, he’d work on things including: “freeing up your religion, freeing up your thoughts. You talk about religious liberty and religious freedom, you don’t have any religious freedom if you think about it,” he told the group, which broke in many times with applause.
Throughout the talk Trump emphasized that America was hurting due to what he described as Christianity’s slide to become “weaker, weaker, weaker.” He said he’d get department store employees to say “Merry Christmas” and would fight restrictions on public employees, such as public school coaches, from being allowed to lead sectarian prayer on the field.
But not everybody's buying it:
“This meeting marks the end of the Christian Right,” Michael Farris, a national homeschooling pioneer and longtime figure of the Christian Right, wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday. He noted that he was present at the first gathering of the Moral Majority in 1980: “The premise of the meeting in 1980 was that only candidates that reflected a biblical worldview and good character would gain our support. … Today, a candidate whose worldview is greed and whose god is his appetites (Philippians 3) is being tacitly endorsed by this throng. … This is a day of mourning.”
Catholic conservative Robert George, former chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and a Princeton professor, declined to attend the meeting, saying that while he may think even lower of Hillary Clinton, he fears Trump will “in the end, bring disgrace upon those individuals and organizations who publicly embrace him. For those of us who believe in limited government, the rule of law, flourishing institutions of civil society and traditional Judeo-Christian moral principles, and who believe that our leaders must be persons of integrity and good character, this election is presenting a horrible choice. May God help us.”
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:44 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Salon has a fact-check on Trump's anti-Hillary speech from this morning.
"Clinton was not asleep when alerted to the attack on the embassy in Benghazi, but was in her office. That’s because the alert was sent at 3:45 PM — that’s the afternoon, not the morning."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:47 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Has he been doing his pretending-to-be-religious thing much lately?
Well you know he met with far right religious leaders yesterday like Mike Huckabee, Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, and James Dobson. He told them that he would change the rules so that churches could engage in politics while keeping their tax exempt status. He also hinted that any judges he appointed would not be LGBT friendly. He sucked up to them by telling them "You don't really have religious freedom but that will all change with me." (my paraphrase of his usual gobbledygook.)
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:48 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well you know he met with far right religious leaders yesterday like Mike Huckabee, Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, and James Dobson. He told them that he would change the rules so that churches could engage in politics while keeping their tax exempt status. He also hinted that any judges he appointed would not be LGBT friendly. He sucked up to them by telling them "You don't really have religious freedom but that will all change with me." (my paraphrase of his usual gobbledygook.)
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:48 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Presidents should be awake at 3am anyway. Composing angry Tweets.
posted by mazola at 12:49 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mazola at 12:49 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
He said he’d get department store employees to say “Merry Christmas” and would fight restrictions on public employees, such as public school coaches, from being allowed to lead sectarian prayer on the field.
Calculon: Good heavens! A chance to work with the legendary Harold Zoid. He's one of my great idols. And-And you say you can guarantee me the Oscar?
Bender: I can guarantee anything you want.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
Calculon: Good heavens! A chance to work with the legendary Harold Zoid. He's one of my great idols. And-And you say you can guarantee me the Oscar?
Bender: I can guarantee anything you want.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [15 favorites]
In re: that Robert George quote: are there any, um, actual "Judeos" who use the term "Judeo-Christian"?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:52 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:52 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
He met with evangelical leaders yesterday.
Fred Clark at Slacktivist called them his "B-list evangelical advisory board":
Fred Clark at Slacktivist called them his "B-list evangelical advisory board":
My sense is that this is all about who gets top-billing — about who is hitching their wagon to whose star. That’s why this “executive advisory board” is something of a B-list of second-tier religious right figures along with a handful of peaked-long-ago relics like James Dobson, Richard Land and Ralph Reed. These folks are hoping that association with Trump will elevate their profile. By endorsing him, they’re hoping he will thereby endorse them, making their names ring out (or, in the case of Dobson, Bachmann, Land and Reed, restoring a bit of their long-tarnished celebrity).posted by palindromic at 12:55 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
The bigger named religious-right celebrities are hedging their bets. They may be supporting Trump and working to get him elected, but they don’t want to risk chaining their fortunes to his electoral prospects. Guys like Franklin H.P. Graham and The Liar Tony Perkins probably calculate that they could do more for Trump than he could do for them.
Atlantic: Will Trump’s Campaign Drown in Debt?
I knew he didn't have much in the bank ($1.3 million) but I didn't realize his debt was so Yuuuuge-- he owes $45.7 million. No wonder he starting sending out emails begging for money.
I knew he didn't have much in the bank ($1.3 million) but I didn't realize his debt was so Yuuuuge-- he owes $45.7 million. No wonder he starting sending out emails begging for money.
Trump owed far more to creditors in April than any other federal campaign committee, according to FEC records. While aggregate statistics aren’t yet available for May, he’s probably still at least toward the top of the list. No other major presidential campaign in the last eight years has saved so little or gone so deeply into debt. Hillary Clinton has more than $30 million in the bank and carries only $600,000 in loans; Bernie Sanders, he of the $27 donation, is debt-free and holds about $5 million in reserves.posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:56 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Even Ted Cruz has more money than Trump: $6.8 million, almost three times the billionaire’s campaign savings. Trump’s debt is unprecedented in recent history, blowing away even John McCain, whose money problems in early 2008 threatened his bid.
Published on Feb 28, 2016: "From the producers who brought you 'The Producers,' Trumped is a new musical starring Matthew Broderick, Nathan Lane, Cloris Leachman and the unlikely candidate himself, Donald Trump."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:58 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 12:58 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
OK technically that debt is the money he owes himself but he only has until the convention to pay himself back
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Until his acceptance of the nomination at the Republican National Convention, Trump can use campaign funds to pay back loans without limit, replenishing his personal bank account with contributions and proceeds from the “Make America Great Again” hats. But that spigot closes at the conclusion of the convention. At that point, Trump has 20 days to use cash received before his nomination to pay off loans. If he gets any new contributions to his primary campaign, he can only use up to $250,000 to pay himself back. (A similar cap applies for any loans he might make to himself during the general election, the cut-off date being November 8.)I think he can kiss that "loan" good-bye-- he is never going to raise $40 million in one month. And here I thought he was going to get it back with interest (I wonder if he thought the same.)
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Published on Feb 28, 2016: "From the producers who brought you 'The Producers,' Trumped is a new musical starring Matthew Broderick, Nathan Lane, Cloris Leachman and the unlikely candidate himself, Donald Trump."
Somebody explain this to me: when did Jimmy Kimmel stop being a brotastic douchebag and start solidly giving a shit about the political landscape? It feels like I've seen seven or eight bits of his across the last few months, all of which were genuinely earnest and smart and give-a-fuck-y. Was he always secretly a really decent person who just happened to have a really punchable face, or was there a turning point somewhere that I missed?
posted by rorgy at 1:03 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Somebody explain this to me: when did Jimmy Kimmel stop being a brotastic douchebag and start solidly giving a shit about the political landscape? It feels like I've seen seven or eight bits of his across the last few months, all of which were genuinely earnest and smart and give-a-fuck-y. Was he always secretly a really decent person who just happened to have a really punchable face, or was there a turning point somewhere that I missed?
posted by rorgy at 1:03 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
I didn't realize his debt was so Yuuuuge
Oh, Donald Trump made many great millions yesterday in no time at all, according to another Donald Trump. One theory is that he's counting in icelandic dollars.
posted by effbot at 1:06 PM on June 22, 2016
Oh, Donald Trump made many great millions yesterday in no time at all, according to another Donald Trump. One theory is that he's counting in icelandic dollars.
posted by effbot at 1:06 PM on June 22, 2016
SLoG, I thought the same thing. I bet he's firing up his legal team to fight that even as we speak. Imagine all the litigation that will result from his foray in to politics? There's bound to be suits between himself and Corey Lewandowski. I wonder if he pays his legal bills? Something tells me he's a slow pay there as well.
posted by readery at 1:07 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by readery at 1:07 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Interesting that we're now being asked to be nostalgic for an idyllic 1960s America now that most people who actually remember the 1950s are dying off.
In 2050 are we going to be asked by retrograde politicians to have nostalgic feelings for 1990?
posted by Sara C. at 1:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
In 2050 are we going to be asked by retrograde politicians to have nostalgic feelings for 1990?
posted by Sara C. at 1:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Vox: Hillary Clinton's economy speech was notable for what she didn't do
(spoiler in the URL)
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
(spoiler in the URL)
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
In 2050 are we going to be asked by retrograde politicians to have nostalgic feelings for 1990?
Society will never stop having nostalgic feelings for the 1990s. The Cold War was over, eurodance, grunge, R&B, ska, and Nicktoons were all in their prime, you could get on an airplane without a virtual colonoscopy, and the Fresh Prince of Bel Air was still on TV.
posted by Talez at 1:13 PM on June 22, 2016 [23 favorites]
Society will never stop having nostalgic feelings for the 1990s. The Cold War was over, eurodance, grunge, R&B, ska, and Nicktoons were all in their prime, you could get on an airplane without a virtual colonoscopy, and the Fresh Prince of Bel Air was still on TV.
posted by Talez at 1:13 PM on June 22, 2016 [23 favorites]
A tweet from Jerry Falwell Jr including a picture of Falwell, Trump, Falwell's wife Becki Tilley, and Playboy's Miss October 1987.
posted by peeedro at 1:14 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 1:14 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
when did Jimmy Kimmel stop being a brotastic douchebag and start solidly giving a shit about the political landscape?
When he grew the beard.
posted by stolyarova at 1:17 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
When he grew the beard.
posted by stolyarova at 1:17 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
As president, he said, he’d work on things including: “freeing up your religion, freeing up your thoughts. You talk about religious liberty and religious freedom, you don’t have any religious freedom if you think about it,” he told the group, which broke in many times with applause.
Throughout the talk Trump emphasized that America was hurting due to what he described as Christianity’s slide to become “weaker, weaker, weaker.” He said he’d get department store employees to say “Merry Christmas” and would fight restrictions on public employees, such as public school coaches, from being allowed to lead sectarian prayer on the field.
This is like how a parent gets a toddler to eat their peas because there is a clown face at the bottom of the bowl, except the toddler will eventually wise up and just dump out the peas onto their tray in order to see the clown without having to swallow all the awful green mush balls, whereas the Family Values bunch will just lap up whatever slop you put down in front of them, clown or no clown, just so long as you keep telling them what good little eaters they are.
Also, Trump is simultaneously the clown and the bowl full of awful green mush balls.
(OK, this metaphor really got away from me.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:18 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
Throughout the talk Trump emphasized that America was hurting due to what he described as Christianity’s slide to become “weaker, weaker, weaker.” He said he’d get department store employees to say “Merry Christmas” and would fight restrictions on public employees, such as public school coaches, from being allowed to lead sectarian prayer on the field.
This is like how a parent gets a toddler to eat their peas because there is a clown face at the bottom of the bowl, except the toddler will eventually wise up and just dump out the peas onto their tray in order to see the clown without having to swallow all the awful green mush balls, whereas the Family Values bunch will just lap up whatever slop you put down in front of them, clown or no clown, just so long as you keep telling them what good little eaters they are.
Also, Trump is simultaneously the clown and the bowl full of awful green mush balls.
(OK, this metaphor really got away from me.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 1:18 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
Vox: Hillary Clinton's economy speech was notable for what she didn't do
Yes yes YES. I hate to say 'I told you so' but I have been pretty convinced, and have been trying to convince my more pro-Sanders friends, that fears about Clinton pivoting right on finance were unfounded. For a bunch of reasons, but primarily because there's been a massive sea change in public opinion on the subject in a pretty short span of time, which is why Sanders was able to do so well.
It helps that she's running against the literal embodiment of short-sighted corporate greed screwing over the little guy - and it also helps that Trump is actually a shitty businessman, because the kind of Wall Street donors she might once have tried to court from the center are much less likely to support Trump than, say, a person who is not proposing defaulting on the national debt.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [22 favorites]
Yes yes YES. I hate to say 'I told you so' but I have been pretty convinced, and have been trying to convince my more pro-Sanders friends, that fears about Clinton pivoting right on finance were unfounded. For a bunch of reasons, but primarily because there's been a massive sea change in public opinion on the subject in a pretty short span of time, which is why Sanders was able to do so well.
It helps that she's running against the literal embodiment of short-sighted corporate greed screwing over the little guy - and it also helps that Trump is actually a shitty businessman, because the kind of Wall Street donors she might once have tried to court from the center are much less likely to support Trump than, say, a person who is not proposing defaulting on the national debt.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [22 favorites]
Let's face it, US society peaked with One Sweet Day and it's all been downhill from there.
posted by Talez at 1:20 PM on June 22, 2016
posted by Talez at 1:20 PM on June 22, 2016
I like how those conservative old centrist Democrats are actually having a sit-in in the House of Representatives on gun control today while beacon of progressive protest Sanders sits at home and prepares to give yet another speech tomorrow on the important topic of his presidential campaign.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:23 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:23 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hey now, Bernie's actually there at the moment, though CSPAN is having trouble with the feed right now.
posted by yasaman at 1:27 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by yasaman at 1:27 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
Haha, I stand corrected. Good for Bernie.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
whistle stop tour
Hell yeah, that would rock. Bill Clinton visited my hometown by train back in 1996 and it was great.
There have been a shitton of polls of Sanders supporters showing that the vast majority of them are voting for Clinton. Let's not freak out over the one outlier poll, for god's sake.
Are you new
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:32 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
Hell yeah, that would rock. Bill Clinton visited my hometown by train back in 1996 and it was great.
There have been a shitton of polls of Sanders supporters showing that the vast majority of them are voting for Clinton. Let's not freak out over the one outlier poll, for god's sake.
Are you new
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:32 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
Bernie, today: "It doesn't appear that I'm going to be the nominee."
All I can muster at this point is a ..., because ...??????
posted by mynameisluka at 1:36 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
All I can muster at this point is a ..., because ...??????
posted by mynameisluka at 1:36 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
And just like that, Sanders has left the House sit-in, after shaking some hands and waving after his round of applause
posted by Roommate at 1:39 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Roommate at 1:39 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Somebody explain this to me: when did Jimmy Kimmel stop being a brotastic douchebag and start solidly giving a shit about the political landscape?
After he left The Man Show, he mind-melded Adam Carolla and transferred his douchebro katra into him.
posted by Strange Interlude at 1:47 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
After he left The Man Show, he mind-melded Adam Carolla and transferred his douchebro katra into him.
posted by Strange Interlude at 1:47 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
My respect for Sanders has been in the toilet since Orlando.
I'm also starting to wonder if Elizabeth Warren isn't campaigning with Hillary as a stand-in for Sanders. I just got an "I'm With Her, And You Should Be, Too," email that was worded suspiciously like it was addressing Sanders voters.
posted by Sara C. at 1:47 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm also starting to wonder if Elizabeth Warren isn't campaigning with Hillary as a stand-in for Sanders. I just got an "I'm With Her, And You Should Be, Too," email that was worded suspiciously like it was addressing Sanders voters.
posted by Sara C. at 1:47 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's a House sit in, why would he stay? The filibuster was the time to show.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:56 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:56 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Freddie de Boer, the patron saint of Bro Liberalism, is simply using Clinton's late arrival to the marriage equality party as a justification to defend his vote for Jill Stein, or a potted plant, or any other non-Clinton candidate that increases the GOP nominee's chance of winning.
Well, it's so nice that the Left has finally found that LGBT rights are important and worth fighting for. I suppose Iraq was getting kind of old as a talking point.
It's also nice that the Left is so feeling so secure that they can ignore the actual anti LGBT fascist in the campaign, in favor of focusing (once again) on the truly important thing of slagging on Clinton. Again. For some really important reason.
And this is totally not the Left once again shooting itself in the foot, while tossing the actual LGBT population under the bus in order to prove a point. Nuh-uh. Clinton must be excoriated now, because reasons.
posted by happyroach at 1:57 PM on June 22, 2016 [19 favorites]
Well, it's so nice that the Left has finally found that LGBT rights are important and worth fighting for. I suppose Iraq was getting kind of old as a talking point.
It's also nice that the Left is so feeling so secure that they can ignore the actual anti LGBT fascist in the campaign, in favor of focusing (once again) on the truly important thing of slagging on Clinton. Again. For some really important reason.
And this is totally not the Left once again shooting itself in the foot, while tossing the actual LGBT population under the bus in order to prove a point. Nuh-uh. Clinton must be excoriated now, because reasons.
posted by happyroach at 1:57 PM on June 22, 2016 [19 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments removed. entropicamericana, take the day off and find a way going forward to cut it out with the axe-grinding and this silenced-all-my-life in-thread deletion protest bullshit, because I'm super duper tired of it.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [16 favorites]
It's a House sit in, why would he stay? The filibuster was the time to show.
Yeah Bernie doesn't even go to that school
posted by zutalors! at 2:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
Yeah Bernie doesn't even go to that school
posted by zutalors! at 2:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
. I suppose Iraq was getting kind of old as a talking point.
Hundreds of thousands of people died. People are still dying today because of the destabilized wreck left behind.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hundreds of thousands of people died. People are still dying today because of the destabilized wreck left behind.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's a House sit in, why would he stay? The filibuster was the time to show.
A number of Senators have been sticking around. I believe Elizabeth Warren has been there for some time.
posted by zachlipton at 2:12 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
A number of Senators have been sticking around. I believe Elizabeth Warren has been there for some time.
posted by zachlipton at 2:12 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sanders can't stay because he risks alienating his Vermont constituents.
posted by Superplin at 2:15 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 2:15 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think the NRA is gonna improve his grade because he didn't stay long enough.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:19 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:19 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
A number of Senators have been sticking around. I believe Elizabeth Warren has been there for some time.
On her birthday, even.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:22 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
On her birthday, even.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:22 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
Kind of round #1,000 here, but I think it's very unlikely disillusioned Sanders supporters will spoil Hillary in the general. As with the '08 election I think right before the convention in a contentious primary is a misleading time to be estimating how many Sanders supporters will eventually vote HRC in the general. The percentages of Clinton supporters who were leaning McCain right before the convention (~16%) vs. Sanders supporters favoring Trump pre-2016 convention (~19% according to this recent Fortune article) look pretty similar to me, for instance, yet in the end, the vast majority of Clinton supporters fell in line behind Obama. According to that Fortune article, that was especially true in swing states. So yeah.
(I'm another strong Sanders supporter who will absolutely vote HRC in the fall, btw, and I think the vast majority of people I've seen on the Bernie side of previous MeFi threads have indicated something similar.)
posted by en forme de poire at 2:26 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
(I'm another strong Sanders supporter who will absolutely vote HRC in the fall, btw, and I think the vast majority of people I've seen on the Bernie side of previous MeFi threads have indicated something similar.)
posted by en forme de poire at 2:26 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Sanders can't stay because he risks alienating his Vermont constituents.
Overwhelming Majority Of Vermonters Support More Gun Control, VPR Poll Shows. That's pre-Orlando, also (Feb 2016).
posted by en forme de poire at 2:30 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Overwhelming Majority Of Vermonters Support More Gun Control, VPR Poll Shows. That's pre-Orlando, also (Feb 2016).
posted by en forme de poire at 2:30 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, my wife is also a strong Sanders supporter who will vote HRC in the fall. I'm sure there are a non-negligible number who won't, but I'm also sure they won't be enough to influence the election. Right now everybody's feeling frazzled and resentful, but by November the alternatives will be crystal clear.
posted by languagehat at 2:32 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by languagehat at 2:32 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
En forme de poire, I'm delighted to stand corrected.
posted by Superplin at 2:34 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Superplin at 2:34 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
From NPR: In his speech today, Trump was disciplined, for a change. He read from a text; he stayed on message. Those things alone will provide a kind of catharsis for Republicans who were on the verge of giving up on Trump.
Trump Just Gave The Speech Republicans Have Been Waiting 20 Years To Hear
Because Republicans have never heard anyone give a speech trashing the Clintons.
Christ, could they try any harder to help Trump with this? It's like their idea of balance and non-partisanship is to try to boost him up.
Is NPR really so terrified of getting the gov't contribution to their funding axed by Republicans that they'll bend this far over backwards to help a nominee that Republicans don't even like?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:35 PM on June 22, 2016 [24 favorites]
Trump Just Gave The Speech Republicans Have Been Waiting 20 Years To Hear
Because Republicans have never heard anyone give a speech trashing the Clintons.
Christ, could they try any harder to help Trump with this? It's like their idea of balance and non-partisanship is to try to boost him up.
Is NPR really so terrified of getting the gov't contribution to their funding axed by Republicans that they'll bend this far over backwards to help a nominee that Republicans don't even like?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:35 PM on June 22, 2016 [24 favorites]
"In his speech today, Trump was disciplined, for a change. He read from a text; he stayed on message."
He literally met the absolute minimum standard for a 7-year-old to perform in the school play! That's what we're looking for in a president!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:41 PM on June 22, 2016 [43 favorites]
He literally met the absolute minimum standard for a 7-year-old to perform in the school play! That's what we're looking for in a president!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:41 PM on June 22, 2016 [43 favorites]
I am so very, deeply disappointed in NPR right now.
posted by Superplin at 2:45 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 2:45 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
NPR (via Liasson) seems oddly impressed by that speech. what
posted by defenestration at 2:45 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 2:45 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
"In his speech today, Trump was disciplined, for a change. He read from a text; he stayed on message."
I swear, if Trump shows up at the debate against Clinton and manages to avoid accidentally setting his podium on fire within the first 30 seconds, people will be praising his performance.
posted by zachlipton at 2:46 PM on June 22, 2016 [24 favorites]
I swear, if Trump shows up at the debate against Clinton and manages to avoid accidentally setting his podium on fire within the first 30 seconds, people will be praising his performance.
posted by zachlipton at 2:46 PM on June 22, 2016 [24 favorites]
Low expectations. It worked for Bush Jr.
We just never expected how low they could get.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:49 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
We just never expected how low they could get.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:49 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
I swear, if Trump shows up at the debate against Clinton and manages to avoid accidentally setting his podium on fire within the first 30 seconds, people NPR will be praising his performance.
Seriously, what. I've been an NPR fan, but this is getting ridiculous.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Seriously, what. I've been an NPR fan, but this is getting ridiculous.
posted by Existential Dread at 2:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Wiser heads than mine: what happens if you are actually under indictment and are the nominee? If we fail to stop him at convention, will this Trump U stuff have any possibility?
posted by corb at 2:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 2:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Low expectations. It worked for Bush Jr.
Except he's vastly overpromising. People are obviously making major adjustments in setting their expectations, though, so he is somehow still managing to overdeliver.
It's kind of fascinating, really.
posted by Superplin at 2:52 PM on June 22, 2016
Except he's vastly overpromising. People are obviously making major adjustments in setting their expectations, though, so he is somehow still managing to overdeliver.
It's kind of fascinating, really.
posted by Superplin at 2:52 PM on June 22, 2016
"In his speech today, Trump was disciplined, for a change. He read from a text; he stayed on message."
Eyebrows McGee: He literally met the absolute minimum standard for a 7-year-old to perform in the school play! That's what we're looking for in a president!
Has anyone looked into the possibility that Trump is actually two kids in a big suit? Some kids can be very charismatic, and are definitely prone to throw tantrums when they don't get their way, or generally act civil in the company of adults.
zachlipton: I swear, if Trump shows up at the debate against Clinton and manages to avoid accidentally setting his podium on fire within the first 30 seconds, people will be praising his performance.
And that, folks, is how you control the discussion. Be as ridiculous as possible while garnering support for content-free bluster, then reel it back to show how you can be controlled. Because if you're generally controlled and you happen to holler when the crowd goes crazy for you, that's all that anyone will remember from that night ("The Dean Scream - an oral history," including comments from Dean himself).
posted by filthy light thief at 2:53 PM on June 22, 2016
Eyebrows McGee: He literally met the absolute minimum standard for a 7-year-old to perform in the school play! That's what we're looking for in a president!
Has anyone looked into the possibility that Trump is actually two kids in a big suit? Some kids can be very charismatic, and are definitely prone to throw tantrums when they don't get their way, or generally act civil in the company of adults.
zachlipton: I swear, if Trump shows up at the debate against Clinton and manages to avoid accidentally setting his podium on fire within the first 30 seconds, people will be praising his performance.
And that, folks, is how you control the discussion. Be as ridiculous as possible while garnering support for content-free bluster, then reel it back to show how you can be controlled. Because if you're generally controlled and you happen to holler when the crowd goes crazy for you, that's all that anyone will remember from that night ("The Dean Scream - an oral history," including comments from Dean himself).
posted by filthy light thief at 2:53 PM on June 22, 2016
GOP leaders alarmed by Trump’s ‘devastating’ fundraising start (WaPo, June 21).
I am basking in your sorrow and failure.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:57 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
New campaign finance reports showing that Trump had less than $1.3 million in the bank heading into June ignited fears that the party will not be able to afford the kind of national field effort that the entire Republican ticket depends on.The top ad from a Google search for 'trump fundraising' turns up a secure trump2016 dot com link, and Google pulled the title as reading "Contribute to Team Trump - We Will Start Winning Again."
The real estate mogul responded by going on the offensive, saying GOP fundraisers have failed to rally around his campaign.
I am basking in your sorrow and failure.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:57 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Remember this from oh so long ago?
One of my worst fears is that Trump will indeed "pivot" and start acting like a rational candidate.
My immediate reaction at the time was "He's not even going to bother to pivot- he'll just say the same shit he always has, and the press will just start talking about "The New Trump" and forget all the crap he said before."
Damn it, I didn't want that to be proven right THE SAME GODDAMN DAY!
posted by happyroach at 3:00 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
One of my worst fears is that Trump will indeed "pivot" and start acting like a rational candidate.
My immediate reaction at the time was "He's not even going to bother to pivot- he'll just say the same shit he always has, and the press will just start talking about "The New Trump" and forget all the crap he said before."
Damn it, I didn't want that to be proven right THE SAME GODDAMN DAY!
posted by happyroach at 3:00 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
I don't usually get religious for a lot of reasons, not least of which that I am a foul mouthed veteran, but you know, I still harken back to my roots, and there's a certain grim satisfaction that people who swarmed to Trump because they thought he would be bringing money to the show aren't even getting the filthy lucre they sold their souls for.
posted by corb at 3:00 PM on June 22, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by corb at 3:00 PM on June 22, 2016 [32 favorites]
Has anyone looked into the possibility that Trump is actually two kids in a big suit?
It would explain the hands.
posted by The Bellman at 3:06 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
It would explain the hands.
posted by The Bellman at 3:06 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the GOP stepped in to help him organize fundraising, simply to prevent a down-ticket slaughter.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:06 PM on June 22, 2016
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 3:06 PM on June 22, 2016
I'm sure the answer to this is "lol", but is there any way for a donor to their (local) NPR station to register their unhappiness with political coverage?
posted by Sara C. at 3:14 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Sara C. at 3:14 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Write an angry tweet?
posted by mazola at 3:15 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mazola at 3:15 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sara C.: "I'm sure the answer to this is "lol", but is there any way for a donor to their (local) NPR station to register their unhappiness with political coverage?"
In principle, you can contact the NPR ombudsman.
posted by mhum at 3:23 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
In principle, you can contact the NPR ombudsman.
posted by mhum at 3:23 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Did NPR read/watch the same speech I did? I guess that he mostly managed to form complete sentences and didn't go off on too many tangents but it was still the same bullshit that he's been saying for months.
posted by octothorpe at 3:30 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by octothorpe at 3:30 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
That article is really disconnected from reality. I wonder if the Ombudsman would see this differently than her previous reporting.
My conclusion on Liasson's work is simple:
Applaud her.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:52 PM on June 22, 2016
My conclusion on Liasson's work is simple:
Applaud her.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:52 PM on June 22, 2016
NPR's Fact check response to Trump's speech
Amazingly anti-Hillary and shallow on the actual fact-checking. Salon's which I linked to earlier was much more thorough.
Hillary Clinton's response to Trump's speech
During her rally in Raleigh today she sighed and pointed out he has to attack her personally stuff because he has nothing of substance to say.
Representative Mark Walker's (NC) response to the sit-in
He tweeted, "Calling this a sit-in is a disgrace to Woolworth's. They sat-in for rights. Dems are "sitting-in" to strip them away."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Amazingly anti-Hillary and shallow on the actual fact-checking. Salon's which I linked to earlier was much more thorough.
Hillary Clinton's response to Trump's speech
During her rally in Raleigh today she sighed and pointed out he has to attack her personally stuff because he has nothing of substance to say.
Representative Mark Walker's (NC) response to the sit-in
He tweeted, "Calling this a sit-in is a disgrace to Woolworth's. They sat-in for rights. Dems are "sitting-in" to strip them away."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:02 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
I first jumped into these threads immediately after my vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary, and for a while pre-vote I'd been following a lot of pro-Sanders Twitter people, including de Boer and his ilk. A lot of the early Internet humorists have since migrated to Twitter, and the ones who weren't part of that awful "fratire" movement have gotten a bit wiser and more politically-astute, so much so that I thought they were fully on-board with the SJW movement, the anti-GamerGate crowd, and all that "basic human decency" jazz. It turns out that, to a non-trivial extent, they haven't—they've just gotten better at disguising their shitty stances with high-falutin' Leftism.Freddie de Boer, the patron saint of Bro Liberalism, is simply using Clinton's late arrival to the marriage equality party as a justification to defend his vote for Jill Stein, or a potted plant, or any other non-Clinton candidate that increases the GOP nominee's chance of winning.Well, it's so nice that the Left has finally found that LGBT rights are important and worth fighting for. I suppose Iraq was getting kind of old as a talking point.
It's also nice that the Left is so feeling so secure that they can ignore the actual anti LGBT fascist in the campaign, in favor of focusing (once again) on the truly important thing of slagging on Clinton. Again. For some really important reason.
(A number of MeFites, and ones I like a lot at that, seem to run with that crowd, which has been disillusioning to behold. Sigh.)
de Boer is one of their go-to guys when it comes to "I'm intellectual and respectable", and he leans heavily on the "I teach and write about the Left, and thus am free to critique other people who are left-of-center when they're doing things I don't like." A good chunk of his targets are things like college students who write angry open letters to the administration, or who think people of color aren't being treated fairly, or who want more attention paid to sexual assault victims. Which, I mean: there're reasons to dislike how left-leaning college students do things. Many of my friends are Haverford and Bryn Mawr graduates, and holy shit the drama surrounding those schools is popcorn-worthy.
But the argument that these students aren't organizing and forming radical cells here and there ignores that "students being silly" has always been the status quo. It also—this took me longer to notice than it maybe should've—conveniently ignores every mode of student organization that goes against the author's preferences. Occupy? Proper leftism. Students occupying buildings in protest? Depends—are they doing it because they think students of color aren't being listened to? Then it's useless, trivial bullshit. Marching against Wall Street? Great, keep going! Marching to raise awareness about campus rape culture? Way to make Americans disrespect the Left, assholes. Let me cite several very long-winded white men and point out how few long-winded white men you cite by comparison. Now shut the fuck up and vote Bernie.
The giveaway, I think, is how quickly those people jump up to defend their allies when those allies do shitty, awful things. I'm not even talking about pretending there aren't Bernie Bros or claiming that women Bernie supporters receiving criticism invalidates all charges of Sanders fans' misogyny. One guy wrote a piece on Medium about how Zoe Quinn deserved #GamerGate because her game was too boring and emotional, and the back-patting he received was pretty sickening. But no, we shouldn't keep up this "circular firing squad", we have to stop critiquing each other's behaviors. We need to keep our eyes on the target!
(Hillary. It's Hillary. That's the target.)
I'm really damn sympathetic to the far left. My inclination (and one I try to be self-aware about) is to find economic and political policy really fascinating, far more than anything else. I also prefer abstract and lofty conversations to ones in which people have a personal stake, because I am a wonky-wonk nerd who likes thinking out loud without checks and balances. Also, zingers! Who doesn't love zingers!
(Oh and it's way easier to ignore my economic privilege than it is to ignore my social privilege, because as a cishet white male I am usually directly responsible for everything wrong with Western culture, and probably am actively oppressing people in ways it's exhausting to think about. Economic privilege is so much easier to parse! Raise my taxes! I'm so saintly.)
But lofty idealism is self-centered, even as it tries to argue that it's not. Empathy is non-optional. And, once you accept that you can't act in detached, non-empathetic ways, you start to notice that certain political stances are rooted, at their core, in that kind of detachment. That as soon as you attempt to practice them in generous, caring ways, you begin to notice why your supposed ideological nemesis hold the positions that they do—usually, they've simply arrived at an inevitable and logical conclusion. Turns out calling yourself fact-oriented does not, in fact, make you the only person capable of exercising reason. Who knew!
Not to be rude and compare this strain of Leftism to Objectivism, but as somebody who flirts with and enjoys aspects of both, they've got more in common than they don't. I love anarchosocialism as much as the next anarchosocialist, but it turns out the solution to not being called an oblivious asshole isn't just to hold nicer-sounding beliefs. It's to modify your approach to the political process altogether. And the assumption that both sides of any struggle are equally shitty is as false an equivalency when you're comparing two strains of leftism as it is when you're comparing the political left to the political right. "I guess we see things differently" will never be an excuse to shit on people who disagree with you, and if you're the one doing the shitting, maybe stop and ask yourself if you've become the thing you ostensibly despise.
If you despise it, that is. The impression I'm getting is that a lot of lefties, de Boer included, resent not being taken seriously as intellectual authorities, and are frustrated that their policy of snidely dismissing alternative worldviews isn't seen as the brilliant elitism that they want to project it as being.
posted by rorgy at 4:08 PM on June 22, 2016 [18 favorites]
Representative Mark Walker's (NC) response to the sit-in...
Daniel M. Jimenez: "White man born in 1969 lectures John Lewis about sit-ins."
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:08 PM on June 22, 2016 [23 favorites]
Daniel M. Jimenez: "White man born in 1969 lectures John Lewis about sit-ins."
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:08 PM on June 22, 2016 [23 favorites]
Hillary Clinton's response to Trump's speech
I really don't know what to make of the fact that Breitbart's reporting on Clinton's response is more evenhanded and less directive than NPR's reporting on Trump's speech, but my initial reaction is something like this.
posted by dersins at 4:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
I really don't know what to make of the fact that Breitbart's reporting on Clinton's response is more evenhanded and less directive than NPR's reporting on Trump's speech, but my initial reaction is something like this.
posted by dersins at 4:10 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More Bombing and Intervention
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:13 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 4:13 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I contacted the NPR ombuds(wo)man about a stupid headline that just openly expressed sadness that Sanders wouldn't debate Trump, and got a response in agreement a couple of days later ("I wasn't crazy about that headline either."). I never bothered to look up website to see if that was stated publicly.
posted by msalt at 4:13 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by msalt at 4:13 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Dersins I feel the same way. I clicked on Bretbart (as I always do) with reservations but they just reported the facts. Weird.
I didn't realize his debt was so Yuuuuge
Oh, Donald Trump made many great millions yesterday in no time at all, according to another Donald Trump. One theory is that he's counting in icelandic dollars.
Combined with a joint fundraising committee established with the Republican National Committee, Donald Trump has raised more than $5 million online since Tuesday morning, according to a tweet from a top Republican official.
Does that mean three million plus the 2 million that the Donald was supposed to kick-in?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:17 PM on June 22, 2016
I didn't realize his debt was so Yuuuuge
Oh, Donald Trump made many great millions yesterday in no time at all, according to another Donald Trump. One theory is that he's counting in icelandic dollars.
Combined with a joint fundraising committee established with the Republican National Committee, Donald Trump has raised more than $5 million online since Tuesday morning, according to a tweet from a top Republican official.
Does that mean three million plus the 2 million that the Donald was supposed to kick-in?
Under the agreement reached last month between the Trump campaign and the RNC, Trump is able to raise money directly for nearly a dozen state parties and the national committee through the Trump Victory and Trump Make America Great Again committees, respectively. Individual donors can contribute nearly $450,000 each.I don't know. I'm out of my depth here This is confusing yet somehow I sense there was a lot of smoke and mirrors. Maybe Trump had a couple of rich pals lined up to donate online?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:17 PM on June 22, 2016
In fairness to NPR, Republicans have been waiting to hear that speech. They’ve heard it before, but they are happy to hear it again.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:17 PM on June 22, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 4:17 PM on June 22, 2016
By the way in case you are some cock-eyed optimist thinking the sit-in might accomplish something? Yeah No. Paul Ryan called it “nothing more than a publicity stunt.”
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:22 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
“That’s not any way to bring a bill to a floor,” Ryan told "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" in his first remarks on the Democrats’ move. “They know we will not bring a bill that takes away a person’s constitutional rights without due process.”(my bold) A little tit for tat there.
At the same time, GOP leaders gathered for a rare evening conference meeting to plot next steps on the floor. Republicans had hoped to begin voting Wednesday on their financial services and general government appropriations bill, but instead have had to postpone the votes.
A spokeswoman for Ryan said the chamber would be in recess as long as Democrats held up normal legislative business.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:22 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More Bombing and Intervention
Michele Flournoy sent a response to the publishers of the original piece. This doesn't totally contradict the statement in the headline, but I thought it was worth posting anyway.
To the Editor of Defense One:
I am writing in response to your piece on June 20 that fundamentally mischaracterized my views on the role U.S. forces should play in Syria. Both the headline and article erroneously suggested that I advocate sending more U.S. troops to “push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria” and “remove Assad from power.” I do not.
I have argued for increasing U.S. military support to moderate Syrian opposition groups fighting ISIS and the Assad regime, like the Southern Front, not asking U.S. troops to do the fighting in their stead. I further argue that the U.S. should under some circumstances consider using limited military coercion – primarily strikes using standoff weapons – to retaliate against Syrian military targets in order to stop violations of the Cessation of Hostilities, deter Russian and Syrian bombing of innocent civilians and the opposition groups we support, and set more favorable conditions on the ground for a negotiated political settlement.
In short, I advocate doing more to support our partners on the ground to make them more effective; I do NOT advocate putting U.S. combat troops on the ground to take territory from Assad’s forces or remove Assad from power.
Michele A. Flournoy
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [14 favorites]
Michele Flournoy sent a response to the publishers of the original piece. This doesn't totally contradict the statement in the headline, but I thought it was worth posting anyway.
To the Editor of Defense One:
I am writing in response to your piece on June 20 that fundamentally mischaracterized my views on the role U.S. forces should play in Syria. Both the headline and article erroneously suggested that I advocate sending more U.S. troops to “push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria” and “remove Assad from power.” I do not.
I have argued for increasing U.S. military support to moderate Syrian opposition groups fighting ISIS and the Assad regime, like the Southern Front, not asking U.S. troops to do the fighting in their stead. I further argue that the U.S. should under some circumstances consider using limited military coercion – primarily strikes using standoff weapons – to retaliate against Syrian military targets in order to stop violations of the Cessation of Hostilities, deter Russian and Syrian bombing of innocent civilians and the opposition groups we support, and set more favorable conditions on the ground for a negotiated political settlement.
In short, I advocate doing more to support our partners on the ground to make them more effective; I do NOT advocate putting U.S. combat troops on the ground to take territory from Assad’s forces or remove Assad from power.
Michele A. Flournoy
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [14 favorites]
Hillary Clinton’s Likely Pentagon Chief Already Advocating for More Bombing and Intervention
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:30 PM on June 22, 2016 [26 favorites]
Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official whom Defense One calls “the woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton,” this week advocated for “sending more American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been willing to commit.”Who or what is 'Defense One' and why does Glenn Greenwald privilege their citation-less speculation about a potential Clinton candidate for Defense Secretary enough to write an entire column trashing Hillary because of things this other person (Flournoy) has recently said?
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:30 PM on June 22, 2016 [26 favorites]
Wait...wait.
Are the House Republicans actually upset that someone is stopping them from doing their "normal legislative business"?
I don't even know how to process this shocking turn of events!
posted by Salieri at 4:31 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
Are the House Republicans actually upset that someone is stopping them from doing their "normal legislative business"?
I don't even know how to process this shocking turn of events!
posted by Salieri at 4:31 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
Donald J. Trump, millionaire, says "my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars." That $1 million in ~1968 would be $6.8 million today.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:38 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 4:38 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
moderate Syrian opposition groups fighting ISIS and the Assad regime
a.k.a. Al Qaeda. Support for ISIS is left to the USG's allies such as the Turkish gov't.
One of the weapons being supplied is the TOW anti-tank missile, which can also shoot down a low-flying helicopter in a pinch, which I've read about happening to at least one Russian helicopter. So Al Qaeda's shooting down Russian choppers with American missiles, just in Syria/Iraq this time. History rhymes.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 4:40 PM on June 22, 2016
a.k.a. Al Qaeda. Support for ISIS is left to the USG's allies such as the Turkish gov't.
One of the weapons being supplied is the TOW anti-tank missile, which can also shoot down a low-flying helicopter in a pinch, which I've read about happening to at least one Russian helicopter. So Al Qaeda's shooting down Russian choppers with American missiles, just in Syria/Iraq this time. History rhymes.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 4:40 PM on June 22, 2016
This David Gergen quote (which I read here ) about today's Trump speech is a thing of gobshite perfection:
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:58 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you don't look at what the substance of what he said, one of his best speeches and most effective speeches. It was disciplined and we got a text, never before happened before in a Trump campaign.Just ignore what he's saying and pay attention to how he's saying it and its a good speech!
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:58 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
It interests me that the speech that everyone suddenly agrees is "good" is a speech that, if you've been drinking the koolaid on Hillary Clinton as a corrupt liar, is much more vaguely palatable to so called "moderates".
I have a hard time believing that this "well-delivered" speech would be as agreeably received if it was about deporting Muslims en masse.
posted by Sara C. at 5:03 PM on June 22, 2016
I have a hard time believing that this "well-delivered" speech would be as agreeably received if it was about deporting Muslims en masse.
posted by Sara C. at 5:03 PM on June 22, 2016
Salon has a fact-check on Trump's anti-Hillary speech from this morning.
PolitiFact has a thorough fact-check as well. In addition to the "small" $1 million loan from his dad, pops also sprung for a $70 million construction loan for the Grand Hyatt.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:05 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I skimmed the text of the speech and thought it has some good lines as long as you don't take factuality into account, but did he actually rebut any of the attacks she made against him in her speech?
posted by kirkaracha at 5:07 PM on June 22, 2016
posted by kirkaracha at 5:07 PM on June 22, 2016
Who or what is 'Defense One'
Defense One delivers news, breaking analysis and ideas on the topics and trends that will define the future of U.S. defense and national security.
-
Defense One is a property of Atlantic Media, whose mission is to inform, elevate and challenge the national discourse. It is produced by Government Executive Media Group. More information on Atlantic Media is available at AtlanticMedia.com.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:16 PM on June 22, 2016
Defense One delivers news, breaking analysis and ideas on the topics and trends that will define the future of U.S. defense and national security.
-
Defense One is a property of Atlantic Media, whose mission is to inform, elevate and challenge the national discourse. It is produced by Government Executive Media Group. More information on Atlantic Media is available at AtlanticMedia.com.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:16 PM on June 22, 2016
Donald J. Trump, millionaire, says "my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars." That $1 million in ~1968 would be $6.8 million today.
Plus that's still a deceitful way to characterize it. I read a story (can't search now, sorry) saying that no one in town would give Donald a single dollar unless Fred (his father) signed on the line next to him. Which is to say, his rich, famous, respected-by-all-the-bankers father was personally guaranteeing all of Trump's investments from day one. Without that he would have been nothing. A personal guarantee from a wealthy person is hugely valuable even if they never end up getting called on to pay the debt they're co-signing.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 5:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Plus that's still a deceitful way to characterize it. I read a story (can't search now, sorry) saying that no one in town would give Donald a single dollar unless Fred (his father) signed on the line next to him. Which is to say, his rich, famous, respected-by-all-the-bankers father was personally guaranteeing all of Trump's investments from day one. Without that he would have been nothing. A personal guarantee from a wealthy person is hugely valuable even if they never end up getting called on to pay the debt they're co-signing.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 5:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
"Paul Ryan called it “nothing more than a publicity stunt.”"
It takes one to know one, Walking Publicity Stunt Paul Ryan!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:26 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
It takes one to know one, Walking Publicity Stunt Paul Ryan!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:26 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
If you don't look at what the substance of what he said, one of his best speeches and most effective speeches.
"If you ignore the fact that it's overflowing with toxic waste and rancid dog shit, one of the best buckets around."
posted by nubs at 5:31 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
"If you ignore the fact that it's overflowing with toxic waste and rancid dog shit, one of the best buckets around."
posted by nubs at 5:31 PM on June 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think you mean "Zombie-Eyed Granny-Starving Walking Publicity Stunt."
posted by Superplin at 5:31 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 5:31 PM on June 22, 2016 [7 favorites]
And Fred Trump buying $3.5 million in Chips to give the casino leg up plus making Donald's bond payment for him (over $18M, but it wasn't legal so shhh)
posted by readery at 5:33 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by readery at 5:33 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
I really like the optics of John Lewis leading this sit in months after Bernie supporters went after him for not being appropriately grateful to Bernie Sanders for his civil rights activism.
posted by zutalors! at 5:34 PM on June 22, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 5:34 PM on June 22, 2016 [22 favorites]
That was when my negative feelings about Sanders started to build. When you find yourself attacking John Lewis it's time to rethink your life. (I realize Sanders is not his supporters which is why I would still vote for him in a general.)
posted by Justinian at 5:45 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:45 PM on June 22, 2016 [5 favorites]
Senator Warren brings birthday Dunkin Donuts to the sit-in.
Is there anything more Massachusetts?
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [23 favorites]
Is there anything more Massachusetts?
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [23 favorites]
...when Reagan became the G.O.P. nominee; more women than men supported Carter, by eight percentage points. Since then, the gender gap has never favored a G.O.P. Presidential candidate. The Democratic Party began billing itself as the party of women. By 1987, Trump had become a Republican.The Woman Card
In the Reagan era, Republican strategists believed that, in trading women for men, they’d got the better end of the deal... And that’s more or less where it lies.
With the end of the E.R.A., whose chance at ratification expired in 1982, both parties abandoned a political settlement necessary to the stability of the republic. The entrance of women into politics on terms that are, fundamentally and constitutionally, unequal to men’s has produced a politics of interminable division, infused with misplaced and dreadful moralism. Republicans can’t win women; when they win, they win without them, by winning with men. Democrats need to win both the black vote and the female vote. Trump and Clinton aren’t likely to break that pattern. Trump, with his tent-revival meetings, is crusading not only against Clinton and against Obama but against immigrants, against Muslims, and, in the end, against every group of voters that has fled the Republican Party, as he rides with his Four Horsemen: Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.
“This is a movement of the American people,” Trump wrote in an e-mail to supporters. “And the American people NEVER lose.” It took a very long time, and required the work of the Republican Party, to change the meaning of “the American people” to include everyone. It hasn’t taken very long at all for Trump to change it back. The next move is Clinton’s, and her party’s.
posted by y2karl at 5:54 PM on June 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
Senator Warren brings birthday Dunkin Donuts to the sit-in.
And all the replies are from Bernie Or Busters.
posted by zachlipton at 5:55 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
And all the replies are from Bernie Or Busters.
posted by zachlipton at 5:55 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
CNN Libertarian Town Hall Live Stream: How to Watch Online
Starting now.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:00 PM on June 22, 2016
Starting now.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:00 PM on June 22, 2016
And all the replies are from Bernie Or Busters.
I think a lot of them are Trumpholes. The hashtag crookedhillary business gives them away.
posted by dersins at 6:03 PM on June 22, 2016
I think a lot of them are Trumpholes. The hashtag crookedhillary business gives them away.
posted by dersins at 6:03 PM on June 22, 2016
Johnson is focusing on presenting as a team with Weld, likely playing for Romney's endorsement. So far they are both impressive, but all softballs.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:06 PM on June 22, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 6:06 PM on June 22, 2016
They are both rejecting chances to bash Obama and Clinton so far, they are focused on Trump.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Glenn Greenwald isn't going to approve of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy. Hillary and Glenn don't see the world in the same way.
posted by humanfont at 6:19 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 6:19 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
A woman who was inside Pulse in Orlando and saw her friend shot just got to ask Johnson and Weld why they think we need more guns. She looks seething.
posted by zachlipton at 6:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 6:20 PM on June 22, 2016 [27 favorites]
Yeah, that was awful. They made zero attempt to make a human connection with her and the libertarian policy on guns is terrible. They need much better prep for the town hall format if they want to make up for the terrible policy.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:21 PM on June 22, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 6:21 PM on June 22, 2016
Glenn Greenwald isn't going to approve of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy. Hillary and Glenn don't see the world in the same way.
Which is fine, but that doesn't give him a license to be dishonest or warp things.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Which is fine, but that doesn't give him a license to be dishonest or warp things.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:29 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Hrm, Johnson refuses to say Hillary is better than Trump under threat of waterboarding. Weld just blurts out Clinton.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:36 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 6:36 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Which is fine, but that doesn't give him a license to be dishonest or warp things.
If there was distortion here it was Defense One that did it. Greenwald just reported what they reported.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:37 PM on June 22, 2016
If there was distortion here it was Defense One that did it. Greenwald just reported what they reported.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:37 PM on June 22, 2016
If there was distortion here it was Defense One that did it. Greenwald just reported what they reported.
He's supposed to be a reporter, not a stenographer or a megaphone.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:38 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
He's supposed to be a reporter, not a stenographer or a megaphone.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:38 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
Looks like they aren't going full libertarian on drugs, disappointing to me, but they are talking directly to Mitt Romney right now too. I think they handled the heroin question about as well as they could otherwise. The asker was far from convinced, but I don't think there's anything they could have said to her there.
He's supposed to be a reporter, not a stenographer or a megaphone.
Reporters cite each other all the time. If Defense One apparently made up a quote or something else went wrong that caused them to misreport, he has no way to know that. He should add the response to his article, but that's about it.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's supposed to be a reporter, not a stenographer or a megaphone.
Reporters cite each other all the time. If Defense One apparently made up a quote or something else went wrong that caused them to misreport, he has no way to know that. He should add the response to his article, but that's about it.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:50 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
If Defense One apparently made up a quote or something else went wrong that caused them to misreport, he has no way to know that.
Defense One's article stated: The woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.
They don't say what they mean by "expected" or cite any sources themselves for that assertion. That's pretty weak sauce, and yeah I would expect a reporter to not take that unsourced statement and then put the word "likely" in a headline, at the very least.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:57 PM on June 22, 2016 [12 favorites]
Defense One's article stated: The woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.
They don't say what they mean by "expected" or cite any sources themselves for that assertion. That's pretty weak sauce, and yeah I would expect a reporter to not take that unsourced statement and then put the word "likely" in a headline, at the very least.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:57 PM on June 22, 2016 [12 favorites]
That Politico article about Trump's response to the Dump movement starts with the words:
"Donald Trump’s campaign is preparing a sophisticated operation..."
Okay, credibility totally lost in 8 words... Trump? Sophisticated? Hilarious.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Donald Trump’s campaign is preparing a sophisticated operation..."
Okay, credibility totally lost in 8 words... Trump? Sophisticated? Hilarious.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:11 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm kind of curious how good their information gathering is. I guess I'll find out when we start getting blackmail calls or whatever they're calling it.
posted by corb at 7:14 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by corb at 7:14 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
She's been viewed as a likely candidate for the job since 2012. She's extremely qualified, experienced, and has the right connections with the Democratic establishment.
I will say you folks are right Greenwald does stretch that too far though, especially with the later "almost-certain." I thought people were more upset about the boots on the ground comments.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:15 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I will say you folks are right Greenwald does stretch that too far though, especially with the later "almost-certain." I thought people were more upset about the boots on the ground comments.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:15 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I had the same though, oneswellfoop, but given that we seem to have at least one member with connections to the Dump Trump movement, I thought it was worth sharing as a bit of insight on what might be going on with the other side.
posted by nubs at 7:15 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by nubs at 7:15 PM on June 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Libertarian townhall done. I don't think it will wow anybody, but they didn't come off as complete kooks like Ron Paul does. They look like a very solid choice for people who don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump and are okay with voting 3rd party.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:22 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 7:22 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
I guess I'll find out when we start getting blackmail calls or whatever they're calling it.
"Contribution asks"
posted by figurant at 7:24 PM on June 22, 2016
"Contribution asks"
posted by figurant at 7:24 PM on June 22, 2016
I'm guessing the Don't Dump Trump campaign consists of somebody writing press releases that Politico will publish verbatim, and a small team of experienced Gamergator harrassers.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:25 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:25 PM on June 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trump as a child.
He clearly needed an intervention as a kid, and he got it good and hard, in the form of military school, which was the worst possible choice. I see a boy who needed to learn empathy, and had no way to learn it, or anyone to teach him why he should.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:41 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
He clearly needed an intervention as a kid, and he got it good and hard, in the form of military school, which was the worst possible choice. I see a boy who needed to learn empathy, and had no way to learn it, or anyone to teach him why he should.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:41 PM on June 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
NPR (via Liasson) seems oddly impressed by that speech. what
What ??? to your what. Ever hear of a network called FOX ? 'Cause she is like a guest on the Buster Friendly Show there -- on air 24/7.
posted by y2karl at 7:59 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
What ??? to your what. Ever hear of a network called FOX ? 'Cause she is like a guest on the Buster Friendly Show there -- on air 24/7.
posted by y2karl at 7:59 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump plans to stop Dump Trump movement
Trump Stumps Rump Dump Trump Chumps
posted by kirkaracha at 8:00 PM on June 22, 2016 [32 favorites]
I had no idea that Liasson was on Fox; the first Republican debate was the only time I've seen that channel in the last decade or so and we've dumped cable since then so I can't watch at all now.
posted by octothorpe at 8:19 PM on June 22, 2016
posted by octothorpe at 8:19 PM on June 22, 2016
I get just local broadcast here but have been subjected to FOX when visiting relatives where it is on all day and night. I've seen her on many a panel discussion there over the years, which in turn has tuned my ears to her dog whistling on NPR.
posted by y2karl at 8:31 PM on June 22, 2016
posted by y2karl at 8:31 PM on June 22, 2016
Libertarian townhall done. I don't think it will wow anybody, but they didn't come off as complete kooks like Ron Paul does. They look like a very solid choice for people who don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump and are okay with voting 3rd party.
As long as those people are also OK with cutting taxes for the richest Americans, gutting (or totally eliminating) the social safety net, completely deregulating the financial and energy sectors, permitting uncontrolled access to assault weapons and other firearms, and utterly eliminating the Department of Education.
posted by dersins at 9:04 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
As long as those people are also OK with cutting taxes for the richest Americans, gutting (or totally eliminating) the social safety net, completely deregulating the financial and energy sectors, permitting uncontrolled access to assault weapons and other firearms, and utterly eliminating the Department of Education.
posted by dersins at 9:04 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
(i.e. Republicans. Who smoke weed.)
posted by dersins at 9:07 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by dersins at 9:07 PM on June 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
That's the general libertarian thing, yeah. In this case they are campaigning more moderate than that and their record is more moderate than that. A moderate Republican or conservative Democrat who doesn't like the other choices isn't going too far afield to vote for this particular ticket unless the guns are the dealbreaker.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:25 PM on June 22, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 9:25 PM on June 22, 2016
Developing - House GOP leaders discussing plan to vote on new Zika bill and then adjourn for July 4th recess - @mkraju live on CNN with more
Oh, Paul Ryan. You poor doomed fool. You can run but you can't hide.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:54 PM on June 22, 2016
Oh, Paul Ryan. You poor doomed fool. You can run but you can't hide.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:54 PM on June 22, 2016
A quick Google reveals that Flournoy has been rumored for the job since 2012, in a variety of sources, from a variety of ideological positions. She's squarely in the Liberal Interventionist circle that Hillary runs in (she seems to have been disappointed with Obama's aversion to risk taking, at least back when she resigned her post at DOD and took herself out of the running to replace Hagel), and okay granted Greenwsld is a lawyer and a shrill advocate, but let's accept that Flournoy is connected and a likely or at least possible Clinton appointee, given her resume, and consider the statement in that light. Is that the kind of policy you would like Clinton to pursue? Tell her so while she's still listening.
posted by notyou at 10:06 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by notyou at 10:06 PM on June 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
In other news,
This year's Congressional Baseball Game is scheduled for Thursday at Nationals Park. Between now and game time, CQ Roll Call talks to members of Congress about why they play, what they expect this year and some of their favorite stories from games past.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:23 PM on June 22, 2016
This year's Congressional Baseball Game is scheduled for Thursday at Nationals Park. Between now and game time, CQ Roll Call talks to members of Congress about why they play, what they expect this year and some of their favorite stories from games past.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:23 PM on June 22, 2016
As long as those people are also OK with cutting taxes for the richest Americans, gutting (or totally eliminating) the social safety net, completely deregulating the financial and energy sectors, permitting uncontrolled access to assault weapons and other firearms, and utterly eliminating the Department of Education.
Right, these guys are the same trickle-down economic looters that have run the country into the ground. The only reason they appear relatively reasonable is because Trump is such a loon.
posted by Justinian at 10:23 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
Right, these guys are the same trickle-down economic looters that have run the country into the ground. The only reason they appear relatively reasonable is because Trump is such a loon.
posted by Justinian at 10:23 PM on June 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
Congress has now adjourned until Friday, not till the July 4th recess. Sounds like some indecision from Ryan. Democrats to remain in the chamber, I assume.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:15 AM on June 23, 2016
posted by Drinky Die at 12:15 AM on June 23, 2016
I'm guessing the Don't Dump Trump campaign consists of somebody writing press releases that Politico will publish verbatim, and a small team of experienced Gamergator harrassers.
Well, I hate to burst your bubble but according to the article:
Well, I hate to burst your bubble but according to the article:
Mike McSherry, a veteran Republican operative and former executive director of the Republican Governors Association, will handle operations pertaining to three crucial convention committees. That includes the rules committee, where hardcore Trump resisters intend to force a vote on a plan that could snatch the nomination away from Trump.posted by overglow at 1:29 AM on June 23, 2016
Trump campaign attorney Bill McGinley, who was counsel to the 2012 convention’s rules committee, will handle all of the campaign’s legal operations at the convention. And Brian Jack, who helped identify and elect supportive delegates at state conventions and caucuses around the country during the spring, will help gather intelligence on the delegates attending the convention to aid the whip team’s efforts.
It’s a reality check for the grassroots organizers of an attempt to stop Trump. While they cobble together a list of rank-and-file delegates willing to stand in Trump’s way, they’ll be up against an experienced and extensive operation — backed by the Republican National Committee — that will have eyes and ears on all convention activity.
corb: Wiser heads than mine: what happens if you are actually under indictment and are the nominee? If we fail to stop him at convention, will this Trump U stuff have any possibility?
Of course, Hillary Clinton would have to be indicted as well, just to keep the balance.
posted by sour cream at 1:38 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Of course, Hillary Clinton would have to be indicted as well, just to keep the balance.
posted by sour cream at 1:38 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
If the FBI comes for Gary Johnson's grow operation too you better let him on the debate stage.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:53 AM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 1:53 AM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yesterday I predicted: NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson did acknowledge that five investigations ruled Vince Foster's death a suicide, not a murder, but it also sounded like she couldn't wait for Trump to throw her some red meat to report on all those terrible things Hillary Clinton did.
But even so, hoo boy, that Liasson coverage is terrible. I mean, get a load of this:
Shorter Liasson: Sure it's a pack of lies, but it's a pack of lies the Republicans love to hear, and I did too!
The thing is, though, that Clinton's speeches have been focused on presenting Trump as a dangerous risk and herself as an experienced choice. She's talking to a general election audience in terms that are likely to be persuasive to undecided voters. If Trump has to throw the base red meat like this -- in terms that even an openly sympathetic reporter has to admit aren't actually true -- he's likely to turn off a good chunk that small pool of persuadable voters, and what's more, validate Clinton's critique of him. I don't see it helping him no matter how much Liasson enjoys it.
posted by Gelatin at 5:47 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
But even so, hoo boy, that Liasson coverage is terrible. I mean, get a load of this:
Some of the speech will not stand up to scrutiny. It's based on a lot of innuendo and discredited sources. But it also contained the comprehensive critique of the Clintons that Republicans have been desperate for their standard-bearer to deliver.
Shorter Liasson: Sure it's a pack of lies, but it's a pack of lies the Republicans love to hear, and I did too!
The thing is, though, that Clinton's speeches have been focused on presenting Trump as a dangerous risk and herself as an experienced choice. She's talking to a general election audience in terms that are likely to be persuasive to undecided voters. If Trump has to throw the base red meat like this -- in terms that even an openly sympathetic reporter has to admit aren't actually true -- he's likely to turn off a good chunk that small pool of persuadable voters, and what's more, validate Clinton's critique of him. I don't see it helping him no matter how much Liasson enjoys it.
posted by Gelatin at 5:47 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
And by the way, memo to Liasson and, more importantly, her NPR editors: Trotting out discredited innuendo and conspiracy theories != laying out a case. Lying is basically admitting you don't really have a case.
posted by Gelatin at 5:49 AM on June 23, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 5:49 AM on June 23, 2016 [15 favorites]
Garrison Keillor: The punk who would be president
It is the most famous ducktail in America today, the hairdo of wayward youth of a bygone era, and it's astonishing to imagine it under the spotlight in Cleveland, being cheered by Republican dignitaries. The class hood, the bully and braggart, the guy revving his pink Chevy to make the pipes rumble, presiding over the student council. This is the C-minus guy who sat behind you in history and poked you with his pencil and smirked when you asked him to stop. That smirk is now on every front page in America. It is not what anybody — left, right or center — looks for in a president. There's no philosophy here, just an attitude...
The dreamers in the Republican Party imagine that success will steady him and he will accept wise counsel and come into the gravitational field of reality but it isn't happening. The Orlando tweets show it: The man does not have a heart. How, in a few weeks, should Mr. Ryan and Mr. McConnell teach him basic humanity? The bigot and braggart they see today is the same man that New Yorkers have been observing for 40 years. A man obsessed with marble walls and gold-plated doorknobs, who has the sensibility of a giant sea tortoise.
His response to the Orlando tragedy is one more clue that this election is different from any other. If Mitt Romney or John McCain had been elected president, you might be disappointed but you wouldn't fear for the fate of the Republic. This time, the Republican Party is nominating a man who resides in the dark depths. He is a thug and he doesn't bother to hide it. The only greatness he knows about is himself.
So the country is put to a historic test. If the man is not defeated, then we are not the country we imagine we are. All of the trillions spent on education was a waste. The churches should close up shop. The nation that elects this man president is not a civilized society. The gentleman is not airing out his fingernail polish, he is not showing off his wedding ring; he is making an obscene gesture. Ignore it at your peril.
posted by y2karl at 6:05 AM on June 23, 2016 [19 favorites]
What did giant sea tortoises ever do to you, Keillor?
posted by phearlez at 7:21 AM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 7:21 AM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
That Keillor piece is great. I don't normally like Keillor - he sounds like a college professor who'd take advantage of female students during office hours, and his Lake Wobegon schtick drums up the same kind of nationalistic nostalgia that Trump is playing on - but I really enjoyed that article. Thanks.
posted by stolyarova at 7:40 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stolyarova at 7:40 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, to everybody saying that Libertarians are identical to Republicans, what about the radically different stances on LGBT+ rights, abortion, and civil rights? We're not pot-smoking Karl Roves over here.
posted by stolyarova at 7:42 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 7:42 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
What did giant sea tortoises ever do to you, Keillor?
Well, they are a contradicition in terms when you think about it but, what the hey, he was on a roll.
...he sounds like a college professor who'd take advantage of female students during office hours, and his Lake Wobegon schtick drums up the same kind of nationalistic nostalgia that Trump is playing on
Well, for the first, you wouldn't think that hearing him get choked up about getting choked up at his daughter's upcoming graduation from high school and, for the second,
Cliiches falling like clockwork aside, the attributes of their industriousness, their infernal humility, their schoolmarmish sincerity, their earnest interest in you do not bring Donald Trump to mind, nor his followers.
I. for one, will miss him after his last show, which is the weekend after next, I believe...
posted by y2karl at 7:51 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Well, they are a contradicition in terms when you think about it but, what the hey, he was on a roll.
...he sounds like a college professor who'd take advantage of female students during office hours, and his Lake Wobegon schtick drums up the same kind of nationalistic nostalgia that Trump is playing on
Well, for the first, you wouldn't think that hearing him get choked up about getting choked up at his daughter's upcoming graduation from high school and, for the second,
Curiously, Mr. Keillor has always found it difficult spending so much time with the strong, good-looking, above average people of Lake Wobegon, which he based on his relatives, past and present.The Garrison Keillor You Never Knew
In “The Keillor Reader” (2014), he complained bitterly about “their industriousness, their infernal humility, their schoolmarmish sincerity, their earnest interest in you, their clichés falling like clockwork — it can be tiring to be around.”
Speaking on his porch, Mr. Keillor said of Lake Wobegonians, i.e., his relatives, “I am frustrated by them in real life.” They were too controlled by good manners, he said, and “have a very hard time breaking through.”
So why devote so much of his professional life ruminating about them? “It’s the people I think I know,” he replied.
Cliiches falling like clockwork aside, the attributes of their industriousness, their infernal humility, their schoolmarmish sincerity, their earnest interest in you do not bring Donald Trump to mind, nor his followers.
I. for one, will miss him after his last show, which is the weekend after next, I believe...
posted by y2karl at 7:51 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, to everybody saying that Libertarians are identical to Republicans, what about the radically different stances on LGBT+ rights, abortion, and civil rights? We're not pot-smoking Karl Roves over here.
I read through Gary Johnson's platform, and it seems clear that while he wouldn't support FEDERAL laws against those things, he has no problem whatsoever with STATES banning any or all of them.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:01 AM on June 23, 2016 [26 favorites]
I read through Gary Johnson's platform, and it seems clear that while he wouldn't support FEDERAL laws against those things, he has no problem whatsoever with STATES banning any or all of them.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:01 AM on June 23, 2016 [26 favorites]
This is the C-minus guy who sat behind you in history and poked you with his pencil and smirked when you asked him to stop. That smirk is now on every front page in America. It is not what anybody — left, right or center — looks for in a president. There's no philosophy here, just an attitude...It's like the 2000 election all over again. These descriptions are similar to what we heard about George W. Bush. A smirking idiot with no brains or plans, that the Republican party would be pairing with wise and experienced counsel so he would settle down and achieve greatness.
The dreamers in the Republican Party imagine that success will steady him and he will accept wise counsel and come into the gravitational field of reality but it isn't happening.
posted by zarq at 8:23 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Garrison Keillor's thing is very gently ripping on everybody. "Minnesota nice" taken to absurd extremes.
He's done riffs (I heard one in the car the other day) about going back to visit Lake Wobegone and being viewed with suspicion and distrust, but being treated kindly for the sake of his daughter.
Ripping on Donald Trump is not at all a departure for Keillor politically. He's just stepping out of character for a moment to make a straightforward argument for once. The character "Garrison Keillor" on Prairie Home Companion has a lot in common with the character "Stephen Colbert" on the Colbert Report, but ridiculously passive agressive instead of ridiculously bombastic.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:30 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
He's done riffs (I heard one in the car the other day) about going back to visit Lake Wobegone and being viewed with suspicion and distrust, but being treated kindly for the sake of his daughter.
Ripping on Donald Trump is not at all a departure for Keillor politically. He's just stepping out of character for a moment to make a straightforward argument for once. The character "Garrison Keillor" on Prairie Home Companion has a lot in common with the character "Stephen Colbert" on the Colbert Report, but ridiculously passive agressive instead of ridiculously bombastic.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:30 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Garrison Keillor's thing is very gently ripping on everybody.
Ever read Me, by Jimmy "Big Boy" Valente? I would not qualify it as "gentle".
posted by Etrigan at 8:34 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ever read Me, by Jimmy "Big Boy" Valente? I would not qualify it as "gentle".
posted by Etrigan at 8:34 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
stolyarova Also, to everybody saying that Libertarians are identical to Republicans, what about the radically different stances on LGBT+ rights, abortion, and civil rights? We're not pot-smoking Karl Roves over here.
I'd say a lot of it comes from the fact that while most libertarians *claim* to support various civil rights issues, they prioritize those issues well below tax cuts and therefore vote Republican most of the time when they vote for a major party.
And, the orthodox libertarian position on most civil rights isn't what you'd call all that great.
Rand and Ron Paul aren't fringe in their opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Your average libertarian privileges private property rights over civil rights and while they may say they personally object to segregation they believe that it is a greater evil for the government to mandate its end.
See, for example the Mises Institute in this article arguing against the Civil Rights Act.
Things like that tend to cause non-libertarians to see libertarians, at best, as utopian thinkers with a naive belief that the magic of the market will fix everything, to at worst people either hostile towards or indifferent to civil rights issues.
Either way civil rights is clearly viewed as more of a nice extra rather than a truly important thing.
Then we get to the part where many libertarians, Ron Paul for example, and their odd belief that only the Federal government should be banned from impinging on critical liberties but that state and local governments are and should be free to impose any number of totalitarian measures. Ron Paul's "We the People" act would have permitted states to establish state religions.
And then we get the really awful stuff, like the orthodox libertarian position that children are property and therefore parents should be completely free to starve their children to death, sell them into sexual slavery, and so on. Again, see the article at the Mises Institute.
I don't think it is really incorrect to say that libertarians consider property rights to be the only real rights and hold all other rights in a sort of contempt at best. Sure, they argue that maybe there's some *moral* obligation to behave in a civil manner and not be racist or starve your children, but the orthodox librarian position is that any attempt to pass a law that actually requires parents to feed their children, or business owners not to be discriminatory, is an intolerable imposition on the only right that matters: property.
posted by sotonohito at 8:37 AM on June 23, 2016 [23 favorites]
I'd say a lot of it comes from the fact that while most libertarians *claim* to support various civil rights issues, they prioritize those issues well below tax cuts and therefore vote Republican most of the time when they vote for a major party.
And, the orthodox libertarian position on most civil rights isn't what you'd call all that great.
Rand and Ron Paul aren't fringe in their opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Your average libertarian privileges private property rights over civil rights and while they may say they personally object to segregation they believe that it is a greater evil for the government to mandate its end.
See, for example the Mises Institute in this article arguing against the Civil Rights Act.
Things like that tend to cause non-libertarians to see libertarians, at best, as utopian thinkers with a naive belief that the magic of the market will fix everything, to at worst people either hostile towards or indifferent to civil rights issues.
Either way civil rights is clearly viewed as more of a nice extra rather than a truly important thing.
Then we get to the part where many libertarians, Ron Paul for example, and their odd belief that only the Federal government should be banned from impinging on critical liberties but that state and local governments are and should be free to impose any number of totalitarian measures. Ron Paul's "We the People" act would have permitted states to establish state religions.
And then we get the really awful stuff, like the orthodox libertarian position that children are property and therefore parents should be completely free to starve their children to death, sell them into sexual slavery, and so on. Again, see the article at the Mises Institute.
I don't think it is really incorrect to say that libertarians consider property rights to be the only real rights and hold all other rights in a sort of contempt at best. Sure, they argue that maybe there's some *moral* obligation to behave in a civil manner and not be racist or starve your children, but the orthodox librarian position is that any attempt to pass a law that actually requires parents to feed their children, or business owners not to be discriminatory, is an intolerable imposition on the only right that matters: property.
posted by sotonohito at 8:37 AM on June 23, 2016 [23 favorites]
Libertarians in general have given undue deference to the concept of state's right in regards to a whole host of socially liberal ideas.
There are times when a deference to the states is appropriate after all that's a central concept within our Constitution (that reflects the concerns of Jefferson and Madison concerning southern Agrarian ideals) but the attempts to assert the primacy of the state in a whole host of issues have been used consistently to slow social progress regarding civil rights within the US. Furthermore the Civil War should've really settled much of the issue regarding State's Rights in favor of the strong Federal system but the reality is that we've basically been living out the consequences of the Civil War for the last 150 or so years.
posted by vuron at 8:37 AM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
There are times when a deference to the states is appropriate after all that's a central concept within our Constitution (that reflects the concerns of Jefferson and Madison concerning southern Agrarian ideals) but the attempts to assert the primacy of the state in a whole host of issues have been used consistently to slow social progress regarding civil rights within the US. Furthermore the Civil War should've really settled much of the issue regarding State's Rights in favor of the strong Federal system but the reality is that we've basically been living out the consequences of the Civil War for the last 150 or so years.
posted by vuron at 8:37 AM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
Also, to everybody saying that Libertarians are identical to Republicans, what about the radically different stances on LGBT+ rights, abortion, and civil rights? We're not pot-smoking Karl Roves over here.
I don't think that Libertarians are identical to Republicans, but there's a reason that they end up often in the same camp as social conservatives. Because while they may have pleasant, progressive goals (a more free and meritocratic society, broadly speaking), the means by which they seek those goals (removing government oversight, attacking federalism, peddling pseudoeconomics) actually ends up moving society towards a socially conservative and economically stratified state. It's the same issue I have with Marxism, or with some of the more theocratic Catholics I knew in college who believed that a kinder, more holistic society would necessarily emerge from closer societal adherence to Church tradition. I like the goals, but you have to actually take a hard look at whether your methods are consistently leading towards those goals.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:45 AM on June 23, 2016 [27 favorites]
I don't think that Libertarians are identical to Republicans, but there's a reason that they end up often in the same camp as social conservatives. Because while they may have pleasant, progressive goals (a more free and meritocratic society, broadly speaking), the means by which they seek those goals (removing government oversight, attacking federalism, peddling pseudoeconomics) actually ends up moving society towards a socially conservative and economically stratified state. It's the same issue I have with Marxism, or with some of the more theocratic Catholics I knew in college who believed that a kinder, more holistic society would necessarily emerge from closer societal adherence to Church tradition. I like the goals, but you have to actually take a hard look at whether your methods are consistently leading towards those goals.
posted by AdamCSnider at 8:45 AM on June 23, 2016 [27 favorites]
In very very nice political news that simply reaffirms for me the absolute need for Hillary to win the Presidency in the fall the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the UT Affirmative Action program in regards to university admissions.
Super cool but I really don't want to have to rely on Kennedy deciding that he wants to continue to be on the right side of history as his career winds down.
posted by vuron at 8:53 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Super cool but I really don't want to have to rely on Kennedy deciding that he wants to continue to be on the right side of history as his career winds down.
posted by vuron at 8:53 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
But then, to paraphrase vuron, in very very non-nice political news that simply reaffirms for me the absolute need for Hillary to win the Presidency in the fall the SCOTUS upheld (on a tie vote) the injunction blocking Obama's immigration executive action.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83, Anthony Kennedy is 79, etc., Trump delenda est.
posted by saturday_morning at 9:02 AM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83, Anthony Kennedy is 79, etc., Trump delenda est.
posted by saturday_morning at 9:02 AM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
Again, see the article at the Mises Institute.
Excerpt:
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:04 AM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
Excerpt:
This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)Libertarians, man...
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:04 AM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
HALLE/CHOMSKY: AN EIGHT POINT BRIEF FOR LEV (LESSER EVIL VOTING) - JUNE 15, 2016
posted by dougzilla at 9:05 AM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.The comments are worth reading.
posted by dougzilla at 9:05 AM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
> The giveaway, I think, is how quickly those people jump up to defend their allies when those allies do shitty, awful things.
This is my litmus test. With lefties, I see if they leap to the defense of the Soviet Union (with whatever qualifications: "Of course, I deprecate the Gulag and the invasion of Czechoslovakia..."); with conservatives, I ask about Pinochet.
posted by languagehat at 9:09 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is my litmus test. With lefties, I see if they leap to the defense of the Soviet Union (with whatever qualifications: "Of course, I deprecate the Gulag and the invasion of Czechoslovakia..."); with conservatives, I ask about Pinochet.
posted by languagehat at 9:09 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks to all of you who have responded re: libertarianism. I appreciate your perspectives and find them both bewildering and enlightening.
I feel like what you're describing is so far from who I am and what I believe, though - I love Lawrence Lessig, respect and admire Noam Chomsky (though I disagree with him on some historical issues), and would adore a relatively anarchistic post-scarcity society like the one depicted Iain M. Banks's Culture series. Civil liberties for marginalized groups (and everyone more generally, though of course marginalized groups need the most protection) are my Big Issue. I want the massive surveillance/security state rolled back, I want LGBT rights, I want women to be able to determine their reproductive futures. I am not a Republican.
I attended Hillsdale College, which is now notoriously Christian Conservative but historically was extremely progressive - one of the first colleges in the nation to admit African-Americans and women, in 1844, and banned discrimination based on religion, race, or sex from its inception. My then-fiancee, now-husband and I were two of maybe ten atheists on campus, and we attempted to found a gay-straight alliance on campus in 2009. The administration fought us tooth and nail and we ended up having to roll it into our Classical Liberal Association instead - utter bullshit. But the libertarians on campus were the only ones who would have us - the College Democrats were also strong Christians and they weren't willing to take the flak from both the student body and the school government.
So my experiences there made the massive rift between Republicans - especially conservative Christians - and classical liberals/libertarians searingly clear to me.
posted by stolyarova at 9:10 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
I feel like what you're describing is so far from who I am and what I believe, though - I love Lawrence Lessig, respect and admire Noam Chomsky (though I disagree with him on some historical issues), and would adore a relatively anarchistic post-scarcity society like the one depicted Iain M. Banks's Culture series. Civil liberties for marginalized groups (and everyone more generally, though of course marginalized groups need the most protection) are my Big Issue. I want the massive surveillance/security state rolled back, I want LGBT rights, I want women to be able to determine their reproductive futures. I am not a Republican.
I attended Hillsdale College, which is now notoriously Christian Conservative but historically was extremely progressive - one of the first colleges in the nation to admit African-Americans and women, in 1844, and banned discrimination based on religion, race, or sex from its inception. My then-fiancee, now-husband and I were two of maybe ten atheists on campus, and we attempted to found a gay-straight alliance on campus in 2009. The administration fought us tooth and nail and we ended up having to roll it into our Classical Liberal Association instead - utter bullshit. But the libertarians on campus were the only ones who would have us - the College Democrats were also strong Christians and they weren't willing to take the flak from both the student body and the school government.
So my experiences there made the massive rift between Republicans - especially conservative Christians - and classical liberals/libertarians searingly clear to me.
posted by stolyarova at 9:10 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Atom Eyes Your first exposure to libertarian "philosophy" I'm guessing?
von Mises and Rothbard are a never ending WTF train.
posted by sotonohito at 9:10 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
von Mises and Rothbard are a never ending WTF train.
posted by sotonohito at 9:10 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Holy shit the Mises Institute is actually willing to argue that until they reach the age of majority that children are functionally private property and that parents can do with them what they will?
That's some ballsy insanely patriarchal shit.
Of course there are "libertarians" that would totally be willing to have 50 state tyrannies because they defer all power to the individual state other than those expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
I think that's how the Paulites manage to say that right to privacy and reproductive rights aren't rights that the US government should protect or guarantee because it's up to the individual state to either protect or promote those civil rights.
And of course there is such a good record of some Southern states in terms of affirming civil rights. I mean they just lined up to ratify all of the civil rights amendments didn't they?
posted by vuron at 9:11 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's some ballsy insanely patriarchal shit.
Of course there are "libertarians" that would totally be willing to have 50 state tyrannies because they defer all power to the individual state other than those expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
I think that's how the Paulites manage to say that right to privacy and reproductive rights aren't rights that the US government should protect or guarantee because it's up to the individual state to either protect or promote those civil rights.
And of course there is such a good record of some Southern states in terms of affirming civil rights. I mean they just lined up to ratify all of the civil rights amendments didn't they?
posted by vuron at 9:11 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
So this morning on morning edition NPR was talking to Trump voters, and the first lamented that all Trump supporters are portrayed as racists or bigots or both, then the next voter they talked to was super racist! I'm curious if all the other voters they talked to were worse, or if this is just further commitment to NPR: gotta hear both sides.
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:13 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:13 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
the Libertarian party is much, much closer to the Republican party than to the Democratic party once you get down to the actual business of government and the work of getting elected -- Gary Johnson used to be a Republican. William Weld used to be a Republican.
On the Town Hall last night Weld made it clear that Clinton is hugely preferable to Trump. Johnson had nice things to say about Clinton but absolutely nothing good to say about Trump. Trump is the pure anti-libertarian. He's anti-civil liberties, anti-trade, anti-choice, anti-LGBT, pro-Drug War.
posted by stolyarova at 9:14 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
On the Town Hall last night Weld made it clear that Clinton is hugely preferable to Trump. Johnson had nice things to say about Clinton but absolutely nothing good to say about Trump. Trump is the pure anti-libertarian. He's anti-civil liberties, anti-trade, anti-choice, anti-LGBT, pro-Drug War.
posted by stolyarova at 9:14 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is the Miles Institute considered reputable, though? Cato surely has a bit more standing.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:14 AM on June 23, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 9:14 AM on June 23, 2016
Civil liberties for marginalized groups (and everyone more generally, though of course marginalized groups need the most protection) are my Big Issue.
But the Libertarian stance seems to be "the government shouldn't make any laws for or against civil liberties." If you think civil liberties ought to be protected by the government then I think you might not actually BE a Libertarian.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:14 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
But the Libertarian stance seems to be "the government shouldn't make any laws for or against civil liberties." If you think civil liberties ought to be protected by the government then I think you might not actually BE a Libertarian.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:14 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
There aren't two sides. Voting for a racist makes you racist.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:15 AM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:15 AM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
That "Here's What We Want" article is why I supported Sanders in the first place. **THAT** I can get behind, that's what I donated to.
Now all he needs to do is endorse Clinton and work hard to get people voting for her. If he does well enough at that he may have the juice needed to push for some of what he talks about in the article.
More important, he needs to be pushing downballot races hard so that we can maybe, possibly, have a shot at actually getting some of that passed which will never happen with a Republican controlled Congress.
What i want to know is when Sanders is going to stop sitting on the fence and finally concede and endorse Clinton. Yay fire breathing on economic issues, I'm 100% down with that and that's why I supported him to begin with. But he's totally ineffective at working towards those goals until he concedes.
posted by sotonohito at 9:18 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Now all he needs to do is endorse Clinton and work hard to get people voting for her. If he does well enough at that he may have the juice needed to push for some of what he talks about in the article.
More important, he needs to be pushing downballot races hard so that we can maybe, possibly, have a shot at actually getting some of that passed which will never happen with a Republican controlled Congress.
What i want to know is when Sanders is going to stop sitting on the fence and finally concede and endorse Clinton. Yay fire breathing on economic issues, I'm 100% down with that and that's why I supported him to begin with. But he's totally ineffective at working towards those goals until he concedes.
posted by sotonohito at 9:18 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Sigh. So I owe Bernie supporters an apology. I finally got admitted to one of those secret Hillary Facebook groups, and it's just non-stop Bernie bashing. I don't feel like I can leave without offending the person who invited me, but it's totally boring and irrelevant, and I want to tell these people that the primary is functionally over and they need to move the fuck on. So anyway, I have not believed that there were Hillary supporters who were just as negative as the Bernie supporters, but it turns out that I've been hanging out on the wrong corners of the internet.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:18 AM on June 23, 2016 [31 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:18 AM on June 23, 2016 [31 favorites]
The libertarian stance, philosophically, is "No one has the right to step on you as long as you're not stepping on anyone else." They've been moving away from states' rights for some time as it's become clear that those are also tyrannical. Gary Johnson is pro-Roe v. Wade, pro-Obergefell, anti-Patriot Act.
And here again is the point where I need to reiterate that I am going to vote for Clinton in November because Trump is too dangerous to do otherwise. But I absolutely disagree with her positions on national surveillance, patent law, and intellectual property.
posted by stolyarova at 9:18 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
And here again is the point where I need to reiterate that I am going to vote for Clinton in November because Trump is too dangerous to do otherwise. But I absolutely disagree with her positions on national surveillance, patent law, and intellectual property.
posted by stolyarova at 9:18 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
What you seem to be promoting is something more along the lines something that is traditional seen as Left-Libertarian (depending on your stance in regards to the necessity of state action to correct market failures).
At a certain point in time you get into a weird mixing pot where Anarcho-Syndicalists and extreme Left-Libertarians get into agreement but that thought space is fucking weird.
posted by vuron at 9:19 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
At a certain point in time you get into a weird mixing pot where Anarcho-Syndicalists and extreme Left-Libertarians get into agreement but that thought space is fucking weird.
posted by vuron at 9:19 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is the Miles Institute considered reputable, though? Cato surely has a bit more standing.
It's considered extreme even by the libertarians I know, but I think they have enough influence that it's fair to bring them up. If libertarians don't want to be associated with them, they should loudly call out BS like the neo-confederate shit. If they actually want to try and be a mainstream party in 2016, you don't get to flirt with that garbage.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:20 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's considered extreme even by the libertarians I know, but I think they have enough influence that it's fair to bring them up. If libertarians don't want to be associated with them, they should loudly call out BS like the neo-confederate shit. If they actually want to try and be a mainstream party in 2016, you don't get to flirt with that garbage.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:20 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Gary Johnson is pro-Roe v. Wade
...are you sure about that?
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:21 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
...are you sure about that?
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:21 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Atom Eyes Your first exposure to libertarian "philosophy" I'm guessing?
Heck no! I was a big fan of Ayn Rand's posts on Forum 3000.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:23 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Heck no! I was a big fan of Ayn Rand's posts on Forum 3000.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:23 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: I've been hanging out on the wrong corners of the internet
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:26 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:26 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
So this morning on morning edition NPR was talking to Trump voters, and the first lamented that all Trump supporters are portrayed as racists or bigots or both, then the next voter they talked to was super racist! I'm curious if all the other voters they talked to were worse, or if this is just further commitment to NPR: gotta hear both sides.
I saw that instance as an all-too-rare instance of an NPR getting its "balance" schick to work: Present one side whose stance is not in accordance with reality, then refute it . (As opposed to that odious Mara Liasson fan letter to the Trump speech, in which she said "sure, Clinton's team had a detailed rebuttal, but it's more important that Trump entertainedme Republicans by dishing dirt on Clinton!")
It isn't our fault that reality has a liberal bias.
posted by Gelatin at 9:27 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
I saw that instance as an all-too-rare instance of an NPR getting its "balance" schick to work: Present one side whose stance is not in accordance with reality, then refute it . (As opposed to that odious Mara Liasson fan letter to the Trump speech, in which she said "sure, Clinton's team had a detailed rebuttal, but it's more important that Trump entertained
It isn't our fault that reality has a liberal bias.
posted by Gelatin at 9:27 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
Explicitly racist ideology like White Nationalism has managed to infect a lot of the libertarian thought especially in sites and groups that are rapidly being identified as the Alt-Right
So there is a rejection of the federal government being able to enforce civil rights but also a desire to use the theoretically unlimited tyranny of the individual states to roll back civil rights to a pre-Civil War level.
This is were we get into some of the more odious defenses of constitutional Originalism among Conservatives and Libertarians.
There are times that yes Libertarians should be willing to stand up for individual and economic rights but they seem increasingly willing to stand up for limited government even when claims to the constitutional limitation on Federal authority are explicitly being used to maintain a racist/sexist/homophobic agenda.
I can accept some of the fundamental building blocks of libertarian philosophy such as "your rights to do X when they impinge on my rights" but then they seem to want to take everything to the extreme while also refusing to accept that unlimited property rights are problematic based upon the realization that full exploitation of private property can cause material damage to your neighbors in the form of negative externalities or that some public goods can result in a net increase of the common good in the form of positive externalities.
posted by vuron at 9:29 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
So there is a rejection of the federal government being able to enforce civil rights but also a desire to use the theoretically unlimited tyranny of the individual states to roll back civil rights to a pre-Civil War level.
This is were we get into some of the more odious defenses of constitutional Originalism among Conservatives and Libertarians.
There are times that yes Libertarians should be willing to stand up for individual and economic rights but they seem increasingly willing to stand up for limited government even when claims to the constitutional limitation on Federal authority are explicitly being used to maintain a racist/sexist/homophobic agenda.
I can accept some of the fundamental building blocks of libertarian philosophy such as "your rights to do X when they impinge on my rights" but then they seem to want to take everything to the extreme while also refusing to accept that unlimited property rights are problematic based upon the realization that full exploitation of private property can cause material damage to your neighbors in the form of negative externalities or that some public goods can result in a net increase of the common good in the form of positive externalities.
posted by vuron at 9:29 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
showbiz_liz, that's disappointing. I could have sworn I heard him say he wanted to leave Roe v. Wade in place during one of the libertarian debates earlier this year.
I hope you can understand, though, why I feel very uncomfortable being tossed in a bin with the Tea Party. I feel unwelcome here every time I mention libertarianism, when the issues that matter most to me are issues on which I disagree as fundamentally with Republicans as the aforementioned anarcho-syndicalists would. Maybe I need to find a new label. Techno-positivist? Futuristic civil rights classical liberal with post-scarcity socialist leanings? Where is my place in the world?
posted by stolyarova at 9:30 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
I hope you can understand, though, why I feel very uncomfortable being tossed in a bin with the Tea Party. I feel unwelcome here every time I mention libertarianism, when the issues that matter most to me are issues on which I disagree as fundamentally with Republicans as the aforementioned anarcho-syndicalists would. Maybe I need to find a new label. Techno-positivist? Futuristic civil rights classical liberal with post-scarcity socialist leanings? Where is my place in the world?
posted by stolyarova at 9:30 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Regarding NPR, I totally can't want for Mara Liasson to interview people promoting socially liberal ideas and then in the interest of balance to give air time to some White Nationalists because obviously there is probably some validity to the concerns of White Nationalists and gotta give equal time to every perspective.
posted by vuron at 9:32 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by vuron at 9:32 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
As an example of an issue which we can all likely agree is odious (and due to Trump's influence on the public discourse), a Tennessee candidate for Congress has posted a campaign sign that reads "Make America White Again."
posted by stolyarova at 9:36 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 9:36 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hohoho if you are in favor of universal civil rights and limited state power but also willing to accept that we need to transform from a capitalist system devoted to unlimited growth through economic exploitation of private property I would say that you are in no way Libertarian but more akin to a classical Liberal along the lines of Adam Smith.
Yes some libertarians claim Adam Smith but he also pretty clearly outlined some of the limits of a completely free market economic system especially in regards to social issues.
posted by vuron at 9:36 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes some libertarians claim Adam Smith but he also pretty clearly outlined some of the limits of a completely free market economic system especially in regards to social issues.
posted by vuron at 9:36 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
Futuristic civil rights classical liberal with post-scarcity socialist leanings?
I'm not sure how you get to post-scarcity within the context of libertarianism. I've always seen the concept of post-scarcity as fundamentally socialist.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:36 AM on June 23, 2016
I'm not sure how you get to post-scarcity within the context of libertarianism. I've always seen the concept of post-scarcity as fundamentally socialist.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:36 AM on June 23, 2016
Maybe I need to find a new label. Techno-positivist? Futuristic civil rights classical liberal with post-scarcity socialist leanings? Where is my place in the world?
Yes, I think probably. Like it or not the Libertarian party has gone and wrecked that word, but good, for people who care about actual human liberty as opposed to PROPERTY RIGHTS OVER EVERYTHING and LOWER TAXES.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 9:38 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yes, I think probably. Like it or not the Libertarian party has gone and wrecked that word, but good, for people who care about actual human liberty as opposed to PROPERTY RIGHTS OVER EVERYTHING and LOWER TAXES.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 9:38 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
The arrival at post-scarcity will have to be the result of extreme technological progress, which is fed best by minimized barriers to entry.
posted by stolyarova at 9:38 AM on June 23, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 9:38 AM on June 23, 2016
I can accept some of the fundamental building blocks of libertarian philosophy such as "your rights to do X when they impinge on my rights" but then they seem to want to take everything to the extreme while also refusing to accept that unlimited property rights are problematic based upon the realization that full exploitation of private property can cause material damage to your neighbors in the form of negative externalities or that some public goods can result in a net increase of the common good in the form of positive externalities.
So much this. The next time I find a libertarian provide a coherent solution to the tragedy of the commons will be the first time. Moreover, a factory owner's right to pollute the air I breathe or the water I drink is impinging on my right not to have the air and water I need to survive contaminated. All the money the Koch brothers dumped into funding the Cato Institute hasn't given them the ability to address externalities -- and when I say address, I mean basically acknowledge they exist.
posted by Gelatin at 9:39 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
So much this. The next time I find a libertarian provide a coherent solution to the tragedy of the commons will be the first time. Moreover, a factory owner's right to pollute the air I breathe or the water I drink is impinging on my right not to have the air and water I need to survive contaminated. All the money the Koch brothers dumped into funding the Cato Institute hasn't given them the ability to address externalities -- and when I say address, I mean basically acknowledge they exist.
posted by Gelatin at 9:39 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
showbiz_liz, that's disappointing. I could have sworn I heard him say he wanted to leave Roe v. Wade in place during one of the libertarian debates earlier this year.
His campaign line is that Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the law of the land and he does not want to change the law of the land. He focuses on this case because he opposes late term abortion. It's reasonable to be skeptical of how much an ally he is on choice based on his previous statements about Roe being an overreach and other issues.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:41 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
His campaign line is that Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the law of the land and he does not want to change the law of the land. He focuses on this case because he opposes late term abortion. It's reasonable to be skeptical of how much an ally he is on choice based on his previous statements about Roe being an overreach and other issues.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:41 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
The arrival at post-scarcity will have to be the result of extreme technological progress, which is fed best by minimized barriers to entry.
Which is why technological progress has lately been driven by libertarian utopias such as Somalia and not regulated nations like the United States, Japan and most of Europe.
posted by Gelatin at 9:42 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
Which is why technological progress has lately been driven by libertarian utopias such as Somalia and not regulated nations like the United States, Japan and most of Europe.
posted by Gelatin at 9:42 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
I finally got admitted to one of those secret Hillary Facebook groups, and it's just non-stop Bernie bashing.
This is one of the most tiresome things to me honestly, especially at this point. It's either non stop Hillary bashing, or non stop Bernie bashing. There are reasonable critiques of both(and reasonable critiques of said critiques) but all that seems to be left is the extremes. Like, pretty much everywhere i go. Where are the "idk, i'm just for things not being awful i guess?" people other than to an extent, here? Sheesh.
posted by emptythought at 9:42 AM on June 23, 2016 [17 favorites]
This is one of the most tiresome things to me honestly, especially at this point. It's either non stop Hillary bashing, or non stop Bernie bashing. There are reasonable critiques of both(and reasonable critiques of said critiques) but all that seems to be left is the extremes. Like, pretty much everywhere i go. Where are the "idk, i'm just for things not being awful i guess?" people other than to an extent, here? Sheesh.
posted by emptythought at 9:42 AM on June 23, 2016 [17 favorites]
Somalia is in no sense a libertarian utopia - that's a pure strawman, and the sort of argument that makes me feel so unwelcome here. Somalia is run by theocratic tribal groups.
Libertarianism ≠ anarchy ≠ theocracy. Minimized barriers to entry ≠ a completely unregulated state, either.
This is getting emotionally exhausting and I need to clean the house. Be well, everyone.
posted by stolyarova at 9:44 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Libertarianism ≠ anarchy ≠ theocracy. Minimized barriers to entry ≠ a completely unregulated state, either.
This is getting emotionally exhausting and I need to clean the house. Be well, everyone.
posted by stolyarova at 9:44 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
I disagree with the premise that a techno-utopian post-scarcity economy would ever be broadly achievable at least in the short term so I think that for the most part theory seems to suggest that we need to begin taking collective action to limit the negative consequences of economic development until there is time to develop the techno-utopian wizardry necessary.
So it's not just a matter of reducing barriers to entry (which I can see as potential good) but also engaging in constructive limits to the rights of private property owners to exploit their property so that we actually have a world in a livable condition long enough to develop fusion engines and matter replicators.
posted by vuron at 9:46 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
So it's not just a matter of reducing barriers to entry (which I can see as potential good) but also engaging in constructive limits to the rights of private property owners to exploit their property so that we actually have a world in a livable condition long enough to develop fusion engines and matter replicators.
posted by vuron at 9:46 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Depending on what you mean by "constructive limits to the rights of private property owners," probably no objection here, vuron. Negative externalities are a thing and nobody has the right to dump sludge, etc. I want a pluralistic, compassionate, cosmopolitan world, and I feel like many people in this thread see me as a mustache-twirling villain.
I should just go away and do something else for a while.
posted by stolyarova at 9:51 AM on June 23, 2016
I should just go away and do something else for a while.
posted by stolyarova at 9:51 AM on June 23, 2016
You have to be incredibly careful when parsing a libertarian candidate's policy positions. They'll typically say things like "I believe abortion should be legal. The power to make abortion laws should be left to the states, not the federal government". This is a two-tone dog whistle designed to confuse you into agreeing with them regardless of your actual policy beliefs.
That first part, abortion should be legal, is the candidate announcing a personal preferential statement. It's like saying cake is delicious or blue is a pretty color. Here, the candidate is trying to get the pro-choice crowd aligned with him by stating his own personal ideals.
The second part, abortion laws should be left to the states, is the actual policy position. In practice, abortion laws being left to the states means abortion is de facto illegal in every red state. Pro-life conservatives know that they can easily ban abortion in their local jurisdictions and will support the candidate for this reason.
Once you recognize this pattern, it's easy to spot.
Should it be legal to refuse service to black people? "Minorities should have equal rights in our society. Business owners should be allowed to listen to their conscience when accepting clients."
Should pollution be regulated? "We all deserve to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Pollution that is harming people should be addressed by challenges in the court system."
Should there be a minimum wage? "Workers should earn a fair wage for their labor. The free market will provide an adequate wage to workers."
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:01 AM on June 23, 2016 [49 favorites]
That first part, abortion should be legal, is the candidate announcing a personal preferential statement. It's like saying cake is delicious or blue is a pretty color. Here, the candidate is trying to get the pro-choice crowd aligned with him by stating his own personal ideals.
The second part, abortion laws should be left to the states, is the actual policy position. In practice, abortion laws being left to the states means abortion is de facto illegal in every red state. Pro-life conservatives know that they can easily ban abortion in their local jurisdictions and will support the candidate for this reason.
Once you recognize this pattern, it's easy to spot.
Should it be legal to refuse service to black people? "Minorities should have equal rights in our society. Business owners should be allowed to listen to their conscience when accepting clients."
Should pollution be regulated? "We all deserve to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Pollution that is harming people should be addressed by challenges in the court system."
Should there be a minimum wage? "Workers should earn a fair wage for their labor. The free market will provide an adequate wage to workers."
posted by 0xFCAF at 10:01 AM on June 23, 2016 [49 favorites]
This is one of the most tiresome things to me honestly, especially at this point. It's either non stop Hillary bashing, or non stop Bernie bashing.
Among my Twitter follows, I have fanatical supporters of both Hillary and Bernie. Both camps have tweeted or re-tweeted obnoxious shit, but I've noticed a subtle but consistent difference in their respective flavors of awfulness: Whereas Sanders zealots have a tendency to be dickish and engage in trollery, Clinton zealots lean more toward smugness and a catty kind of snark. I guess my analogy would be that Bernie people are Redditors and Hillary people are TWOPers.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:04 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Among my Twitter follows, I have fanatical supporters of both Hillary and Bernie. Both camps have tweeted or re-tweeted obnoxious shit, but I've noticed a subtle but consistent difference in their respective flavors of awfulness: Whereas Sanders zealots have a tendency to be dickish and engage in trollery, Clinton zealots lean more toward smugness and a catty kind of snark. I guess my analogy would be that Bernie people are Redditors and Hillary people are TWOPers.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:04 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: idk, i'm just for things not being awful i guess
posted by saturday_morning at 10:10 AM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by saturday_morning at 10:10 AM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
I feel like many people in this thread see me as a mustache-twirling villain.
Not at all. We just see you as not a Libertarian.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:11 AM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
Not at all. We just see you as not a Libertarian.
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:11 AM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
I feel like many people in this thread see me as a mustache-twirling villain.
Not at all. We just see you as not a Libertarian.
Or one of the reasonable, non-philosophically-hidebound ones who are vastly outshouted within the LP by the loons.
posted by Etrigan at 10:12 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
Not at all. We just see you as not a Libertarian.
Or one of the reasonable, non-philosophically-hidebound ones who are vastly outshouted within the LP by the loons.
posted by Etrigan at 10:12 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
I feel like what you're describing is so far from who I am and what I believe, though
It's not so surprising in the US, though. Lots of people call themselves libertarians who just plain aren't, in any reasonable use of the term. Mostly racists who want to undo civil rights legislation, who use freedom-of-contract as a fig leaf, but also any number of other basically right-wing groups who just want to undo the federal-level protections that prevent them from enacting horrifying state-level laws.
If you'd rather, a real gap has developed between the prescriptive use of "libertarian," which would exclude racist asshats and people who just want the feds to stop making them not establish Christianity as the official religion, and the merely descriptive use of it which sadly includes such chucklebutts.
I'm sure this is immensely frustrating to actual no-shit libertarians.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:17 AM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's not so surprising in the US, though. Lots of people call themselves libertarians who just plain aren't, in any reasonable use of the term. Mostly racists who want to undo civil rights legislation, who use freedom-of-contract as a fig leaf, but also any number of other basically right-wing groups who just want to undo the federal-level protections that prevent them from enacting horrifying state-level laws.
If you'd rather, a real gap has developed between the prescriptive use of "libertarian," which would exclude racist asshats and people who just want the feds to stop making them not establish Christianity as the official religion, and the merely descriptive use of it which sadly includes such chucklebutts.
I'm sure this is immensely frustrating to actual no-shit libertarians.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:17 AM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
Then I'll start hunting for a new word. I want a world where morphological freedom is the status quo, LGBT+, women's, and minority rights are protected, the TSA doesn't get to scan everybody or grab their crotches, the NSA doesn't get to keep a massive warrantless database of Americans' communications, we don't give massive subsidies to banks and oil companies, the criminal justice system stops its massive racial profiling and ends mandatory minimums for drug sentencing, and renewable energy systems replace entrenched traditional sources which are harmful to everyone in the long run.
posted by stolyarova at 10:20 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 10:20 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
we know this because of the many, many years before governments stepped in (through the EPA, the Clean Air and Water Acts, etc) to prevent harm through regulations, in which harm was not prevented.
In other words, the many industrial democracies have their regulatory regimes because of hard experience with the consequences of not doing so.
posted by Gelatin at 10:22 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
In other words, the many industrial democracies have their regulatory regimes because of hard experience with the consequences of not doing so.
posted by Gelatin at 10:22 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
I feel like many people in this thread see me as a mustache-twirling villain.
Your first principles don't seem evil at all, but they're detached from how the world operates, in that they don't address how human nature and market forces turn your good intentions into infringements on the liberty of others in ways that only the state can prevent. I don't assume any evil about someone who thinks this way, but if you don't have sensible answers to the questions 0xFCAF poses above, I will conclude that you're simply naive or indifferent to the harm that's caused when these unchecked forces run amok.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:23 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Your first principles don't seem evil at all, but they're detached from how the world operates, in that they don't address how human nature and market forces turn your good intentions into infringements on the liberty of others in ways that only the state can prevent. I don't assume any evil about someone who thinks this way, but if you don't have sensible answers to the questions 0xFCAF poses above, I will conclude that you're simply naive or indifferent to the harm that's caused when these unchecked forces run amok.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:23 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
And while I'm asking for the moon, I'd like patent reform and a reduction in special favors to the MPAA and RIAA re: intellectual property.
Too much?
posted by stolyarova at 10:23 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Too much?
posted by stolyarova at 10:23 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
stolyarova: if it helps, other people here with similar views have ended up describing themselves as left-libertarian and to my eye not gotten awful pushback about it. It would be smarter to look for and ask them, though.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:24 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:24 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
stolyarova, I agree with you on all of those goals, and I also think an ideal society would look something like Iain M. Banks' Culture. In the absence of a real political party aiming for those goals, I just call myself a progressive.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 10:24 AM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 10:24 AM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
Somalia is in no sense a libertarian utopia - that's a pure strawman, and the sort of argument that makes me feel so unwelcome here. Somalia is run by theocratic tribal groups.
I see that stoyarolva has noped out after this comment (on preview: maybe not), but it's worth addressing this statement. This is not a straw man argument, it's a classic reductio ad absurdum: Libertarians say they want less government regulation. Well, you decrease government regulation down to zero and you get Somalia. If you don't want to live in Somalia, you must want something other than "always reduce regulation."
This is what strikes me as the fundamental incoherence at the bottom of (most) libertarian arguments: they say they want less regulation and less government, but then they say "libertarians are not anarchists!" and start reciting government functions they're ok with. Like, if you believe in markets you pretty much inherently believe that the government ought to enforce contracts. If you believe in property rights you generally support state security measures to keep owners in possession of their property. And if you want a republic to exist at all that has your optimal blend of government regulations, then you support border control and/or national defense to ensure the integrity of that state.
So yes, Libertarians do not always want to reduce all regulations in all situations - that is the point of the "but Somalia!" argument. I wish they would state an actual principle that would support the regulations they do want to keep and those they want to get rid of, though. "Maximize actual human liberty" doesn't fit. More like "maximize liberty for those who have lots of assets," maybe.
Also:
Somalia is run by theocratic tribal groups.
But how is that actually inconsistent with Libertarianism, as argued by the party? If "business owners should be allowed to reject customers [e.g. gay people] based on their personal conscience," how is that not theocratic oppression at the micro, personal level?
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:26 AM on June 23, 2016 [18 favorites]
I see that stoyarolva has noped out after this comment (on preview: maybe not), but it's worth addressing this statement. This is not a straw man argument, it's a classic reductio ad absurdum: Libertarians say they want less government regulation. Well, you decrease government regulation down to zero and you get Somalia. If you don't want to live in Somalia, you must want something other than "always reduce regulation."
This is what strikes me as the fundamental incoherence at the bottom of (most) libertarian arguments: they say they want less regulation and less government, but then they say "libertarians are not anarchists!" and start reciting government functions they're ok with. Like, if you believe in markets you pretty much inherently believe that the government ought to enforce contracts. If you believe in property rights you generally support state security measures to keep owners in possession of their property. And if you want a republic to exist at all that has your optimal blend of government regulations, then you support border control and/or national defense to ensure the integrity of that state.
So yes, Libertarians do not always want to reduce all regulations in all situations - that is the point of the "but Somalia!" argument. I wish they would state an actual principle that would support the regulations they do want to keep and those they want to get rid of, though. "Maximize actual human liberty" doesn't fit. More like "maximize liberty for those who have lots of assets," maybe.
Also:
Somalia is run by theocratic tribal groups.
But how is that actually inconsistent with Libertarianism, as argued by the party? If "business owners should be allowed to reject customers [e.g. gay people] based on their personal conscience," how is that not theocratic oppression at the micro, personal level?
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:26 AM on June 23, 2016 [18 favorites]
ROU_Xenophobe, they're not easy to find because, as I have discovered, coming out of the closet as any kind of libertarian here makes you a whack-a-mole target.
Smarter to keep my head down.
posted by stolyarova at 10:27 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Smarter to keep my head down.
posted by stolyarova at 10:27 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
The word you are looking for is Liberal it's just that much of the discourse in the US has made being "liberal" a bad word so even liberals have taken to relabeling themselves as Progressives (even though historically speaking the old progressive movement wasn't always particularly socially liberal as there was an intense distrust of immigrants and immigrant political power as expressed through old machine politics and the spoils system).
Basically every position that you are talking about is the end result I would like to see it's just that we might have some differences on how to achieve those aims.
posted by vuron at 10:29 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
Basically every position that you are talking about is the end result I would like to see it's just that we might have some differences on how to achieve those aims.
posted by vuron at 10:29 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is what strikes me as the fundamental incoherence at the bottom of (most) libertarian arguments: they say they want less regulation and less government, but then they say "libertarians are not anarchists!" and start reciting government functions they're ok with.
I'd also like to emphasize the other half of my argument, which is that much technological and social progress has emerged from the relatively regulated societies of modern industrialized democracies like the US, Japan and much of Europe.
posted by Gelatin at 10:29 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'd also like to emphasize the other half of my argument, which is that much technological and social progress has emerged from the relatively regulated societies of modern industrialized democracies like the US, Japan and much of Europe.
posted by Gelatin at 10:29 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Joey Buttafoucault said what I came here to say, pretty elegantly. In the absence of an effective state, the void will be filled by some other kind of power, usually with a lot less accountability and respect for personal liberties than a mean ol' gubmint. Whether it's tribes, organized crime, a patriarch (I think the state has a right and a duty to protect children's liberty and right to a decent life from the whims of their parents, if need be), some business conglomerate, etc. depends on local conditions.
posted by dhens at 10:32 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dhens at 10:32 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
The right of the people to keep and bear pickup trucks full of kalashnikov-wielding teens shall not be infringed
posted by theodolite at 10:34 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 10:34 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Many libertarians are minarchists who accept a state that universally protects individual rights, not anarchists. Anarchy always resolves to some form of government.
posted by stolyarova at 10:35 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stolyarova at 10:35 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
At the risk of possibly getting on the wrong side of this dog pile I do think that theoretically it's possible to suggest that most Libertarians don't actually favor Anarcho-Capitalism or even Minarchism it's just that some of the logical consequences of their expressed ideologies get you to the logical extreme of Anarcho-Capitalism even though it would be god awful.
So if we accept that the libertarian end goal isn't anarcho-capitalism and that seems to be true for the majority of Libertarians we need to say at some point in time that the stubborn insistence on somehow developing and following axiomatic statements when they address political economy can really get us into bad places.
We consistently understand that using absolutes within personal relationship along the lines of "You always do..." result in shitty outcomes yet we seem to be willing to engage in all sorts of ideological absolutism in our political and economic discourse even though it's patently obvious that Homo Economicus is a bad theoretical construct to build economic or political theories around.
posted by vuron at 10:38 AM on June 23, 2016
So if we accept that the libertarian end goal isn't anarcho-capitalism and that seems to be true for the majority of Libertarians we need to say at some point in time that the stubborn insistence on somehow developing and following axiomatic statements when they address political economy can really get us into bad places.
We consistently understand that using absolutes within personal relationship along the lines of "You always do..." result in shitty outcomes yet we seem to be willing to engage in all sorts of ideological absolutism in our political and economic discourse even though it's patently obvious that Homo Economicus is a bad theoretical construct to build economic or political theories around.
posted by vuron at 10:38 AM on June 23, 2016
Many libertarians are minarchists who accept a state that universally protects individual rights, not anarchists.
A state that uses force to ensure compliance to civil rights laws is (often) necessary to defend the rights of LGBT people and people of color.
A state that uses force to ensure compliance to enviromental regulations is necessary to defend the rights of people not to breathe/drink/eat harmful substances.
A state that uses force to ensure child welfare laws is necessary to defend the rights of children against abusive parents.
etc. etc.
posted by dhens at 10:38 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
A state that uses force to ensure compliance to civil rights laws is (often) necessary to defend the rights of LGBT people and people of color.
A state that uses force to ensure compliance to enviromental regulations is necessary to defend the rights of people not to breathe/drink/eat harmful substances.
A state that uses force to ensure child welfare laws is necessary to defend the rights of children against abusive parents.
etc. etc.
posted by dhens at 10:38 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
etc. etc.
And I agree with you on all those points. Agreed re: derailment. Can we get back to the common cause of how terrible Trump is?
posted by stolyarova at 10:41 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
And I agree with you on all those points. Agreed re: derailment. Can we get back to the common cause of how terrible Trump is?
posted by stolyarova at 10:41 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
I agree with the desire to get back on track.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend and there is absolutely no indications that Trump wouldn't incarnate the worst sort of excesses common in Crony Capitalism.
Although maybe I can line up a bid for control over the Internet.
posted by vuron at 10:46 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Enemy of my enemy is my friend and there is absolutely no indications that Trump wouldn't incarnate the worst sort of excesses common in Crony Capitalism.
Although maybe I can line up a bid for control over the Internet.
posted by vuron at 10:46 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
For Trump, Almost Normal
What Happens When One Party Doesn’t Care About Governing?
Moderate and Mad as Hell
Clinton’s new line on Trump’s business career: “He’s Mitt Romney but bad at his job”
Enemy of my enemy is my friend
Rule #29, Seven Habits Of Highly Effective Pirates - " The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:49 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
What Happens When One Party Doesn’t Care About Governing?
Moderate and Mad as Hell
Clinton’s new line on Trump’s business career: “He’s Mitt Romney but bad at his job”
Enemy of my enemy is my friend
Rule #29, Seven Habits Of Highly Effective Pirates - " The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 10:49 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
You know, it's worth noting that the 'man, libertarians are terrible, amirite' derail is not actually a derail at all in the context of Trump. It's part and parcel of the way that people have been crying wolf for a really long time and not allowing any common cause to form with people who agree with them on a lot of stuff, but not this other stuff. Such that we're ill prepared when the Trumps of the world arise, because we're already in our partisan ghettoes and can't come out of them.
In a world where the Democrats hadn't been trashing Republicans - not just Republican politicians, but Republican voters - for being Horrible People, it'd be a lot easier to be like "Come on, boys! Time to hunker down with the Democrats for four years! I'm pretty confident they won't be too terrible to us!" In a world where Democrats could say "Hey look, this other guy is Really Terrible and we're pretty sure you don't want him either - how about we promise to go easy for four years, and you vote for us instead", Trump wouldn't even be kind of a threat.
And there is a difference - if you don't believe in degree, certainly in scale - between the danger Trump poses and the danger any other Republican candidate has posed for forty years.
posted by corb at 10:51 AM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
In a world where the Democrats hadn't been trashing Republicans - not just Republican politicians, but Republican voters - for being Horrible People, it'd be a lot easier to be like "Come on, boys! Time to hunker down with the Democrats for four years! I'm pretty confident they won't be too terrible to us!" In a world where Democrats could say "Hey look, this other guy is Really Terrible and we're pretty sure you don't want him either - how about we promise to go easy for four years, and you vote for us instead", Trump wouldn't even be kind of a threat.
And there is a difference - if you don't believe in degree, certainly in scale - between the danger Trump poses and the danger any other Republican candidate has posed for forty years.
posted by corb at 10:51 AM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
While I don't actually believe in the enemy of my enemy is my friend each Conservative that is willing to vote for Libertarian reduces Trump's potential vote count by 1.
Yeah I would prefer them to convert over to Clinton because that results in a Net advantage of 2 (-1 for Trump and +1 for Team Awesome) but I'm willing to accept half measures for the good of the continued existence of humanity.
posted by vuron at 10:54 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah I would prefer them to convert over to Clinton because that results in a Net advantage of 2 (-1 for Trump and +1 for Team Awesome) but I'm willing to accept half measures for the good of the continued existence of humanity.
posted by vuron at 10:54 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
Disappointed in CNN, but as Lewandowski didn't sign an NDA, this could be interesting.
posted by stolyarova at 11:00 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 11:00 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
My rule of thumb is that CNN is usually as bad as you expect FOX to be and then FOX is an order of magnitude worse... Looks like CNN just leapfrogged FOX into a new level of garbage.
posted by Artw at 11:01 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:01 AM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
Corey Lewandowski to join CNN
Disappointed in CNN, but as Lewandowski didn't sign an NDA, this could be interesting.
It could be interesting, but Lewandowski is notably famous for manhandling a reporter and then lying about it. It’s a pretty gross move to hire a commentator who apparently thinks it’s okay to hit your staff.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:03 AM on June 23, 2016 [28 favorites]
Disappointed in CNN, but as Lewandowski didn't sign an NDA, this could be interesting.
It could be interesting, but Lewandowski is notably famous for manhandling a reporter and then lying about it. It’s a pretty gross move to hire a commentator who apparently thinks it’s okay to hit your staff.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:03 AM on June 23, 2016 [28 favorites]
The problem I have with that attitude Corb is that while I do think that we should focus on political solutions rather than political problems (in this case the solution being no fucking President Trump) there is a point where some retrospective analysis absolutely has to happen or you keep getting awful outcomes because you are just treating the symptom and not the disease.
The reality is that most of the Republican elites know that they have to abandon the extreme Nativist Nationalism that is so common among their base voters but there isn't a wide spread consensus on the solution.
The solution in 2012 was to put up a milquetoast centrist Republican and he got blown out, same with 2008.
So instead of moderating their positions in an attempt to grow their share of the electorate the Republican strategy has been essentially to deny enfranchisement in the form of various restrictions on voter rights (because Black People vote Democrat amirite) the supposed strategy this year was to hide the extreme conservatism in a Latino body because lol Latinos are Low Information voters or some such bullshit.
The idea was that McCain and Romney lost because they weren't conservative enough. That's fucking stupid and it's hard to find common ground when people are unwilling to accept certain basic facts.
So of course Bush collapse, and surprise surprise Cruz and Ruboto failed to deliver on their "Super Conservative but Latino" packaging to the not really small government or particularly conservative in general business Elite that is full out going with a completely white nationalist agenda. I mean some of his disciples are willing dropping the MAGA subtext in favor of "Make America White Again" rhetoric.
I'm willing to accept people into the ranks of the rational at least in the short term but damn guys the reality is that US Democracy with it's 2 party system requires having both parties being willing to govern and the Republicans are basically falling down on their side of the bargain.
posted by vuron at 11:07 AM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
The reality is that most of the Republican elites know that they have to abandon the extreme Nativist Nationalism that is so common among their base voters but there isn't a wide spread consensus on the solution.
The solution in 2012 was to put up a milquetoast centrist Republican and he got blown out, same with 2008.
So instead of moderating their positions in an attempt to grow their share of the electorate the Republican strategy has been essentially to deny enfranchisement in the form of various restrictions on voter rights (because Black People vote Democrat amirite) the supposed strategy this year was to hide the extreme conservatism in a Latino body because lol Latinos are Low Information voters or some such bullshit.
The idea was that McCain and Romney lost because they weren't conservative enough. That's fucking stupid and it's hard to find common ground when people are unwilling to accept certain basic facts.
So of course Bush collapse, and surprise surprise Cruz and Ruboto failed to deliver on their "Super Conservative but Latino" packaging to the not really small government or particularly conservative in general business Elite that is full out going with a completely white nationalist agenda. I mean some of his disciples are willing dropping the MAGA subtext in favor of "Make America White Again" rhetoric.
I'm willing to accept people into the ranks of the rational at least in the short term but damn guys the reality is that US Democracy with it's 2 party system requires having both parties being willing to govern and the Republicans are basically falling down on their side of the bargain.
posted by vuron at 11:07 AM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
In a world where the Democrats hadn't been trashing Republicans
In a world of "Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim Socialist" Republicans, a world of Joe "You Lie!" Wilson, a world of Mitch "Our top priority is to make Obama a one term president" McConnell, A world of 60+ votes to repeal Obamacare, A world where Ted Cruz and the Republican House held the government hostage and almost defaulted on the debt, I'm not inclined to give the thought that "Republicans would definitely get along with Democrats if only they weren't so mean to us" much credence.
I mean, at least throw a "both sides" bone in there.
posted by Roommate at 11:08 AM on June 23, 2016 [51 favorites]
In a world of "Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim Socialist" Republicans, a world of Joe "You Lie!" Wilson, a world of Mitch "Our top priority is to make Obama a one term president" McConnell, A world of 60+ votes to repeal Obamacare, A world where Ted Cruz and the Republican House held the government hostage and almost defaulted on the debt, I'm not inclined to give the thought that "Republicans would definitely get along with Democrats if only they weren't so mean to us" much credence.
I mean, at least throw a "both sides" bone in there.
posted by Roommate at 11:08 AM on June 23, 2016 [51 favorites]
I've seen a lot of wacky historical revisionism trying to blame Democrats for Trump, but this "if only Democrats had been nicer to Republicans, Trump wouldn't be a threat" theory is a new low in terms of truth:truthiness ratio.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:08 AM on June 23, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 11:08 AM on June 23, 2016 [16 favorites]
You know, it's worth noting that the 'man, libertarians are terrible, amirite' derail is not actually a derail at all in the context of Trump. It's part and parcel of the way that people have been crying wolf for a really long time and not allowing any common cause to form with people who agree with them on a lot of stuff, but not this other stuff.
How is it "crying wolf" to quote verbatim the actual words of a prominent libertarian organization (i.e. the Mises Institute) in order to point out certain fundamental flaws at the heart of that philosophy as a political movement writ large? (An organization, I might add, that you yourself have linked to in the past in order to bolster your arguments.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:10 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
How is it "crying wolf" to quote verbatim the actual words of a prominent libertarian organization (i.e. the Mises Institute) in order to point out certain fundamental flaws at the heart of that philosophy as a political movement writ large? (An organization, I might add, that you yourself have linked to in the past in order to bolster your arguments.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:10 AM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, disgruntled primary losers won’t vote for the other party in November. Here’s why.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:10 AM on June 23, 2016
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:10 AM on June 23, 2016
It’s a pretty gross move to hire a commentator who apparently thinks it’s okay to hit your staff.
I think you really overestimate what CNN thinks its staff, or any staff for that matter, are entitled to.
posted by srboisvert at 11:17 AM on June 23, 2016
I think you really overestimate what CNN thinks its staff, or any staff for that matter, are entitled to.
posted by srboisvert at 11:17 AM on June 23, 2016
In a world where the Democrats hadn't been trashing Republicans - not just Republican politicians, but Republican voters - for being Horrible People, it'd be a lot easier to be like "Come on, boys! Time to hunker down with the Democrats for four years! I'm pretty confident they won't be too terrible to us!"
We Dems were trashing Republicans because Republicans were doing things that deserved to be trashed. And called out over.
Like trying to restrict the voting rights of poor people and African Americans. Wholeheartedly embracing racism. Proudly promoting homophobia and trying to prevent any form of LGBTQ equality. Vilifying Muslims and other minorities. Slut-shaming women and trying to deny them equal rights, equal pay and treating their bodily autonomy as something they didn't deserve. Promoting uncontrolled, unregulated gun use uber alles while children are (not "were") being slaughtered in schools. Trying to maintain the status quo of an unregulated financial industry, which could quite easily have destroyed our economy in 2008.
This isn't on the Democrats. In a world where Republicans didn't embrace policies that have been downright politically apocalyptic, maybe it would be easier for them to accept the need to hunker down with people who are sane.
Who took up the politicians' clarion cry? Who voted them into office? Not Democrats.
Republicans gleefully fearmongered and punched their way down through the last 15 years. They created Trump. Now they have the candidate they deserve. What a shame that none of the rest of us deserve him.
posted by zarq at 11:19 AM on June 23, 2016 [53 favorites]
We Dems were trashing Republicans because Republicans were doing things that deserved to be trashed. And called out over.
Like trying to restrict the voting rights of poor people and African Americans. Wholeheartedly embracing racism. Proudly promoting homophobia and trying to prevent any form of LGBTQ equality. Vilifying Muslims and other minorities. Slut-shaming women and trying to deny them equal rights, equal pay and treating their bodily autonomy as something they didn't deserve. Promoting uncontrolled, unregulated gun use uber alles while children are (not "were") being slaughtered in schools. Trying to maintain the status quo of an unregulated financial industry, which could quite easily have destroyed our economy in 2008.
This isn't on the Democrats. In a world where Republicans didn't embrace policies that have been downright politically apocalyptic, maybe it would be easier for them to accept the need to hunker down with people who are sane.
Who took up the politicians' clarion cry? Who voted them into office? Not Democrats.
Republicans gleefully fearmongered and punched their way down through the last 15 years. They created Trump. Now they have the candidate they deserve. What a shame that none of the rest of us deserve him.
posted by zarq at 11:19 AM on June 23, 2016 [53 favorites]
In a world where the Democrats hadn't been trashing Republicans - not just Republican politicians, but Republican voters - for being Horrible People, it'd be a lot easier to be like "Come on, boys! Time to hunker down with the Democrats for four years! I'm pretty confident they won't be too terrible to us!"
I do personally try to be that way. I know lots of Republicans who are not horrible people, and I try not to, for example, attribute horrible racism to them just because they favor lower taxes. To what extent are you going to hold me accountable for the approach that a relatively small number of other liberals take who are, to be frank, total dicks a lot of the time?
In my experience republicans are overwhelmingly interested in being aggrieved and attributing the bad (or at least mean) acts of a few liberals to all liberals everywhere. To those republicans, I just don't know what to say. I am already trying to be nice and respectful. I am not the boss of all liberals. I'll just say that there is very, very little incentive to be even nicer when there is so much eagerness to attribute the acts of a few to an entire political category, and leave it at that.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:23 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
I do personally try to be that way. I know lots of Republicans who are not horrible people, and I try not to, for example, attribute horrible racism to them just because they favor lower taxes. To what extent are you going to hold me accountable for the approach that a relatively small number of other liberals take who are, to be frank, total dicks a lot of the time?
In my experience republicans are overwhelmingly interested in being aggrieved and attributing the bad (or at least mean) acts of a few liberals to all liberals everywhere. To those republicans, I just don't know what to say. I am already trying to be nice and respectful. I am not the boss of all liberals. I'll just say that there is very, very little incentive to be even nicer when there is so much eagerness to attribute the acts of a few to an entire political category, and leave it at that.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:23 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
stolyarovaThen I'll start hunting for a new word. I want a world where morphological freedom is the status quo, LGBT+, women's, and minority rights are protected, the TSA doesn't get to scan everybody or grab their crotches, the NSA doesn't get to keep a massive warrantless database of Americans' communications, we don't give massive subsidies to banks and oil companies, the criminal justice system stops its massive racial profiling and . . .
Social democrat?
Nice summary, BTW.
posted by flug at 11:28 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Social democrat?
Nice summary, BTW.
posted by flug at 11:28 AM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Wait sorry I'm still stuck on the idea that Gary Johnson is a self-proclaimed libertarian who thinks that an inalienable right to privacy* is a SCOTUS "overreach".
Isn't stuff like a right to individual privacy the center of libertarian (even right-libertarian) thought?
Is privacy good for men (and women as long as it's only about stuff that pertains equally to men) but bad for women/their uteruses? Confused.
Abortion should be the ultimate libertarian cause. A popular pro-choice slogan is "keep your laws off my body!" for chrissakes.
*Which is what the crux of Roe v. Wade centered on.
posted by Sara C. at 11:28 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
Isn't stuff like a right to individual privacy the center of libertarian (even right-libertarian) thought?
Is privacy good for men (and women as long as it's only about stuff that pertains equally to men) but bad for women/their uteruses? Confused.
Abortion should be the ultimate libertarian cause. A popular pro-choice slogan is "keep your laws off my body!" for chrissakes.
*Which is what the crux of Roe v. Wade centered on.
posted by Sara C. at 11:28 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
I've noticed a subtle but consistent difference in their respective flavors of awfulness: Whereas Sanders zealots have a tendency to be dickish and engage in trollery, Clinton zealots lean more toward smugness and a catty kind of snark.
I mean i take your point(and heh if that was intentional), but describing it as a gendered descriptor like "catty" is practically a troll when the line basically seems to be that everyone who isn't pro-hillary is a misogynist.
posted by emptythought at 11:29 AM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]
I mean i take your point(and heh if that was intentional), but describing it as a gendered descriptor like "catty" is practically a troll when the line basically seems to be that everyone who isn't pro-hillary is a misogynist.
posted by emptythought at 11:29 AM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]
Yeah, super not stoked about the idea that Clinton supporters are "catty" about Bernie.
posted by Sara C. at 11:34 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 11:34 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
I do personally try to be that way. I know lots of Republicans who are not horrible people, and I try not to, for example, attribute horrible racism to them just because they favor lower taxes. To what extent are you going to hold me accountable for the approach that a relatively small number of other liberals take who are, to be frank, total dicks a lot of the time?
This is a false equivalency. Democrats and liberals and progressives aren't the party with a huge number of seriously destructive social and economic policies that actively make this country a worse place for women, poor people and minorities.
posted by zarq at 11:34 AM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is a false equivalency. Democrats and liberals and progressives aren't the party with a huge number of seriously destructive social and economic policies that actively make this country a worse place for women, poor people and minorities.
posted by zarq at 11:34 AM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
Frankly, I'm just pissed we can't say, "Well, you made your bed" to the Republican party and walk away, because there's a chance we all could be living in the darkest timeline imaginable come January 2017.
posted by zarq at 11:39 AM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zarq at 11:39 AM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean i take your point(and heh if that was intentional), but describing it as a gendered descriptor like "catty" is practically a troll when the line basically seems to be that everyone who isn't pro-hillary is a misogynist...
Yeah, super not stoked about the idea that Clinton supporters are "catty" about Bernie...
Noted. Please omit "catty" and change "dickish" to "assholish".
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:43 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yeah, super not stoked about the idea that Clinton supporters are "catty" about Bernie...
Noted. Please omit "catty" and change "dickish" to "assholish".
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:43 AM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
In a world where the Democrats hadn't been trashing Republicans - not just Republican politicians, but Republican voters - for being Horrible People, it'd be a lot easier to be like "Come on, boys! Time to hunker down with the Democrats for four years! I'm pretty confident they won't be too terrible to us!"
I've been saying for some time that Trump hasn't been using the racist dogwhistles that the Republicans have been employing for years because he says the quiet parts loud -- and his audience eats it up, cheering that he is not "politically correct."
The question is, though, why would prominent Republican strategists like Lee Atwater feel the need to base their strategy around coded racial language in the first place?
posted by Gelatin at 11:51 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've been saying for some time that Trump hasn't been using the racist dogwhistles that the Republicans have been employing for years because he says the quiet parts loud -- and his audience eats it up, cheering that he is not "politically correct."
The question is, though, why would prominent Republican strategists like Lee Atwater feel the need to base their strategy around coded racial language in the first place?
posted by Gelatin at 11:51 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've said this upthread, but here's Kevin Drum saying it better:
Donald Trump Is Frying My Brain
... My brain is hopelessly backed up and I'm behind on everything ... I blame Trump for this. He's brought a level of gobsmacking idiocy to the news that worms its way into my brain and won't let go. How is it that 45 percent of the country apparently doesn't realize that he's basically just a talented used car salesman? It makes no sense. There's no way that anyone with even the slightest experience of real life could fail to see that he lies practically every time he opens his mouth. That he can't be trusted to do even the smallest thing he promises. What's going on? WTF. IS. GOING. ON?
This is my brain on Trump. It wants answers. But there are no answers. Just endless, endless spinning. It is trapped in a world gone haywire.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:54 AM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
Donald Trump Is Frying My Brain
... My brain is hopelessly backed up and I'm behind on everything ... I blame Trump for this. He's brought a level of gobsmacking idiocy to the news that worms its way into my brain and won't let go. How is it that 45 percent of the country apparently doesn't realize that he's basically just a talented used car salesman? It makes no sense. There's no way that anyone with even the slightest experience of real life could fail to see that he lies practically every time he opens his mouth. That he can't be trusted to do even the smallest thing he promises. What's going on? WTF. IS. GOING. ON?
This is my brain on Trump. It wants answers. But there are no answers. Just endless, endless spinning. It is trapped in a world gone haywire.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:54 AM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
I would add that, throughout my life, the Republicans could have worked with Democrats to condemn racism, both overt and subtle. Ronald Reagan could have gone to the Neshoba County Fair to kick off his first campaign and given a speech not on states' rights but on how the South needed to reject the racist legacy of the past.
Republican-controlled statehouses across the South could have stood as one and dropped the banner of treason in defense of slavery from their state symbols.
Republicans could have made clear that racism, sexism and homophobia are simply not acceptable in the latter half of the 20th century, and that if voters were looking for a political party that gives those odious notions aid and comfort, they should look elsewhere.
And why not? Lyndon Johnson predicted the Democrats would lose the support of the South for a generation after passing the Civil Rights Act -- little knowing it would be in perpetuity, at least so far -- but he signed it anyway.
Republican politicians, one and all, could have encouraged their supporters' better natures. Instead, they did the opposite, with a wink and a nod. Are we truly not supposed to notice?
posted by Gelatin at 11:57 AM on June 23, 2016 [28 favorites]
Republican-controlled statehouses across the South could have stood as one and dropped the banner of treason in defense of slavery from their state symbols.
Republicans could have made clear that racism, sexism and homophobia are simply not acceptable in the latter half of the 20th century, and that if voters were looking for a political party that gives those odious notions aid and comfort, they should look elsewhere.
And why not? Lyndon Johnson predicted the Democrats would lose the support of the South for a generation after passing the Civil Rights Act -- little knowing it would be in perpetuity, at least so far -- but he signed it anyway.
Republican politicians, one and all, could have encouraged their supporters' better natures. Instead, they did the opposite, with a wink and a nod. Are we truly not supposed to notice?
posted by Gelatin at 11:57 AM on June 23, 2016 [28 favorites]
Just as none of us want to be tarred by the actions of the worst people who happen to agree with us politically (Bernie bros, smug Clinton fans, whatever) let's not tar all Republicans for the actions of the worst of them. Even if the worst Republicans (many of them unfortunately serving in elected office) happen to have behaved worse than the worst Democrats recently (and they have) that doesn't mean that nearly 50% of our fellow Americans are either monsters or idiots, which is how talk here sometimes sounds to me.... even though I'm a Democrat. There have been times (and places, hi, Illinois!) where the worst bad actors were Democrats. It doesn't mean all Democrats are bad.
We really do all want much the same thing. We just disagree on the best means to achieve it. If you think government tends toward tyranny unless kept on a short leash, you're likely to be a Republican, especially if you also believe our society is basically fair and anyone can succeed with hard work. If you believe the world is fundamentally unfair and full of bullies, you're likely to want government to step in and make it fairer, and be a Democrat. Different life experiences lead to these different beliefs...
But we all value fairness and hard work, and none of us wants tyrants or bullies. Because of our different life experiences and communities, we just have different ideas of what are the biggest risks to that society we all want. Government tyranny or unchecked bullying by mafia-level bullies? Both are possible, and we have to work together to navigate between that Scylla and Charybdis.
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:58 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
We really do all want much the same thing. We just disagree on the best means to achieve it. If you think government tends toward tyranny unless kept on a short leash, you're likely to be a Republican, especially if you also believe our society is basically fair and anyone can succeed with hard work. If you believe the world is fundamentally unfair and full of bullies, you're likely to want government to step in and make it fairer, and be a Democrat. Different life experiences lead to these different beliefs...
But we all value fairness and hard work, and none of us wants tyrants or bullies. Because of our different life experiences and communities, we just have different ideas of what are the biggest risks to that society we all want. Government tyranny or unchecked bullying by mafia-level bullies? Both are possible, and we have to work together to navigate between that Scylla and Charybdis.
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:58 AM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
Corb, the problem with your argument is exemplified by the literal years of discussions on this site in which dozens (if not hundreds) of people found themselves on the opposing end of you in an argument, making plenty of efforts to find common ground and making very little progress.
This isn't a dig against you in general. I'm sure the same happens in reverse all the time. If I found myself in a room full of people trying to get me to abandon my pinko commie gun-ban-loving faith, I doubt those people would get me to budge either. That's the nature of holding strong beliefs, isn't it? That's what makes belief belief.
I don't really see Trump as much worse than Cruz. I think Cruz is a psychotic monster who'd have been a hundred times worse as hypothetical POTUS. But I was more worried about Rubio than either, because Rubio is only a few percentage points less wretched than either Cruz or Trump is, and he'd have been a hundred times more electable than either.
Trump isn't trying to dismantle democracy. The Republican party, though, has been, for a decade longer than I've been born. Trump is only popular right now because those fuckers succeeded. Now people are slaughtered in the dozens and our government—the one you voted in and I voted against—willfully looks the other way.
Tell me: if Trump is what it takes for us to look like we're on the same side, what's the common ground there?
posted by rorgy at 12:01 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
This isn't a dig against you in general. I'm sure the same happens in reverse all the time. If I found myself in a room full of people trying to get me to abandon my pinko commie gun-ban-loving faith, I doubt those people would get me to budge either. That's the nature of holding strong beliefs, isn't it? That's what makes belief belief.
I don't really see Trump as much worse than Cruz. I think Cruz is a psychotic monster who'd have been a hundred times worse as hypothetical POTUS. But I was more worried about Rubio than either, because Rubio is only a few percentage points less wretched than either Cruz or Trump is, and he'd have been a hundred times more electable than either.
Trump isn't trying to dismantle democracy. The Republican party, though, has been, for a decade longer than I've been born. Trump is only popular right now because those fuckers succeeded. Now people are slaughtered in the dozens and our government—the one you voted in and I voted against—willfully looks the other way.
Tell me: if Trump is what it takes for us to look like we're on the same side, what's the common ground there?
posted by rorgy at 12:01 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
none of us wants tyrants or bullies
Some people do actually prefer strongman rulers. And many people, unfortunately, believe that those unlike them are less valuable, so marginalizing those groups (immigrants, LGBT+ people, women, take your pick) doesn't really count as bullying or oppression.
Some people really are assholes.
posted by stolyarova at 12:02 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
Some people do actually prefer strongman rulers. And many people, unfortunately, believe that those unlike them are less valuable, so marginalizing those groups (immigrants, LGBT+ people, women, take your pick) doesn't really count as bullying or oppression.
Some people really are assholes.
posted by stolyarova at 12:02 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
let's not tar all Republicans for the actions of the worst of them.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not trying to do that.
I am, however, pushing back very hard against the idea that the big mean Democrats are somehow responsible for the rise of Donald Trump and Republicans are now trapped and can't do the right thing as a result.
Because that's pure and unadulterated bullshit.
posted by zarq at 12:02 PM on June 23, 2016 [27 favorites]
To be perfectly clear, I'm not trying to do that.
I am, however, pushing back very hard against the idea that the big mean Democrats are somehow responsible for the rise of Donald Trump and Republicans are now trapped and can't do the right thing as a result.
Because that's pure and unadulterated bullshit.
posted by zarq at 12:02 PM on June 23, 2016 [27 favorites]
Even if the worst Republicans (many of them unfortunately serving in elected office) happen to have behaved worse than the worst Democrats recently (and they have) that doesn't mean that nearly 50% of our fellow Americans are either monsters or idiots
I'm sorry if that's how the talk here is sounding to you, but it's worth noting that here in Indiana, last year's repulsive law to allow discrimination against gays and lesbians based on so-called "religious freedom" -- and to repeal civil rights protection in cities that had it, into the bargain! -- didn't come about because the politicians were monsters or idiots -- well, not solely so -- but because those politicians perceived their base wanted some kind of sop in the wake of SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage.
I don't think that perception came to them out of thin air. NotAllRepublicans, of course -- Indianapolis' Republican mayor, among others, deserves credit for loudly decrying the law -- but the fact remains that the talk-radio-listening base wanted something done to put the gays in their place, and rather than stand against them, governor Mike Pence and a Republican state house gave it to them.
posted by Gelatin at 12:10 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry if that's how the talk here is sounding to you, but it's worth noting that here in Indiana, last year's repulsive law to allow discrimination against gays and lesbians based on so-called "religious freedom" -- and to repeal civil rights protection in cities that had it, into the bargain! -- didn't come about because the politicians were monsters or idiots -- well, not solely so -- but because those politicians perceived their base wanted some kind of sop in the wake of SCOTUS legalizing gay marriage.
I don't think that perception came to them out of thin air. NotAllRepublicans, of course -- Indianapolis' Republican mayor, among others, deserves credit for loudly decrying the law -- but the fact remains that the talk-radio-listening base wanted something done to put the gays in their place, and rather than stand against them, governor Mike Pence and a Republican state house gave it to them.
posted by Gelatin at 12:10 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Joey Buttafoucault I do personally try to be that way. I know lots of Republicans who are not horrible people, and I try not to, for example, attribute horrible racism to them just because they favor lower taxes.
I don't think anyone, even a mean person like me, argues that all Republicans are racist.
I **DO** however argue that all Republicans are willing to tolerate and work with racists. Sure, maybe [insert Republican here] just wants lower taxes and isn't a racist, but in order to get those lower taxes they've been perfectly willing, since 1967, to work with, tolerate, and make a space for, the racists.
So no, I'm not especially willing to start cutting Republicans slack now. They've had over 40 years to pay attention to the way their party has been embracing racism, Trump is just an uglier, more overt, form of the same thing their party has stood for since the Civil Rights Act passed.
And, considering that the Republican party has spent the Bush Jr years calling Democrats, and I quote, "objectively pro-terrorist" and traitors, then the Obama years indulging in birtherism, obstructing everything, etc, I'm afraid I have no sympathy for corb's call for Democrats to act nice.
We tried that, the Republicans spit in our faces and called us traitors. Nice is over and it's their fault, not ours.
If the Republicans hadn't spent the past, heck I was wrong to say sixteen years I forgot the Clinton impeachment, 24 years being as absolutely horrible, mean spirited, awful, and insulting, towards Democrats who were bending over backwards trying to be accomodating and polite, then corb might have a point.
As it is her plea for Democrats to try to be nice for a change sounds positively insulting to me.
We've been nice. Obama did his utmost to be nice, and it got him nothing but a steady barrage of the most vile attacks that the Republicans could come up with and, literally, the most obstructionist Congress that has ever existed in US history.
So no, I don't think nice is a good idea. We tried it, the Republicans took it and abused us.
I want mean. I want Clinton to grind their faces in their loss and I want her to push the most aggressively liberal, leftist, agenda she possibly can. I hope desperately we win enough Senate seats to retake the majority, that we eradicate the filibuster, and we cram through as many of the most liberal, anti-Republican laws as can possibly be passed.
I hope Clinton and the Democratic Party spend the whole of the election season and the next four years endlessly reminding America that Trump was the Republican candidate because the Republican Party wanted him.
No quarter. No prisoners. No compromise.
That the Republicans will have the sheer, unmitigated, gall to whine about the Democrats needing to be nicer is the most laughable thing I've encountered all day.
Where was nice during Benghazi? Where was nice during the birther crap? Where was nice when the Republican Congress wouldn't confirm Obama's appointments?
You want nice? Start by a huge, sincere, heartfelt, apology to the nation followed by an immediate end to obstruction. Then, after we're sure you really mean it and you've let us pass a serious liberal agenda, then maybe (maybe) we can talk about being nice.
posted by sotonohito at 12:12 PM on June 23, 2016 [21 favorites]
I don't think anyone, even a mean person like me, argues that all Republicans are racist.
I **DO** however argue that all Republicans are willing to tolerate and work with racists. Sure, maybe [insert Republican here] just wants lower taxes and isn't a racist, but in order to get those lower taxes they've been perfectly willing, since 1967, to work with, tolerate, and make a space for, the racists.
So no, I'm not especially willing to start cutting Republicans slack now. They've had over 40 years to pay attention to the way their party has been embracing racism, Trump is just an uglier, more overt, form of the same thing their party has stood for since the Civil Rights Act passed.
And, considering that the Republican party has spent the Bush Jr years calling Democrats, and I quote, "objectively pro-terrorist" and traitors, then the Obama years indulging in birtherism, obstructing everything, etc, I'm afraid I have no sympathy for corb's call for Democrats to act nice.
We tried that, the Republicans spit in our faces and called us traitors. Nice is over and it's their fault, not ours.
If the Republicans hadn't spent the past, heck I was wrong to say sixteen years I forgot the Clinton impeachment, 24 years being as absolutely horrible, mean spirited, awful, and insulting, towards Democrats who were bending over backwards trying to be accomodating and polite, then corb might have a point.
As it is her plea for Democrats to try to be nice for a change sounds positively insulting to me.
We've been nice. Obama did his utmost to be nice, and it got him nothing but a steady barrage of the most vile attacks that the Republicans could come up with and, literally, the most obstructionist Congress that has ever existed in US history.
So no, I don't think nice is a good idea. We tried it, the Republicans took it and abused us.
I want mean. I want Clinton to grind their faces in their loss and I want her to push the most aggressively liberal, leftist, agenda she possibly can. I hope desperately we win enough Senate seats to retake the majority, that we eradicate the filibuster, and we cram through as many of the most liberal, anti-Republican laws as can possibly be passed.
I hope Clinton and the Democratic Party spend the whole of the election season and the next four years endlessly reminding America that Trump was the Republican candidate because the Republican Party wanted him.
No quarter. No prisoners. No compromise.
That the Republicans will have the sheer, unmitigated, gall to whine about the Democrats needing to be nicer is the most laughable thing I've encountered all day.
Where was nice during Benghazi? Where was nice during the birther crap? Where was nice when the Republican Congress wouldn't confirm Obama's appointments?
You want nice? Start by a huge, sincere, heartfelt, apology to the nation followed by an immediate end to obstruction. Then, after we're sure you really mean it and you've let us pass a serious liberal agenda, then maybe (maybe) we can talk about being nice.
posted by sotonohito at 12:12 PM on June 23, 2016 [21 favorites]
let's not tar all Republicans for the actions of the worst of them
Well, I know plenty of individual Republicans who aren't racist, but aren't they accountable for supporting a party that has been implicitly racist for over 50 years? And now that Trump is running an explicitly racist campaign, shouldn't we be stocking up on tar?
posted by kirkaracha at 12:14 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am, however, pushing back very hard against the idea that the big mean Democrats are somehow responsible for the rise of Donald Trump and Republicans are now trapped and can't do the right thing as a result.
Let me be one hundred percent clear. I don't think the rise of Trump and the terrifying possibility that he may completely destroy our democracy actually has only one cause, much less that if there were any one cause, that cause would be the Democrats' civility or lack theoreof.
But I do think the rise of Trump is a perfect storm, where a lot of the outlets that would normally save us from this in a democratic society are, for one reason or another, stopped up - and one of those stopped-up outlets is the bitter, bitter partisan divide that prevents people from easily crossing parties. And that's a real problem any other day, but it's especially a real problem when there's an existential threat out there, and even in a place where we all pretty much agree that there's an existential threat, it's hard to keep from sniping at each other because those partisan divides go just that deep.
posted by corb at 12:14 PM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
Let me be one hundred percent clear. I don't think the rise of Trump and the terrifying possibility that he may completely destroy our democracy actually has only one cause, much less that if there were any one cause, that cause would be the Democrats' civility or lack theoreof.
But I do think the rise of Trump is a perfect storm, where a lot of the outlets that would normally save us from this in a democratic society are, for one reason or another, stopped up - and one of those stopped-up outlets is the bitter, bitter partisan divide that prevents people from easily crossing parties. And that's a real problem any other day, but it's especially a real problem when there's an existential threat out there, and even in a place where we all pretty much agree that there's an existential threat, it's hard to keep from sniping at each other because those partisan divides go just that deep.
posted by corb at 12:14 PM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
> Donald Trump Is Frying My Brain
That is *exactly* what we went through up here during the Rob Ford Era.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:17 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
That is *exactly* what we went through up here during the Rob Ford Era.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:17 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
In move to reassure donors, Trump converts $50 million of campaign loans into donations
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:18 PM on June 23, 2016
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:18 PM on June 23, 2016
I don't think it makes sense to blame Democrats for Trump's rise. I do think, however, that Corb is absolutely right that it would be easier to defeat him if our culture weren't so politically polarized. I don't think that polarization is Democrats' fault either. It's just the result of sociological forces of some kind... but I do think that polarization could eventually destroy our country, that we are not as far as we think we are from catastrophic government collapse or civil war. So I think advocating for people to see beyond their political tribal identities and try to see their opponents as decent human beings like themselves is a good thing to do. And yes before someone says it, Republicans need to do that too, probably more, and I'm doing my best to convince my Republican friends too.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:20 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:20 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
even in a place where we all pretty much agree that there's an existential threat
If the party that is about to nominate Trump thinks he's an existential threat, and they can't look past the fact that Democrats support Democratic policies and candidates while criticizing Republican policies and candidates, how existential a threat do they really think he is? I feel like you're extrapolating from your minority viewpoint in ways that are at odds with reality.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:22 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
If the party that is about to nominate Trump thinks he's an existential threat, and they can't look past the fact that Democrats support Democratic policies and candidates while criticizing Republican policies and candidates, how existential a threat do they really think he is? I feel like you're extrapolating from your minority viewpoint in ways that are at odds with reality.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:22 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
corb, I absolutely agree with you that a bitter partisan divide exists, and Ford knows the whole Clinton-Sanders flap shows that even people on the same side of the political spectrum can generate enough animosity to power a merry-go-round, but throughout Obama's first term, at least, he constantly was looking for common cause he could make with Republicans. Many fault him, in fact, for negotiating away too much in his quest to do so, and they aren't far wrong, because the Republicans had no intention at all of bargaining in good faith.
sotonohito mentioned the Clinton impeachment. Given what we know about Gingrich and Hastert now, is there any serious argument that they impeached him out of some sense of moral outrage? Of course not -- their hypocrisy reveals that it was simple partisanship, and that was 20 years ago.
Dick Cheney famously said at the beginning of Bush the Lesser's first term that if they passed legislation by even one more vote than necessary, it meant that Republicans had bargained away something they didn't need to. Where's the spirit of compromise?
I am not denying that partisan frustration exists -- yesterday's sit-in sprung from frustration over the lockstep Republican refusal to even debate gun control. But if you look at the situation objectively, even allowing for hotheads on both sides, I don't think there's a good case to make that over the past 20 years, Democrats as a whole are guilty of nasty, excessive partisanship.
posted by Gelatin at 12:22 PM on June 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
sotonohito mentioned the Clinton impeachment. Given what we know about Gingrich and Hastert now, is there any serious argument that they impeached him out of some sense of moral outrage? Of course not -- their hypocrisy reveals that it was simple partisanship, and that was 20 years ago.
Dick Cheney famously said at the beginning of Bush the Lesser's first term that if they passed legislation by even one more vote than necessary, it meant that Republicans had bargained away something they didn't need to. Where's the spirit of compromise?
I am not denying that partisan frustration exists -- yesterday's sit-in sprung from frustration over the lockstep Republican refusal to even debate gun control. But if you look at the situation objectively, even allowing for hotheads on both sides, I don't think there's a good case to make that over the past 20 years, Democrats as a whole are guilty of nasty, excessive partisanship.
posted by Gelatin at 12:22 PM on June 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
She's talking to Democrats right now. Corb has made it clear that when she talks to Republicans she also asks them to be more willing to compromise with, and less ready to demonize, Democrats.
She's not blaming Democrats. She's just asking us to do what is in our power to reduce the political divisions in our culture.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:28 PM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
She's not blaming Democrats. She's just asking us to do what is in our power to reduce the political divisions in our culture.
posted by OnceUponATime at 12:28 PM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
corb, you seem to be working really hard to avoid admitting that the Republican party picked Trump. He didn't just come out of nowhere. Yes, it wasn't a majority of Republican primary voters, but it was enough to earn him the spot - and poll after poll of overall voters still give him 40+% of the vote in the general election. It's not the Democrats' job to save the Republican party from itself. If enough of them truly think he's an "existential threat", he wouldn't be where he is. I guarantee you the Democrats will gladly welcome Republicans who want to vote against Trump... or even not vote.
posted by Roommate at 12:29 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Roommate at 12:29 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
I should point out that more than one Republican, including Indiana Senator Dick Lugar, whom I regard as a decent politician and believe is well-meaning, even if I disagree with him, has been primaried from the right simply because of his willingness to compromise with Democrats. That's a perennial beef of the so-called Tea Party.
And Mourdock, the Tea Party candidate who replaced Lugar, lost his election bid to a Democrat. Republican primary voters have shown themselves as being willing to lose elections rather than put forward candidates that more moderate voters can accept.
posted by Gelatin at 12:29 PM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
And Mourdock, the Tea Party candidate who replaced Lugar, lost his election bid to a Democrat. Republican primary voters have shown themselves as being willing to lose elections rather than put forward candidates that more moderate voters can accept.
posted by Gelatin at 12:29 PM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
On non-preview - maybe, OnceUponATime, but coming at it with "If the Democrats weren't so mean" without even a hint of blame in the other direction isn't really a winning strategy.
posted by Roommate at 12:30 PM on June 23, 2016
posted by Roommate at 12:30 PM on June 23, 2016
And Mourdock, the Tea Party candidate who replaced Lugar
No Game of Thrones spoilers, please.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:36 PM on June 23, 2016 [12 favorites]
No Game of Thrones spoilers, please.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:36 PM on June 23, 2016 [12 favorites]
She's not blaming Democrats. She's just asking us to do what is in our power to reduce the political divisions in our culture.
Recent history from Clinton through Obama suggests that Democrats have worked to reduce political divisions not only by appealing to conservative framing on issues ("fiscal responsibility", "Social Security is insolvent", etc.) but also going further to adopt conservative viewpoints on those issues. Note the existence of the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress, but no similar moderate GOP caucus in that body. Note the much higher levels of party discipline in the GOP, including the use of the Hastert rule, which Pelosi chose to set aside many times for compromise bills. We even saw this same dynamic yesterday with the "no fly no buy" vote, where Democrats had to center the push for gun control around a bipartisan (and odious) "war on terror" framing.
Democrats are trying to reach out. Republicans, generally, are not.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:36 PM on June 23, 2016 [18 favorites]
Recent history from Clinton through Obama suggests that Democrats have worked to reduce political divisions not only by appealing to conservative framing on issues ("fiscal responsibility", "Social Security is insolvent", etc.) but also going further to adopt conservative viewpoints on those issues. Note the existence of the Blue Dog Democrats in Congress, but no similar moderate GOP caucus in that body. Note the much higher levels of party discipline in the GOP, including the use of the Hastert rule, which Pelosi chose to set aside many times for compromise bills. We even saw this same dynamic yesterday with the "no fly no buy" vote, where Democrats had to center the push for gun control around a bipartisan (and odious) "war on terror" framing.
Democrats are trying to reach out. Republicans, generally, are not.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:36 PM on June 23, 2016 [18 favorites]
Mean as I am, I'm not trying to attack corb here.
And, mean as I am, I do try to be nice to the Republicans I know IRL, which mostly means studiously avoiding politics as a topic (I had a very nice dinner a few days ago with a person I know for a fact is a Trump supporters, we talked about Terry Pratchett).
I feel a little bad about my earlier rant because I really don't want to dogpile corb.
But, I don't feel really bad about it because, I do think corb is both wholly right and wholly wrong. She's wholly right in that there's a huge partisan divide in the USA right now.
OnceUponATime One of my long term fears is that the USA is headed for a fracturing. The Senate especially seems like a recipe for disaster. As the population becomes more citified the Senate means essentially disenfranchising an ever larger number of people.
The huge partisan divide amplifies the structural problems.
posted by sotonohito at 12:39 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
And, mean as I am, I do try to be nice to the Republicans I know IRL, which mostly means studiously avoiding politics as a topic (I had a very nice dinner a few days ago with a person I know for a fact is a Trump supporters, we talked about Terry Pratchett).
I feel a little bad about my earlier rant because I really don't want to dogpile corb.
But, I don't feel really bad about it because, I do think corb is both wholly right and wholly wrong. She's wholly right in that there's a huge partisan divide in the USA right now.
OnceUponATime One of my long term fears is that the USA is headed for a fracturing. The Senate especially seems like a recipe for disaster. As the population becomes more citified the Senate means essentially disenfranchising an ever larger number of people.
The huge partisan divide amplifies the structural problems.
posted by sotonohito at 12:39 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
When we have "news" organizations that publish grotesque propaganda, our republic suffers.
posted by puddledork at 12:40 PM on June 23, 2016
posted by puddledork at 12:40 PM on June 23, 2016
for reals though, we (Democrats/liberals) do have a tendency to ascribe evil motives or profound stupidity to Republican voters, this is not a cool thing to do
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:42 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:42 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
for reals though, we (Democrats/liberals) do have a tendency to ascribe evil motives or profound stupidity to Republican voters, this is not a cool thing to do
It's not. But it is not a significant causal factor in the rise of or failure to stop Trump, either.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:43 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's not. But it is not a significant causal factor in the rise of or failure to stop Trump, either.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:43 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
That's interesting that Trump has turned his loan into a donation. I think that he figured out he could never pay it back in time so why not turn the loan into a donation to reassure new donors that the money they give will not just be going into his pocket. Of course he will still use campaign funds to reimburse Trump businesses.
The Atlantic: Donald Trump's Coalition of Restoration
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:48 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Atlantic: Donald Trump's Coalition of Restoration
As a first-time candidate with no record in public office, the most important decision Trump faced was how to define himself to the public. From the outset, he has stressed three principal identities. One is as a savvy business executive who would use his private-sector smarts to turn around the government and economy. The second is as a political outsider untethered to special interests who will clean up a self-serving political system. But through the primaries he subordinated each of those to a third emphasis: his role as the embodiment of resistance to America’s rapid demographic and cultural change.From the linked Poll:
A major national poll released Thursday morning illuminates how strong a tailwind that definition provided to Trump during the Republican primary—and how fierce a headwind it presents for him in a general election. The poll also helps clarify why the contest between Trump and Hillary Clinton is likely to pivot more on questions of national identity—how we live together, or not, in a rapidly diversifying country—than on any other issue.
The general public is evenly divided over whether American culture and way of life has mostly changed for the better (49%) or changed for the worse (50%) since the 1950s.I recommend taking a look at the entire poll results titled How Immigration and Concerns about Cultural Change are Shaping the 2016 Election | PRRI/Brookings Survey
White working-class Americans (62%) and white evangelical Protestants (70%) are among the most likely to believe that American culture and the American way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s.
More than two-thirds of Republicans (68%) and Donald Trump supporters (68%)—Republican and Republican-leaning independents who supported Trump during the primary—believe the American way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s, while roughly the same number of Democrats (66%) say things have improved. Independents closely mirror the general public.
A majority (55%) of Americans believe that the American way of life needs to be protected against foreign influence, while more than four in ten (44%) disagree.
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of Republicans and about eight in ten (83%) Trump supporters agree that the foreign influence over the American way of life needs to be curtailed, compared to approximately four in ten (41%) Democrats. Political independents’ attitudes mirror those of Americans overall.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:48 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
PRRI = Public Religion Research Institute
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:48 PM on June 23, 2016
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:48 PM on June 23, 2016
Note the much higher levels of party discipline in the GOP, including the use of the Hastert rule
Which, it bears repeating, is not a rule, but a choice by Republicans to not pass legislation that could achieve a majority of votes if it means forming a coalition with Democrats. This so-called "rule" deliberately gives a veto over much legislation to the most conservative members of the Republican caucus. Which is why I have no sympathy over the bi-weekly articles about how poor Paul Ryan is trying so hard to pass things thru Congress.
He could. He chooses not to, not because Democrats are unwilling to compromise, but rather as a sop to the ultra-conservatives.
posted by Gelatin at 12:53 PM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
Which, it bears repeating, is not a rule, but a choice by Republicans to not pass legislation that could achieve a majority of votes if it means forming a coalition with Democrats. This so-called "rule" deliberately gives a veto over much legislation to the most conservative members of the Republican caucus. Which is why I have no sympathy over the bi-weekly articles about how poor Paul Ryan is trying so hard to pass things thru Congress.
He could. He chooses not to, not because Democrats are unwilling to compromise, but rather as a sop to the ultra-conservatives.
posted by Gelatin at 12:53 PM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
So, honestly I'm in kind of a weird place when it comes to Republicanism in general - I'm a late-in-life convert, and I came from the other side - starting at the Green Party, sliding through Democrat, and now into Republican. But I also have a sociology background, and it means I'm looking, really hard, at how sociological factors impact Republican identity and voting practices in this abstract way I can't help from looking at. If I don't wind up in a Trump camp, I may eventually write about it, because there's just so much that I would not have previously believed.
And one of the things I find most fascinating is the gap between policies and identities, and how that impacts decisionmaking and even choice of leaders.
So I joined the Cruz campaign with the intent of defeating Trump, as I'm sure many others did as well. And every time I have the opportunity, I work to defeat Trump. But that still leaves a lot of time I need to be existing and holding space, kind of - need to have "just us Republicans" conversations. And I'm not really - I know it may seem so because Metafilter is so very, very liberal, but I'm really not that conservative. And yet! I get included in the Secret Conservative Cabals, and people unhesitatingly accept me as a True Conservative.
And so much of that is about language, and identity markers, rather than about the specific policy positions that I happen to be talking about at the time. Like - I'm a veteran, and I geek about the Founders, and I'm currently a SAHM, and I enjoy cooking and baking for my family, and I believe wholeheartedly that morals and values are important and can talk about those without a blush. And you'd be surprised how far that gets you - just the sincere "I'm with you, but."
This is kind of disjointed because I'm still in the process of discovery on a lot of this, but I think that while Democrats have often been really good at offering compromises on policies, I think they're not really great at offering...I guess respect for identities along with that? And so people recoil from compromises that they would totally accept if offered by anyone else. And Democrats are like "what the fuck that is the best deal I literally could have offered you, why the hell are you not going for it?" And - you know, they're right in many cases! In many cases the policy compromises are in fact the best that can be offered! But they don't come with a wrapping that lets people feel like they're sincere or respectful or serious, and so people reject it.
This happens Republican-side as well, too, it's important to say. There's a deep hatred in the conservative base for what they call "squishy moderates". It would be reasonable to look at that and say, "Oh, there's no compromising with those people." God knows I used to. But the one thing this all has taught me is that the "squishy moderate" anger isn't really just about policy compromise, it's about - oh man, this is hard to describe, but I guess the belief in someone's center being firm, regardless of where that center is placed? This is one where moderate Republicans also do a bad job - they're afraid of being primaried, and so they're largely afraid to say, "No, this isn't just a compromise with the Democrats, my morals and sincerity lead me to this position." Or if they do, they've been talking out of their mouth for so long that no one believes them. In part, people who take extreme positions are more believed, because those positions are disadvantageous, so why would they lie?
posted by corb at 12:53 PM on June 23, 2016 [26 favorites]
And one of the things I find most fascinating is the gap between policies and identities, and how that impacts decisionmaking and even choice of leaders.
So I joined the Cruz campaign with the intent of defeating Trump, as I'm sure many others did as well. And every time I have the opportunity, I work to defeat Trump. But that still leaves a lot of time I need to be existing and holding space, kind of - need to have "just us Republicans" conversations. And I'm not really - I know it may seem so because Metafilter is so very, very liberal, but I'm really not that conservative. And yet! I get included in the Secret Conservative Cabals, and people unhesitatingly accept me as a True Conservative.
And so much of that is about language, and identity markers, rather than about the specific policy positions that I happen to be talking about at the time. Like - I'm a veteran, and I geek about the Founders, and I'm currently a SAHM, and I enjoy cooking and baking for my family, and I believe wholeheartedly that morals and values are important and can talk about those without a blush. And you'd be surprised how far that gets you - just the sincere "I'm with you, but."
This is kind of disjointed because I'm still in the process of discovery on a lot of this, but I think that while Democrats have often been really good at offering compromises on policies, I think they're not really great at offering...I guess respect for identities along with that? And so people recoil from compromises that they would totally accept if offered by anyone else. And Democrats are like "what the fuck that is the best deal I literally could have offered you, why the hell are you not going for it?" And - you know, they're right in many cases! In many cases the policy compromises are in fact the best that can be offered! But they don't come with a wrapping that lets people feel like they're sincere or respectful or serious, and so people reject it.
This happens Republican-side as well, too, it's important to say. There's a deep hatred in the conservative base for what they call "squishy moderates". It would be reasonable to look at that and say, "Oh, there's no compromising with those people." God knows I used to. But the one thing this all has taught me is that the "squishy moderate" anger isn't really just about policy compromise, it's about - oh man, this is hard to describe, but I guess the belief in someone's center being firm, regardless of where that center is placed? This is one where moderate Republicans also do a bad job - they're afraid of being primaried, and so they're largely afraid to say, "No, this isn't just a compromise with the Democrats, my morals and sincerity lead me to this position." Or if they do, they've been talking out of their mouth for so long that no one believes them. In part, people who take extreme positions are more believed, because those positions are disadvantageous, so why would they lie?
posted by corb at 12:53 PM on June 23, 2016 [26 favorites]
That's interesting that Trump has turned his loan into a donation. I think that he figured out he could never pay it back in time so why not turn the loan into a donation to reassure new donors that the money they give will not just be going into his pocket. Of course he will still use campaign funds to reimburse Trump businesses.
Personally, i think he's attempting the tax dodge version of what i did in college.*
Basically, when i signed up you could only register for certain classes if you transferred in without various credits already done. I figured out that if you just switched your major(which you could do yourself online!) a couple times, that your first limited-credit major/code would drop off the record since it only held maybe 3... And then you could do whatever you wanted.
This is probably trumps understanding of the tax codes and system. Make it complicated enough, and they'll forget where they started and just give up!
*i'm not a super horrible person and i didn't dodge gen ed classes, my brain was just going to turn to mush if all i could take was math 101 alongside eng 101, etc and nothing remotely interesting for like 3 quarters
posted by emptythought at 12:56 PM on June 23, 2016
Personally, i think he's attempting the tax dodge version of what i did in college.*
Basically, when i signed up you could only register for certain classes if you transferred in without various credits already done. I figured out that if you just switched your major(which you could do yourself online!) a couple times, that your first limited-credit major/code would drop off the record since it only held maybe 3... And then you could do whatever you wanted.
This is probably trumps understanding of the tax codes and system. Make it complicated enough, and they'll forget where they started and just give up!
*i'm not a super horrible person and i didn't dodge gen ed classes, my brain was just going to turn to mush if all i could take was math 101 alongside eng 101, etc and nothing remotely interesting for like 3 quarters
posted by emptythought at 12:56 PM on June 23, 2016
In the spirit of friendly and generous bipartisanship, how should I interpret Republicans' absolute refusal to address climate change?
If I say it's because they think climate change is a hoax, that's effectively calling them conspiracy nuts.
If I say it's because they think the profit motive is more important than preserving the Earth as a habitable place for humans, that's casting them as mustache-twirling rail baron villains.
If I say it's because they think the free market will fix climate change, in opposition to all available evidence, it would have to be because they're idiots.
What's a non-hostile framing of the issue that helps me understand this position?
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:58 PM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
If I say it's because they think climate change is a hoax, that's effectively calling them conspiracy nuts.
If I say it's because they think the profit motive is more important than preserving the Earth as a habitable place for humans, that's casting them as mustache-twirling rail baron villains.
If I say it's because they think the free market will fix climate change, in opposition to all available evidence, it would have to be because they're idiots.
What's a non-hostile framing of the issue that helps me understand this position?
posted by 0xFCAF at 12:58 PM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
for reals though, we (Democrats/liberals) do have a tendency to ascribe evil motives or profound stupidity to Republican voters, this is not a cool thing to do
But again, what motives should one ascribe to the Republican voters in Indiana who backed the so-called "religious freedom" law? I could acknowledge, of course, that they were led astray by a vast and fundamentally dishonest right-wing propaganda machine that tells them their church will be forced to perform gay marriages or some such codswallop, but that's hardly calling them stupid.
Reality does have a liberal bias, and the constant complaints that attempting to educate Republicans is tantamount to calling them stupid -- driven, of course, by the aforementioned dishonest conservative propaganda machine -- still don't give liberals much good faith to work with.
posted by Gelatin at 12:58 PM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
But again, what motives should one ascribe to the Republican voters in Indiana who backed the so-called "religious freedom" law? I could acknowledge, of course, that they were led astray by a vast and fundamentally dishonest right-wing propaganda machine that tells them their church will be forced to perform gay marriages or some such codswallop, but that's hardly calling them stupid.
Reality does have a liberal bias, and the constant complaints that attempting to educate Republicans is tantamount to calling them stupid -- driven, of course, by the aforementioned dishonest conservative propaganda machine -- still don't give liberals much good faith to work with.
posted by Gelatin at 12:58 PM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
Vanity Fair: Is Donald Trump Even Running for President?
Amid a disastrous month for his campaign, Trump jets off to Scotland for a business trip.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:00 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
Amid a disastrous month for his campaign, Trump jets off to Scotland for a business trip.
His schedule includes no visits with British political leaders, no side trips to London, and certainly no visits with policy experts who could discuss the refugee crisis that he refuses to help alleviate, or military leaders who might like to know why he wants to leave NATO.You know when you see it laid out like that it is surreal. Has there ever been anyone running for President who so clearly doesn't give a shit about campaigning or increasing their political contacts or gathering information? I don't know if he is just incredibly stupid, unbelievably egotistical, or just not that interested in being President. Or maybe all three?
Trump also happens to be visiting Scotland on the day of the Brexit vote, the nationalist, notably Trumpian referendum which could see Great Britain leave the European Union, potentially upending global financial markets. It is, in other words, the perfect time to go golfing. (In several interviews, Trump has indicated that he knows very little about the Brexit or its policy implications. “I haven’t really focused on it very much,” he told Fox Business on Wednesday.)
Instead, he will cut ribbons and take photos.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:00 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think that while Democrats have often been really good at offering compromises on policies, I think they're not really great at offering...I guess respect for identities along with that? And so people recoil from compromises that they would totally accept if offered by anyone else. And Democrats are like "what the fuck that is the best deal I literally could have offered you, why the hell are you not going for it?" And - you know, they're right in many cases! In many cases the policy compromises are in fact the best that can be offered! But they don't come with a wrapping that lets people feel like they're sincere or respectful or serious, and so people reject it.
corb, I would sincerely appreciate an example of the kind of interaction you're describing there.
posted by Gelatin at 1:03 PM on June 23, 2016
corb, I would sincerely appreciate an example of the kind of interaction you're describing there.
posted by Gelatin at 1:03 PM on June 23, 2016
Yeah, super not stoked about the idea that Clinton supporters are "catty" about Bernie.
And to seriously engage with this, having felt similar "i'm tired of both sides" things, i think that in aggregate Bernie supporters snark and troll the way college students and people in their early-mid 20s do, and a lot of online Hillary supporters snark and troll the way i remember the old school internet being: Basically, the way messageboards were in like 1998-2004.
This jives with the offline thing i've noticed that the loud rabid bernie bros are like 18-24, and most of the ready-to-throw-down i'm with her crew are closer to 30, or even over it.
This isn't an issue of gender so much as its an issue of somewhat of a generation gap, and the the styles of engagement therein.
Not that i would disagree that the average bernie bro isn't a very young undergrad white dude, but he's going to shitpost differently than a 30 year old white dude.
My friends who actually caucused(i worked, sadly) seemed to confirm this theory with everything they described.
I also think there's something to be said for seeing classic internet snark as "catty" vs New Era snark as "obnoxious", when the latter is a lot more violent with the rhetoric but just... ugh.
posted by emptythought at 1:05 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
And to seriously engage with this, having felt similar "i'm tired of both sides" things, i think that in aggregate Bernie supporters snark and troll the way college students and people in their early-mid 20s do, and a lot of online Hillary supporters snark and troll the way i remember the old school internet being: Basically, the way messageboards were in like 1998-2004.
This jives with the offline thing i've noticed that the loud rabid bernie bros are like 18-24, and most of the ready-to-throw-down i'm with her crew are closer to 30, or even over it.
This isn't an issue of gender so much as its an issue of somewhat of a generation gap, and the the styles of engagement therein.
Not that i would disagree that the average bernie bro isn't a very young undergrad white dude, but he's going to shitpost differently than a 30 year old white dude.
My friends who actually caucused(i worked, sadly) seemed to confirm this theory with everything they described.
I also think there's something to be said for seeing classic internet snark as "catty" vs New Era snark as "obnoxious", when the latter is a lot more violent with the rhetoric but just... ugh.
posted by emptythought at 1:05 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right now, Trump is too dangerous and urgent for me to be too worried about who to blame for him. Furthermore, if stopping him means laying some of my anger down, I'm happy to do it. I will say that the revulsion he has triggered in his own party sometimes makes me feel a lot of hope and patriotism. I sometimes even think that long term, we might come out of this more whole.
Maybe some of the GOP backlash to Trump is cynical disappointment that the dog whistle down-low white supremacy arrangement is now broken. But I think there's more too it than that. I think folks are soul-searching in a way they haven't before, or in a long time. I think the assorted likely doomed yet no less valiant #nevertrump efforts reveal a party that wants to be more than the white supremacy superfriends. I don't think Democrats or the left wing in general are alone in getting a big damn benefical scare out of the rise of Trump.
I need to get to work so, thank god, y'all are spared the multiparagraph version of this thought. Which is, I haven't ruled out hope. I believe we're about to watch Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Socialists spend 2016 figuring out that, whatever our numerous disagrements are about what sort of nation the United States ought to be, there is broad agreement that Trump's regressive, violent, racist vision is one we must reject. I think we're about to find out that is that as angry as Americans are with each other, we all still want at least the dream of this nation to be worth a damn in 2017.
This is the election where I legit thought to myself "Whoa, Daily Kos is making a lot of sense" and "I hope people listen to Mitt Romney" in the same seven days. Fucking anything is possible. America is already great.
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:07 PM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]
Maybe some of the GOP backlash to Trump is cynical disappointment that the dog whistle down-low white supremacy arrangement is now broken. But I think there's more too it than that. I think folks are soul-searching in a way they haven't before, or in a long time. I think the assorted likely doomed yet no less valiant #nevertrump efforts reveal a party that wants to be more than the white supremacy superfriends. I don't think Democrats or the left wing in general are alone in getting a big damn benefical scare out of the rise of Trump.
I need to get to work so, thank god, y'all are spared the multiparagraph version of this thought. Which is, I haven't ruled out hope. I believe we're about to watch Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Socialists spend 2016 figuring out that, whatever our numerous disagrements are about what sort of nation the United States ought to be, there is broad agreement that Trump's regressive, violent, racist vision is one we must reject. I think we're about to find out that is that as angry as Americans are with each other, we all still want at least the dream of this nation to be worth a damn in 2017.
This is the election where I legit thought to myself "Whoa, Daily Kos is making a lot of sense" and "I hope people listen to Mitt Romney" in the same seven days. Fucking anything is possible. America is already great.
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:07 PM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]
corb but I think that while Democrats have often been really good at offering compromises on policies, I think they're not really great at offering...I guess respect for identities along with that?
Hmmm. I can't speak for all Democrats but I think you've fairly accurately described me.
Someone upthread said that Democrats tend to despise Republicans and, well, yeah I do. I've never really gotten what most people mean when they say "respect". It's seemed to be alternatively fake, like smiling at someone while you slander them, and groveling. I just fundamentally don't get it.
I hear people say things like "I disagree with you but I respect you as a person" and I don't comprehend what that can possibly mean. A person's views, their thoughts, their thought processes, that's what makes them that person. If I can't respect their views how can I respect the person?
Like when Christians say they hate the sin but love the sinner. It doesn't compute. To me, at best, it sounds duplicitous and at worst it just seems like a covert way of saying that they hate the sinner.
A person's identity is what produces the policies they support. If I don't respect those policies wouldn't claiming to respect the person be a lie?
That Trump supporter I had dinner with. I only ate with her because she's a long term friend of my wife. I don't know why my wife likes her, I was polite because I didn't want to make trouble not because I liked or respected her as a person. She's a person who supports Trump, how can I respect that?
I guess I just don't see any real or significant separation between a person and their views.
I don't care about the meat, to me the essential person, the real or true person, is the mind, the thoughts, the beliefs. And if those beliefs and thoughts are repugnant to me, well, then the person is. Because to my way of thinking that **IS** the person.
This, I think, ties in with what prize bull octorok said about Democrats tending to ascribe evil motives or profound stupidity to Republican voters. I do that too.
I try to understand a view. I try to comprehend the circumstances and life experience that can bring a person to a position diametrically opposed to mine, and I run into problems.
Take climate change. The science is clear, the consequences are clear, and I literally can't think of a reason for a person to believe that climate change is a hoax that doesn't fall into malice or stupidity. Perhaps I put too much faith in reason, but then I'm accusing them of being crazy which isn't much nicer than accusing them of being malicious or dumb.
Same with gay rights. Sure, they say they love gay people, but then they vote to hurt gay people. We call people who say they love someone and then hurt them abusers and we consider such people to be evil, why should it be different just because they're doing it on a societal level rather than an interpersonal level?
I don't know. Maybe I'm lacking a part of my brain that others have. I just, on a fundamental level, don't comprehend the idea of respecting a person if I find their viewpoint repugnant. I don't get how someone can embrace an evil course of action without either having evil motives or being duped into it. I don't get how I'm supposed to respect a person's identity if their identity is "hates gay people" or whatever. It doesn't make sense, I can't comprehend how I can do that, how other people do it, or why it is supposed to be good or laudable to do that. To me it feels like lying at best.
posted by sotonohito at 1:23 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hmmm. I can't speak for all Democrats but I think you've fairly accurately described me.
Someone upthread said that Democrats tend to despise Republicans and, well, yeah I do. I've never really gotten what most people mean when they say "respect". It's seemed to be alternatively fake, like smiling at someone while you slander them, and groveling. I just fundamentally don't get it.
I hear people say things like "I disagree with you but I respect you as a person" and I don't comprehend what that can possibly mean. A person's views, their thoughts, their thought processes, that's what makes them that person. If I can't respect their views how can I respect the person?
Like when Christians say they hate the sin but love the sinner. It doesn't compute. To me, at best, it sounds duplicitous and at worst it just seems like a covert way of saying that they hate the sinner.
A person's identity is what produces the policies they support. If I don't respect those policies wouldn't claiming to respect the person be a lie?
That Trump supporter I had dinner with. I only ate with her because she's a long term friend of my wife. I don't know why my wife likes her, I was polite because I didn't want to make trouble not because I liked or respected her as a person. She's a person who supports Trump, how can I respect that?
I guess I just don't see any real or significant separation between a person and their views.
I don't care about the meat, to me the essential person, the real or true person, is the mind, the thoughts, the beliefs. And if those beliefs and thoughts are repugnant to me, well, then the person is. Because to my way of thinking that **IS** the person.
This, I think, ties in with what prize bull octorok said about Democrats tending to ascribe evil motives or profound stupidity to Republican voters. I do that too.
I try to understand a view. I try to comprehend the circumstances and life experience that can bring a person to a position diametrically opposed to mine, and I run into problems.
Take climate change. The science is clear, the consequences are clear, and I literally can't think of a reason for a person to believe that climate change is a hoax that doesn't fall into malice or stupidity. Perhaps I put too much faith in reason, but then I'm accusing them of being crazy which isn't much nicer than accusing them of being malicious or dumb.
Same with gay rights. Sure, they say they love gay people, but then they vote to hurt gay people. We call people who say they love someone and then hurt them abusers and we consider such people to be evil, why should it be different just because they're doing it on a societal level rather than an interpersonal level?
I don't know. Maybe I'm lacking a part of my brain that others have. I just, on a fundamental level, don't comprehend the idea of respecting a person if I find their viewpoint repugnant. I don't get how someone can embrace an evil course of action without either having evil motives or being duped into it. I don't get how I'm supposed to respect a person's identity if their identity is "hates gay people" or whatever. It doesn't make sense, I can't comprehend how I can do that, how other people do it, or why it is supposed to be good or laudable to do that. To me it feels like lying at best.
posted by sotonohito at 1:23 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
corb, I would sincerely appreciate an example of the kind of interaction you're describing there.
Okay. Trying to think of the least controversial one I can (I may, of course, be wrong)- the estate tax, and more broadly, taxes in general.
We just had to pay for an enormously expensive war. We are still paying for that enormously expensive war. If there's ever been any clear "and here's why we need to raise taxes", "to pay for this war, a war that your base largely accepted as the right idea at the time, where's your Shared Sacrifice Greatest Generation Love Now" sounds like it would have been it. Hell, call it the Iraq War Tax Increase, and I think you could have gotten Republicans reluctantly to the pre-polarization table.
But even though the words sound similar, "Shared Sacrifice" and "Pay Your Fair Share" are worlds apart in terms of cultural content. The one implies current righteous action, the other implies past unrighteous action as well as some socialist connotation that there is a Fair Share for the wealthy to pay. Right now, tax increases are tainted and fought against not just because they're tax increases and Republicans hate tax increases (though we do), but because Republicans see tax increases proposed by Democrats as creeping socialism attempts to end "income inequality." And even I, with a little more empathy, genuinely don't know if they are, or if establishment Democrats are just trying to prop up their own flagging popularity by throwing a sop to the not-fully-Democrat Occupy movement. It would make complete sense if the Democrats just wanted to raise taxes because our government is in great need of money. But that language has consequences, and one of those consequences is in future distrust, so I can never quite believe that - especially because that's not really what they're saying.
posted by corb at 1:26 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Okay. Trying to think of the least controversial one I can (I may, of course, be wrong)- the estate tax, and more broadly, taxes in general.
We just had to pay for an enormously expensive war. We are still paying for that enormously expensive war. If there's ever been any clear "and here's why we need to raise taxes", "to pay for this war, a war that your base largely accepted as the right idea at the time, where's your Shared Sacrifice Greatest Generation Love Now" sounds like it would have been it. Hell, call it the Iraq War Tax Increase, and I think you could have gotten Republicans reluctantly to the pre-polarization table.
But even though the words sound similar, "Shared Sacrifice" and "Pay Your Fair Share" are worlds apart in terms of cultural content. The one implies current righteous action, the other implies past unrighteous action as well as some socialist connotation that there is a Fair Share for the wealthy to pay. Right now, tax increases are tainted and fought against not just because they're tax increases and Republicans hate tax increases (though we do), but because Republicans see tax increases proposed by Democrats as creeping socialism attempts to end "income inequality." And even I, with a little more empathy, genuinely don't know if they are, or if establishment Democrats are just trying to prop up their own flagging popularity by throwing a sop to the not-fully-Democrat Occupy movement. It would make complete sense if the Democrats just wanted to raise taxes because our government is in great need of money. But that language has consequences, and one of those consequences is in future distrust, so I can never quite believe that - especially because that's not really what they're saying.
posted by corb at 1:26 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Right now, tax increases are tainted and fought against not just because they're tax increases and Republicans hate tax increases (though we do), but because Republicans see tax increases proposed by Democrats as creeping socialism attempts to end "income inequality."
Or, via Occam's Razor, maybe some people just want to keep more of their money, and don't care how it's pitched to them. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that this resentment of the sales pitch is the primary factor here rather than simple opposition to surrendering more money to the state.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:31 PM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
Or, via Occam's Razor, maybe some people just want to keep more of their money, and don't care how it's pitched to them. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that this resentment of the sales pitch is the primary factor here rather than simple opposition to surrendering more money to the state.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:31 PM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
In the spirit of friendly and generous bipartisanship, how should I interpret Republicans' absolute refusal to address climate change?
There's another, more complicated explanation. Climate change, like the success of Obamacare, is a challenge to the conservative philosophy. If climate change is real, then action must be taken -- action that will disadvantage industries that are traditional Republican supporters, yes, but collective action, regulatory action, action from a strong Federal government -- or better yet, a strong and binding international agreement! -- that will restrict economic freedom in the name of saving the planet. Favoring this position is tantamount to admitting that, at least on this issue, the conservative approach is simply wrong.
That's where our old friend cognitive dissonance comes in. If one's cherished philosophy is so obviously inadequate to address a genuine threat, some thing must be wrong. It can't be that much of a threat! The scientists must be lying (they know, because look at how many pet scientists the oil and coal industries have on their payroll!). It's all a commie plot!
(Though, given that Republicans are opposed even to market-based solutions like a carbon exchange -- ideas that once were theirs and that worked to end the problem of acid rain -- I'd say it's more simple partisanship. Opposing climate change has become just another one of those identity markers corb spoke of.)
posted by Gelatin at 1:31 PM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
There's another, more complicated explanation. Climate change, like the success of Obamacare, is a challenge to the conservative philosophy. If climate change is real, then action must be taken -- action that will disadvantage industries that are traditional Republican supporters, yes, but collective action, regulatory action, action from a strong Federal government -- or better yet, a strong and binding international agreement! -- that will restrict economic freedom in the name of saving the planet. Favoring this position is tantamount to admitting that, at least on this issue, the conservative approach is simply wrong.
That's where our old friend cognitive dissonance comes in. If one's cherished philosophy is so obviously inadequate to address a genuine threat, some thing must be wrong. It can't be that much of a threat! The scientists must be lying (they know, because look at how many pet scientists the oil and coal industries have on their payroll!). It's all a commie plot!
(Though, given that Republicans are opposed even to market-based solutions like a carbon exchange -- ideas that once were theirs and that worked to end the problem of acid rain -- I'd say it's more simple partisanship. Opposing climate change has become just another one of those identity markers corb spoke of.)
posted by Gelatin at 1:31 PM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
But even though the words sound similar, "Shared Sacrifice" and "Pay Your Fair Share" are worlds apart in terms of cultural content. The one implies current righteous action, the other implies past unrighteous action as well as some socialist connotation that there is a Fair Share for the wealthy to pay. Right now, tax increases are tainted and fought against not just because they're tax increases and Republicans hate tax increases (though we do), but because Republicans see tax increases proposed by Democrats as creeping socialism attempts to end "income inequality." And even I, with a little more empathy, genuinely don't know if they are, or if establishment Democrats are just trying to prop up their own flagging popularity by throwing a sop to the not-fully-Democrat Occupy movement. It would make complete sense if the Democrats just wanted to raise taxes because our government is in great need of money. But that language has consequences, and one of those consequences is in future distrust, so I can never quite believe that - especially because that's not really what they're saying.
On the one hand, I hear this, but on the other, I find it hard to square the fact that Republicans hate tax increases with the notion that if only Democrats had changed their branding they would have succeeded. But then, maybe that’s the point.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:31 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
On the one hand, I hear this, but on the other, I find it hard to square the fact that Republicans hate tax increases with the notion that if only Democrats had changed their branding they would have succeeded. But then, maybe that’s the point.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:31 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Maybe "pay your fair share" is a manifestation of values? I think fairness is actually a pretty important value, and it's one that, as a Democrat, I am delighted to talk about. "Values" doesn't just mean homophobia and misogyny.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:32 PM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:32 PM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
Not to mention that we established, in a previous thread, that the actual levels of impact of inheritance tax are nowhere near as egregious as an opponent of them believes they are. In no small part because of lying about them. So color me skeptical that there's a better framing from one side that is going to do the trick when opposition is using overt falsehood.
posted by phearlez at 1:33 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by phearlez at 1:33 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
I hear people say things like "I disagree with you but I respect you as a person" and I don't comprehend what that can possibly mean. A person's views, their thoughts, their thought processes, that's what makes them that person. If I can't respect their views how can I respect the person?
sonohito, I really, really appreciate your incredibly honest and real statement. It is one of the most useful and interesting things I have heard today, and I'm going to have to ponder it, because prior to your expressing it, I did not understand it at all, and I'm still not sure I do but there's at least a little more there, and that's important.
For someone like me, at least, when I respect a person, it is largely not based on their political beliefs, but on their personal qualities. Are they kind to their family? What about waiters? How do they treat individuals who can't help them? What about animals? Are they courteous when they don't have to be? Are they generally honest? Do they expose vulnerability when it's important? Do they offer to help the people they love?
For me, it is less important how someone votes on, say, broad feminist legislation, and more important how they treat the individual women in their life. That is how I judge them on that axis - not by the broad political, but by the personal.
I hate Trump and all he stands for to the point I'm undoubtedly on some list somewhere - but there are Trump supporters who I love. I am angry and hurt that they can't see how dangerous he is - but their inability to see that doesn't make them bad people. Does that make sense? Even if you don't agree, can you see how I get there?
posted by corb at 1:35 PM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]
sonohito, I really, really appreciate your incredibly honest and real statement. It is one of the most useful and interesting things I have heard today, and I'm going to have to ponder it, because prior to your expressing it, I did not understand it at all, and I'm still not sure I do but there's at least a little more there, and that's important.
For someone like me, at least, when I respect a person, it is largely not based on their political beliefs, but on their personal qualities. Are they kind to their family? What about waiters? How do they treat individuals who can't help them? What about animals? Are they courteous when they don't have to be? Are they generally honest? Do they expose vulnerability when it's important? Do they offer to help the people they love?
For me, it is less important how someone votes on, say, broad feminist legislation, and more important how they treat the individual women in their life. That is how I judge them on that axis - not by the broad political, but by the personal.
I hate Trump and all he stands for to the point I'm undoubtedly on some list somewhere - but there are Trump supporters who I love. I am angry and hurt that they can't see how dangerous he is - but their inability to see that doesn't make them bad people. Does that make sense? Even if you don't agree, can you see how I get there?
posted by corb at 1:35 PM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]
I hear people say things like "I disagree with you but I respect you as a person" and I don't comprehend what that can possibly mean. A person's views, their thoughts, their thought processes, that's what makes them that person. If I can't respect their views how can I respect the person?
People hold a lot of views, and they come to them by quite a few roads. Not all views are equal, and the calculus by which we weigh those views varies heavily. The ideal that puts someone over the line to you is a minor quibble to someone else.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:36 PM on June 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
People hold a lot of views, and they come to them by quite a few roads. Not all views are equal, and the calculus by which we weigh those views varies heavily. The ideal that puts someone over the line to you is a minor quibble to someone else.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:36 PM on June 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
But even though the words sound similar, "Shared Sacrifice" and "Pay Your Fair Share" are worlds apart in terms of cultural content.
You're also talking about a context where every candidate to the right of whatever is to the left of Jill Stein talks about cutting taxes, rhetoric wise the left is meeting the right 75% of the way and then we're supposed to believe that if we only went 85% we'd be there? I don't buy it. The right has a pathological hatred of taxes that you can't either reason or rhetoric your way around.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:36 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
You're also talking about a context where every candidate to the right of whatever is to the left of Jill Stein talks about cutting taxes, rhetoric wise the left is meeting the right 75% of the way and then we're supposed to believe that if we only went 85% we'd be there? I don't buy it. The right has a pathological hatred of taxes that you can't either reason or rhetoric your way around.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:36 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
It also takes a remarkable amount of special pleading to ignore the GOP's decades-long attempts to talk about every tax increase in the most apocalyptic terms possible. If Democrats were selling tax increases in the precise way as to attract Republican voter support, would it even be heard over the cries of "taking your hard-earned money to pay for wasteful programs?"
posted by tonycpsu at 1:38 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 1:38 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
tonycpsu Or, via Occam's Razor, maybe some people just want to keep more of their money, and don't care how it's pitched to them. I think the burden of proof is on you to show that this resentment of the sales pitch is the primary factor here rather than simple opposition to surrendering more money to the state.
Eh, I can see a bit where corb is coming from here. Word choices do imply an entire philosophy, and if you reject the philosophy in question it isn't hard to ascribe bad motives to the person based on words.
For a leftie example, if someone talks about "saving babies" or "stopping the murder of the unborn" in the context of access to contraception or whatever, even if they're ostensibly on my side and agreeing that increased access to contraception is a good thing, the language of the forced birth movement makes me recoil. I start wondering if they're trying to trick me, or trap me.
And, I think corb's analysis of what "fair share" expands to mean is pretty spot on. The difference between me and her is that I think her expanded definition is right and proper and morally correct. I do think there's a past unfairness that needs to be redressed, I do think the wealthy have a moral obligation to pay more. That, in fact, is why I use words like "fair share".
ArbitraryAndCapricious, that too. I dislike the way the right has made it so that "values" means "Republican, 1950's, Leave it to Beaver fake past values".
I've got values. I value fairness, and justice, and equality (which sometimes conflict), I value honesty and compassion, I value freedom and independence. I have values, they just aren't Republican values.
posted by sotonohito at 1:39 PM on June 23, 2016 [12 favorites]
Eh, I can see a bit where corb is coming from here. Word choices do imply an entire philosophy, and if you reject the philosophy in question it isn't hard to ascribe bad motives to the person based on words.
For a leftie example, if someone talks about "saving babies" or "stopping the murder of the unborn" in the context of access to contraception or whatever, even if they're ostensibly on my side and agreeing that increased access to contraception is a good thing, the language of the forced birth movement makes me recoil. I start wondering if they're trying to trick me, or trap me.
And, I think corb's analysis of what "fair share" expands to mean is pretty spot on. The difference between me and her is that I think her expanded definition is right and proper and morally correct. I do think there's a past unfairness that needs to be redressed, I do think the wealthy have a moral obligation to pay more. That, in fact, is why I use words like "fair share".
ArbitraryAndCapricious, that too. I dislike the way the right has made it so that "values" means "Republican, 1950's, Leave it to Beaver fake past values".
I've got values. I value fairness, and justice, and equality (which sometimes conflict), I value honesty and compassion, I value freedom and independence. I have values, they just aren't Republican values.
posted by sotonohito at 1:39 PM on June 23, 2016 [12 favorites]
I guess I just don't see any real or significant separation between a person and their views.
Funnily enough, sotonohito, you and Hillsdale College are on the same page here. "Ideas Have Consequences" is one of their mottos - it's painted around the border of the foyer to the Heritage Room, where they keep their rare books, and is one of the most common refrains on campus.
They use it to mean that any encroachment of liberal or - most terrifying of all, Communist - thought is unacceptably dangerous.
posted by stolyarova at 1:41 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Funnily enough, sotonohito, you and Hillsdale College are on the same page here. "Ideas Have Consequences" is one of their mottos - it's painted around the border of the foyer to the Heritage Room, where they keep their rare books, and is one of the most common refrains on campus.
They use it to mean that any encroachment of liberal or - most terrifying of all, Communist - thought is unacceptably dangerous.
posted by stolyarova at 1:41 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Right now, tax increases are tainted and fought against not just because they're tax increases and Republicans hate tax increases (though we do), but because Republicans see tax increases proposed by Democrats as creeping socialism attempts to end "income inequality."
But aren't you saying that it doesn't matter what language the Democrats use to propose tax increases, because Republicans inherently don't trust them on the issue? From these words, I still am not seeing how this is an issue that Democrats could find compromise on if they only changed their language.
It's interesting that you bring up tax increases, because hate them or no, Republican presidents did adopt them, up through George H.W. Bush, and we all know what happened to him as a result. It was Grover Norquist -- elected by no one -- who set the policy that Republicans may never approve a tax increase, ever. And yet they are necessary -- as unpolular as C-plus Augustus' fiasco in Iraq was, it'd have been hugely more so had he not run the war on the national credit card.
As for the estate tax, that truly is a tax that, possibly maybe a few edge cases aside, overwhelmingly affects the wealthy. And the pet Republican issue is not opposing increases to it but rather reducing or eliminating it. Sure, Republicans could just say they oppose any redistribution of wealth downwards, but they don't.
(Speaking of the estate tax, the idea goes back to the 18th century -- so much for the reverence for the Founders -- and viewed at the time largely as a check against the development of an aristocracy.)
But again, it's Republicans who have drawn a bright line in the sand and declared no compromise is possible. Isn't this another case where the Republicans are really the ones who need to change?
posted by Gelatin at 1:42 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
But aren't you saying that it doesn't matter what language the Democrats use to propose tax increases, because Republicans inherently don't trust them on the issue? From these words, I still am not seeing how this is an issue that Democrats could find compromise on if they only changed their language.
It's interesting that you bring up tax increases, because hate them or no, Republican presidents did adopt them, up through George H.W. Bush, and we all know what happened to him as a result. It was Grover Norquist -- elected by no one -- who set the policy that Republicans may never approve a tax increase, ever. And yet they are necessary -- as unpolular as C-plus Augustus' fiasco in Iraq was, it'd have been hugely more so had he not run the war on the national credit card.
As for the estate tax, that truly is a tax that, possibly maybe a few edge cases aside, overwhelmingly affects the wealthy. And the pet Republican issue is not opposing increases to it but rather reducing or eliminating it. Sure, Republicans could just say they oppose any redistribution of wealth downwards, but they don't.
(Speaking of the estate tax, the idea goes back to the 18th century -- so much for the reverence for the Founders -- and viewed at the time largely as a check against the development of an aristocracy.)
But again, it's Republicans who have drawn a bright line in the sand and declared no compromise is possible. Isn't this another case where the Republicans are really the ones who need to change?
posted by Gelatin at 1:42 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's a phrase I learned to hate. "Ideas have consequences" ends up meaning "we punish thoughtcrime."
posted by stolyarova at 1:42 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 1:42 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
> For someone like me, at least, when I respect a person, it is largely not based on their political beliefs, but on their personal qualities.
Same here. A lot of people with great political views (from my point of view) are assholes, and vice versa. If I was in a life-threatening situation, I'd rather have my racist ex-Marine uncle by my side than Random Progressive MeFite. Sorry, but my life is more important to me than right thinking.
> People hold a lot of views, and they come to them by quite a few roads. Not all views are equal, and the calculus by which we weigh those views varies heavily. The ideal that puts someone over the line to you is a minor quibble to someone else.
Exactly.
posted by languagehat at 1:47 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Same here. A lot of people with great political views (from my point of view) are assholes, and vice versa. If I was in a life-threatening situation, I'd rather have my racist ex-Marine uncle by my side than Random Progressive MeFite. Sorry, but my life is more important to me than right thinking.
> People hold a lot of views, and they come to them by quite a few roads. Not all views are equal, and the calculus by which we weigh those views varies heavily. The ideal that puts someone over the line to you is a minor quibble to someone else.
Exactly.
posted by languagehat at 1:47 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
President Obama, 2011:
Shared Sacrifice in Resolving the Budget Deficit-Motion to Proceed
Floor Speech
By: Orrin Hatch
Date: July 7, 2011
Location: Washington, DC
But right now, we have a responsibility -- and an opportunity -- to reduce our deficit as much as possible and solve this problem in a real and comprehensive way.
Simply put, it will take a balanced approach, shared sacrifice, and a willingness to make unpopular choices on all our parts. That means spending less on domestic programs. It means spending less on defense programs. It means reforming programs like Medicare to reduce costs and strengthen the program for future generations. And it means taking on the tax code, and cutting out certain tax breaks and deductions for the wealthiest Americans.
[...]
We shouldn't put the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of folks who've already borne the brunt of the recession. It's not reasonable and it's not right. If we're going to ask seniors, or students, or middle-class Americans to sacrifice, then we have to ask corporations and the wealthiest Americans to share in that sacrifice. We have to ask everyone to play their part. Because we are all part of the same country. We are all in this together.
Shared Sacrifice in Resolving the Budget Deficit-Motion to Proceed
Floor Speech
By: Orrin Hatch
Date: July 7, 2011
Location: Washington, DC
Faced with a $14.3 trillion debt--and going up every day--Social Security and Medicare Programs that are set for bankruptcy--ruining America's seniors--and a legitimate fiscal crisis that poses a clear and present danger to the Nation's security and the security of America's families and businesses, President Obama is again talking about shared sacrifice. Well, I like the term. The only thing is, I would prefer to have shared prosperity because all we are going to get out of this administration is shared sacrifice, which means everybody is going to suffer. I would like to have shared prosperity where everybody is lifted.posted by tonycpsu at 1:48 PM on June 23, 2016 [25 favorites]
Sure, Republicans could just say they oppose any redistribution of wealth downwards, but they don't.
If you listen to them for awhile you definitely will hear "redistributionist" (ex) thrown around like it is some kind of disgusting filthy word.
posted by nom de poop at 1:50 PM on June 23, 2016
If you listen to them for awhile you definitely will hear "redistributionist" (ex) thrown around like it is some kind of disgusting filthy word.
posted by nom de poop at 1:50 PM on June 23, 2016
I hate Trump and all he stands for to the point I'm undoubtedly on some list somewhere - but there are Trump supporters who I love. I am angry and hurt that they can't see how dangerous he is - but their inability to see that doesn't make them bad people. Does that make sense? Even if you don't agree, can you see how I get there?
I certainly understand, and I accept that someone having different political beliefs than mine does not wipe out all the ways in which they are good people. But I also feel that there is a point where someone's passionate support for causes which actively single out and harm my friends and family means that they are, at least, acting in a bad way, whether or not we can see into their souls and deem them good or bad people. When someone's political views are grounded in hate and that hate hurts people I care about, it is increasingly hard to see them as good people.
When elementary school kids are yelling Trump! at their Latino and Muslim classmates and millions of US citizens are getting the message that they don't belong in their country, Trump supporters are complicit in that. It doesn't mean they're all irredeemable or that they don't do good in many other aspects of their life, but it does mean they're actively supporting a movement that hurts a lot of people and threatens to hurt a lot more.
posted by zachlipton at 1:52 PM on June 23, 2016 [21 favorites]
I certainly understand, and I accept that someone having different political beliefs than mine does not wipe out all the ways in which they are good people. But I also feel that there is a point where someone's passionate support for causes which actively single out and harm my friends and family means that they are, at least, acting in a bad way, whether or not we can see into their souls and deem them good or bad people. When someone's political views are grounded in hate and that hate hurts people I care about, it is increasingly hard to see them as good people.
When elementary school kids are yelling Trump! at their Latino and Muslim classmates and millions of US citizens are getting the message that they don't belong in their country, Trump supporters are complicit in that. It doesn't mean they're all irredeemable or that they don't do good in many other aspects of their life, but it does mean they're actively supporting a movement that hurts a lot of people and threatens to hurt a lot more.
posted by zachlipton at 1:52 PM on June 23, 2016 [21 favorites]
stolyarova I've always said that I have a conservative's emotions and a liberal's thought process. It's probably why I'm one of the asshole liberals.
corb For me, it is less important how someone votes on, say, broad feminist legislation, and more important how they treat the individual women in their life. That is how I judge them on that axis - not by the broad political, but by the personal.
I suppose that to me that would indicate a failure of empathy on their part or a failure to think things through. And that does seem to fit a lot of standard patterns on the right. There's a largish number of Republicans who have come around on gay rights only because they have gay family members. Dick Cheney being a prominent example.
To me a person who treats the women they know well, but supports anti-feminist policy either has a disguised poor view of women, or has simply failed to think things through, and I don't cut much slack for intellectual laziness.
But yes, I can see how you can like people who aren't subscribers to correct doctrine. I don't agree particularly, but I can see it a bit. To me it seems a bit condescending towards that person though.
posted by sotonohito at 1:54 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
corb For me, it is less important how someone votes on, say, broad feminist legislation, and more important how they treat the individual women in their life. That is how I judge them on that axis - not by the broad political, but by the personal.
I suppose that to me that would indicate a failure of empathy on their part or a failure to think things through. And that does seem to fit a lot of standard patterns on the right. There's a largish number of Republicans who have come around on gay rights only because they have gay family members. Dick Cheney being a prominent example.
To me a person who treats the women they know well, but supports anti-feminist policy either has a disguised poor view of women, or has simply failed to think things through, and I don't cut much slack for intellectual laziness.
But yes, I can see how you can like people who aren't subscribers to correct doctrine. I don't agree particularly, but I can see it a bit. To me it seems a bit condescending towards that person though.
posted by sotonohito at 1:54 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Completely agreed (and beautifully put), zachlipton. An analogy might be the Southerners who used the KKK as a social network in the early 1940s. They weren't necessarily all white supremacists themselves, but they were white supremacist-adjacent.
posted by stolyarova at 1:56 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stolyarova at 1:56 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've always thought the Kennedy catch phrase 'ask not what your country can do, ask what you can do for your country' is one of those things that is a liberal standard because of who said it. But I can see it resonating with conservatives as well. My understanding of conservatives is that they also agree that people should all work towards a common good but not thru government, as government = bad. But for me government is the easiest way to get groups working together, especially in a multicultural society. The Trumpists may like to believe we can go back to some phony time of Leave it to Beaver, but the America they saw on TV was not reflective of the real America then and especially not now when instant communication and world travel have become ubiquitous
I enjoy cooking and baking for my family, and I believe wholeheartedly that morals and values are important and can talk about those without a blush.
This to me sounds like lefty Catholism, which is where I was brought up, The Catholic Worker group and Dorothy Day are all about service to others with impeccable morals and values attempting to teach by example. The idea of fibbing is foreign, never mind lying. The lefty people I know are INTENSELY honest.
posted by readery at 1:56 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
I enjoy cooking and baking for my family, and I believe wholeheartedly that morals and values are important and can talk about those without a blush.
This to me sounds like lefty Catholism, which is where I was brought up, The Catholic Worker group and Dorothy Day are all about service to others with impeccable morals and values attempting to teach by example. The idea of fibbing is foreign, never mind lying. The lefty people I know are INTENSELY honest.
posted by readery at 1:56 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
You know, now I kind of want to just sit a bunch of Republicans down, and a bunch of liberal Democrats down, and put speeches in front of them, and get them to circle the words that jump out at them and explain why. Because even when we are looking and listening to the same things, we are seeing and taking vastly different worlds from them. For example - tonycpsu posted a great thing about Obama calling for shared sacrifice, and Orrin Hatch rejecting that offer. He is well within his rights to be like "okay, so what happened?" But if I were reading that speech, I would be highlighting the phrase "wealthiest Americans", which appears twice. That speech would to me be signaling that Obama is insincere or does not fully understand what I mean by 'shared sacrifice', and his real focus is on othering the wealthy. It would achieve the opposite effect as the stated goal.
I don't like the term 'dog whistle', primarily because it's applied very narrowly and that narrowness has meaning, but I do feel like the connotation of words, as understood and interpreted by different groups of people, really does matter. And I wish there were a way to immerse us all in the culture of the other, so that we could understand what people mean and how they are heard better, with the goal of getting to a better society.
posted by corb at 1:58 PM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
I don't like the term 'dog whistle', primarily because it's applied very narrowly and that narrowness has meaning, but I do feel like the connotation of words, as understood and interpreted by different groups of people, really does matter. And I wish there were a way to immerse us all in the culture of the other, so that we could understand what people mean and how they are heard better, with the goal of getting to a better society.
posted by corb at 1:58 PM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
Corb, in what ways are these identity markers? Do republicans seriously believe that democrats dislike things like baking and morals?
Well I am a charter member of the Amoral Gluten-Free Sodomy Club
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:59 PM on June 23, 2016 [17 favorites]
Well I am a charter member of the Amoral Gluten-Free Sodomy Club
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:59 PM on June 23, 2016 [17 favorites]
If you listen to them for awhile you definitely will hear "redistributionist" (ex) thrown around like it is some kind of disgusting filthy word.
They do, but it's an internal code word. It don't think it's an argument they use much on the Sunday TV shows.
speaking of taxes, let's look at the other side. Let's look at Kansas, where governor Brownback put in place of conservative wish list of tax cuts, and the economy crashed, resulting in massive deficits. Once again we see the trouble with conservative policies not producing the results that were promised.
Now, if I were going to be cynical, I might speculate that all that supply-side voodoo economics snake oil was just a line to sell the policy to the rubes, and the real goal is simply to cut taxes for the wealthy,willy-nilly. Because some people are benefiting from these policies, even as the vast majority of kansans do not..
You speak of not trusting Democratic policies on taxes, corb, but if you look at the data tax policy since Reagan appears to have been one massive scam to redistribute the nation's wealth up words. It is an incontrovertible fact that the wealthy have gained nearly all the benefits of economic growth since the eighties. Where is all that working class anxiety that hucksters like Trump are taking advantage of Republican policies.
Can Republicans admit that their tax policies were an utter failure in Kansas, or can they admit that they simply want to cut taxes for the wealthy, and there's no benefit for anyone else, and they don't care?
posted by Gelatin at 2:01 PM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]
I hear people say things like "I disagree with you but I respect you as a person" and I don't comprehend what that can possibly mean. A person's views, their thoughts, their thought processes, that's what makes them that person. If I can't respect their views how can I respect the person?
Sometimes I think terrible ideas infect human brains like viruses. Especially ideas about hate. They short circuit the rational part of the brain. They exploit ignorance. I see otherwise rational people believing conspiracy theories all the time, and no facts can get them to change their mind. So, I try and look at the whole person rather than any specific ideas. Most people are a mix of positive and negative thoughts and ideas and traits. It's hard to figure out who they are at the core, and people can be incredibly deceptive. It's understandable that people tend to look more at surface level, it can be very difficult to see a person deeply.
In some countries in the world, upwards of 80-90% of the people think society should not accept homosexuality. I can't look at an entire country and say I lack respect for the supermajority of their people. So, I choose to see it differently. But, I do understand other perspectives on the issue.
-
If the party that is about to nominate Trump thinks he's an existential threat, and they can't look past the fact that Democrats support Democratic policies and candidates while criticizing Republican policies and candidates, how existential a threat do they really think he is? I feel like you're extrapolating from your minority viewpoint in ways that are at odds with reality.
I think a major factor is that they see Clinton as an existential threat as well. They view her very negatively to begin with, but given current political circumstances she is particularly dangerous to them. Democrats are within striking distance of really taking the Supreme Court and the impact on the abortion and gun issues (among many other things) is going to be massive and likely near irreversible in a practical sense. A lot of Democratic voters would be in a very tough spot if they were faced with similar choices between being solidly nationally long term defeated on their bedrock principles and basic competence for the office. Of course, current Democratic voters would never make a choice as bad as Trump to begin with.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:02 PM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sometimes I think terrible ideas infect human brains like viruses. Especially ideas about hate. They short circuit the rational part of the brain. They exploit ignorance. I see otherwise rational people believing conspiracy theories all the time, and no facts can get them to change their mind. So, I try and look at the whole person rather than any specific ideas. Most people are a mix of positive and negative thoughts and ideas and traits. It's hard to figure out who they are at the core, and people can be incredibly deceptive. It's understandable that people tend to look more at surface level, it can be very difficult to see a person deeply.
In some countries in the world, upwards of 80-90% of the people think society should not accept homosexuality. I can't look at an entire country and say I lack respect for the supermajority of their people. So, I choose to see it differently. But, I do understand other perspectives on the issue.
-
If the party that is about to nominate Trump thinks he's an existential threat, and they can't look past the fact that Democrats support Democratic policies and candidates while criticizing Republican policies and candidates, how existential a threat do they really think he is? I feel like you're extrapolating from your minority viewpoint in ways that are at odds with reality.
I think a major factor is that they see Clinton as an existential threat as well. They view her very negatively to begin with, but given current political circumstances she is particularly dangerous to them. Democrats are within striking distance of really taking the Supreme Court and the impact on the abortion and gun issues (among many other things) is going to be massive and likely near irreversible in a practical sense. A lot of Democratic voters would be in a very tough spot if they were faced with similar choices between being solidly nationally long term defeated on their bedrock principles and basic competence for the office. Of course, current Democratic voters would never make a choice as bad as Trump to begin with.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:02 PM on June 23, 2016 [8 favorites]
But if I were reading that speech, I would be highlighting the phrase "wealthiest Americans", which appears twice. That speech would to me be signaling that Obama is insincere or does not fully understand what I mean by 'shared sacrifice', and his real focus is on othering the wealthy. It would achieve the opposite effect as the stated goal.
Progressive taxation has been a cornerstone of American fiscal policy for generations, through Democratic and Republican administrations. To suggest that Obama's asking too much because he's not trying to sell a flat tax is totally absurd.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:04 PM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
Progressive taxation has been a cornerstone of American fiscal policy for generations, through Democratic and Republican administrations. To suggest that Obama's asking too much because he's not trying to sell a flat tax is totally absurd.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:04 PM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
Mod note: Just generally: at this point, I'm gonna suggest that we back away from specific focus on corb's and sotonohito's personal views, and corb and sotonohito, that you both take a step back from the thread for a while, in the name of not sucking the conversation into increasingly-personal spirals.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:05 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:05 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
For me, the fact that where we're born and who our parents are is the main determinant of what we'll wind up believing politically is the reason I try not to judge individual people who hold view I find reprehensible. I will try to stop them from implementing their views, but hell, there but for the grace of god, ya know? It doesn't make me a better person to have been born to a couple of well-educated middle-class liberals in a purple state. It makes me privileged.
I think a lot of American liberals have a big blind spot re: privilege when it comes to people who they disagree with politically.
I was thinking about gun control... I think it's incredibly short-sighted to fail to engage with why people "cling to guns," to borrow the phrase. I mean, do my fellow liberals really think that it's all about stubbornness and bloodlust? Because I think it's just as much or more about trying to hold onto a symbol of a mythological America which represents all kinds of wonderful ideals. I mean rejecting an oppressive state, guaranteeing liberty, the right to strike out on your own and make your own way, all that crap. And when you tell people who have bought into this mythological idea of America "I want to take your guns away," what they hear is "I want to take your freedom to determine the course of your own life away," which for a group of people who've become increasingly impoverished is like a last, terrifying nail in the coffin of their concept of the American Dream.
You're probably thinking "yeah and fuck the American Dream, we killed millions of Native Americans and black people along they way, and it's 20 fucking 16 so nobody's overthrowing an oppressive state with guns anymore, get the fuck over the myth of the frontier already, we're trying to stop widespread slaughter over here" - yeah, I know. But the reason I know that stuff is because I learned it. I didn't come out of the womb knowing it and I didn't find it out all by myself in a vacuum, either. It's what I was taught.
We have to counter these concepts with our own, not just tell people who believe this stuff "you are an idiot racist who needs to be punished." Because it doesn't work. Nobody's gonna listen to that.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:07 PM on June 23, 2016 [20 favorites]
I think a lot of American liberals have a big blind spot re: privilege when it comes to people who they disagree with politically.
I was thinking about gun control... I think it's incredibly short-sighted to fail to engage with why people "cling to guns," to borrow the phrase. I mean, do my fellow liberals really think that it's all about stubbornness and bloodlust? Because I think it's just as much or more about trying to hold onto a symbol of a mythological America which represents all kinds of wonderful ideals. I mean rejecting an oppressive state, guaranteeing liberty, the right to strike out on your own and make your own way, all that crap. And when you tell people who have bought into this mythological idea of America "I want to take your guns away," what they hear is "I want to take your freedom to determine the course of your own life away," which for a group of people who've become increasingly impoverished is like a last, terrifying nail in the coffin of their concept of the American Dream.
You're probably thinking "yeah and fuck the American Dream, we killed millions of Native Americans and black people along they way, and it's 20 fucking 16 so nobody's overthrowing an oppressive state with guns anymore, get the fuck over the myth of the frontier already, we're trying to stop widespread slaughter over here" - yeah, I know. But the reason I know that stuff is because I learned it. I didn't come out of the womb knowing it and I didn't find it out all by myself in a vacuum, either. It's what I was taught.
We have to counter these concepts with our own, not just tell people who believe this stuff "you are an idiot racist who needs to be punished." Because it doesn't work. Nobody's gonna listen to that.
posted by showbiz_liz at 2:07 PM on June 23, 2016 [20 favorites]
corb and sotonohito: I do think the discussions you both sparked today were interesting, so thanks for posting even if it has now run it's course.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:09 PM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:09 PM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
LobsterMitten, it's really my fault for starting the whole "if I'm not a libertarian then what am I?" conversation. Sorry!
posted by stolyarova at 2:10 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 2:10 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's interesting that you mention words that jump out of speeches, corb, because it reminds me that way back in the nineties Newt Gingrich used focus group data to circulate a memo to his Republican colleagues listing words with a positive connotation that they should always use in association with them and their policies, and words with a negative connotation that they should always use in association with Democrats and their policies.
These words in general had little to do with the merits of any particular policy and were simply designed to generate an emotional response. And it was no secret. So I am sure that Republicans to respond to a variety of code words, because they have been trained to do so by Republican politicians using carefully analyzed focus group data for something like thirty years now at least. But again, in what way are we to interpret this use of language as control as an indication of good faith?
posted by Gelatin at 2:11 PM on June 23, 2016
These words in general had little to do with the merits of any particular policy and were simply designed to generate an emotional response. And it was no secret. So I am sure that Republicans to respond to a variety of code words, because they have been trained to do so by Republican politicians using carefully analyzed focus group data for something like thirty years now at least. But again, in what way are we to interpret this use of language as control as an indication of good faith?
posted by Gelatin at 2:11 PM on June 23, 2016
“if I’m not a libertarian then what am I?”
Maybe we could all just be librarytarians. Because who doesn’t like libraries?
posted by Going To Maine at 2:16 PM on June 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
Maybe we could all just be librarytarians. Because who doesn’t like libraries?
posted by Going To Maine at 2:16 PM on June 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
Libertarians are working to close libraries here in Illinois. Along with Community Colleges, anything that is tax funded that they feel is extraneous.
posted by readery at 2:19 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by readery at 2:19 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
This short piece on Trump's relationship with Alex Jones/Infowars is a good (if unnerving) read, which includes this tidbit I somehow previously missed:
In a GQ profile of Hope Hicks, his spokeswoman, by Olivia Nuzzi, Trump’s daily news briefing is described as printouts of “30 to 50 Google News results for ‘Donald J. Trump.’ ”posted by theodolite at 2:19 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
What a liberal hears :
When I hear a Republican spokesperson say "family values" I hear "patriarchy", and if they are raising their voice I hear "patriarchy now, patriarchy forever" and "anything other than patriarchy is wrong." If you aren't a liberal, you may be surprised that such sweet, simple words are actually shrieking that loudly in the translation structures of my brain.
I think a lot of conservatives are conservative or reactionary because they are terrified of change or because certain changes don't seem worth the bother because they won't benefit from them.
Some conservatives want charity or welfare money to flow only to the "deserving", which usually means not people with substance abuse problems or out of wedlock babies or people who got here recently...
posted by puddledork at 2:21 PM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
When I hear a Republican spokesperson say "family values" I hear "patriarchy", and if they are raising their voice I hear "patriarchy now, patriarchy forever" and "anything other than patriarchy is wrong." If you aren't a liberal, you may be surprised that such sweet, simple words are actually shrieking that loudly in the translation structures of my brain.
I think a lot of conservatives are conservative or reactionary because they are terrified of change or because certain changes don't seem worth the bother because they won't benefit from them.
Some conservatives want charity or welfare money to flow only to the "deserving", which usually means not people with substance abuse problems or out of wedlock babies or people who got here recently...
posted by puddledork at 2:21 PM on June 23, 2016 [13 favorites]
Maybe we could all just be librarytarians. Because who doesn’t like libraries?
Hate to be "that guy" who ruins the joke, but ...
Nick Gillespie @ Reason: As Someone Who Worked in a Public Library as a Teenager and Now Pay Higher Taxes to Support My Town's Library, I Hope They All Get Outsourced Like This One!
Hate to be "that guy" who ruins the joke, but ...
Nick Gillespie @ Reason: As Someone Who Worked in a Public Library as a Teenager and Now Pay Higher Taxes to Support My Town's Library, I Hope They All Get Outsourced Like This One!
As someone who absolutely loved my hometown library (when the nearest bookstore, a crappy Waldenbooks, was 12 miles away) and worked as a part-time page at Middletown, New Jersey's main branch library on good ol' New Monmouth Road some 30 years ago, my personal testimony's relevance is limited. But I can tell you that I never met a bunch of lazier workers than I did at that cushy, air-conditioned pleasure-dome (and I've worked a lot of different shit gigs, including heavily unionized ones). I can only imagine the spark of terror Mr. Pezzanite (if that is his real name) must send through the spines of municipal library workers around this sweet land of liberty.posted by tonycpsu at 2:22 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
And I can understand why they fight against the outsourcing of their jobs. But you know what? Governments are supposed to be service providers, not jobs programs. The government is supposed to provide for the public, not milk it dry. And when push comes to shove, and the only way to maintain current public-employee compensation levels is to cut services and jack up taxes to pay for higher-than-the-private-sector salaries and benefits, it's time to say goodnight, Gracie.
Maybe we could all just be librarytarians. Because who doesn’t like libraries?
Parks departments. Fuck libraries.
posted by Talez at 2:29 PM on June 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
Parks departments. Fuck libraries.
posted by Talez at 2:29 PM on June 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
Donald Trump’s Mansions and Saddam Hussein’s Palaces Are Basically the Same
posted by kirkaracha at 3:11 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 3:11 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
In the libertarian utopia there will be neither parks departments nor libraries.
Utter nonsense. Just step right on through the gap in the concertina wire here to PBO's Junior Playland & Hiking Trails, a privately-owned park that is just as verdant and enjoyable as anything the government [spit] could provide! A one-day pass is $15, payable in precious metals or Bitcoin. Gotta cover expenses, y'know, and make it worth my while. Now check out that jungle gym! It's right over concrete, just like when we were kids! None of that rubber crap! Hell yeah the kids get hurt! Toughens 'em up, builds character! How are they gonna seize their own destiny from a harsh uncaring world by the strength of their own arms and willpower if you protect 'em from stuff like head injuries and tetanus? They won't!
And yeah, the library is right across the pond! I wouldn't let your kids play in that water, no. It's pretty, though, innit, with that iridescent shine on the surface? No loud-ass frogs annoying you with all that croaking, either. Nice and quiet at night. Yeah, so, the PBO Free State Independent Patriot Library, check it out! It's totally free, except for the monthly membership dues -- it's about what you'd pay for Netflix, so no big deal -- and you do have to put a deposit down when you take out a book. Anyway, I don't think you'll find a better collection of golden age sci-fi in all the Sovereign Territories! Yep, it's pretty much just golden age sci-fi. Some self-published manifestoes, everything by Rand, natch, a few Penguin Classics, but...that's about it. All you need, right? Hope you're not lookin' for The Feminine Mystique or something, hah! Can't help you there, brother!
Oh hey, one thing, I totally support your right to smoke weed but you can't take that spliff inside, that carpeting is not fireproof and if the place goes up we're pretty much stuck letting nature take its course. ExtinguishCorp doesn't service this area anymore so we're kind of between firefighting companies right now.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:17 PM on June 23, 2016 [25 favorites]
Utter nonsense. Just step right on through the gap in the concertina wire here to PBO's Junior Playland & Hiking Trails, a privately-owned park that is just as verdant and enjoyable as anything the government [spit] could provide! A one-day pass is $15, payable in precious metals or Bitcoin. Gotta cover expenses, y'know, and make it worth my while. Now check out that jungle gym! It's right over concrete, just like when we were kids! None of that rubber crap! Hell yeah the kids get hurt! Toughens 'em up, builds character! How are they gonna seize their own destiny from a harsh uncaring world by the strength of their own arms and willpower if you protect 'em from stuff like head injuries and tetanus? They won't!
And yeah, the library is right across the pond! I wouldn't let your kids play in that water, no. It's pretty, though, innit, with that iridescent shine on the surface? No loud-ass frogs annoying you with all that croaking, either. Nice and quiet at night. Yeah, so, the PBO Free State Independent Patriot Library, check it out! It's totally free, except for the monthly membership dues -- it's about what you'd pay for Netflix, so no big deal -- and you do have to put a deposit down when you take out a book. Anyway, I don't think you'll find a better collection of golden age sci-fi in all the Sovereign Territories! Yep, it's pretty much just golden age sci-fi. Some self-published manifestoes, everything by Rand, natch, a few Penguin Classics, but...that's about it. All you need, right? Hope you're not lookin' for The Feminine Mystique or something, hah! Can't help you there, brother!
Oh hey, one thing, I totally support your right to smoke weed but you can't take that spliff inside, that carpeting is not fireproof and if the place goes up we're pretty much stuck letting nature take its course. ExtinguishCorp doesn't service this area anymore so we're kind of between firefighting companies right now.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:17 PM on June 23, 2016 [25 favorites]
Well I am a charter member of the Amoral Gluten-Free Sodomy Club.
How do I sign up for this?
posted by overglow at 3:49 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
How do I sign up for this?
posted by overglow at 3:49 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Vox: House Republicans used the sit-in to vote on a Zika bill that targeted Planned Parenthood
I often accuse Republicans of lacking in empathy and I think this is a good example. They really cannot put themselves in the shoes of a woman unable to afford to go to a doctor and get a prescription for birth control much less afford a baby with serious birth defects. I'm sure that plenty of the men and women who voted for this bill if questioned would respond that the cheapest, most reliable form of birth control is abstinence. And besides there are so many other free/low cost clinics for women. Except that there aren't.
Oh, and as another sting in the tail this funding is offset by cuts to Ebola crisis funding and Obamacare. I'm sure Paul Ryan is very pleased with himself.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:50 PM on June 23, 2016 [21 favorites]
The votes were held at 2:30 am, and the Zika bill passed.Cutting off funding from a major supplier of birth control to poor women in America during this Zika crisis...what could go wrong?
It was a surreal moment, the likes of which Washington insiders say they’ve never seen. But the actual content of that Zika bill, which passed the House, really was business as usual for congressional Republicans: It conditioned government funding for women’s health on excluding Planned Parenthood.
Zika causes severe birth defects, and it can be sexually transmitted. Helping women prevent pregnancy is an important part of Zika prevention efforts. Yet part of the Republicans’ bill effectively excludes Planned Parenthood from distributing birth control under a $95 million grant program.
I often accuse Republicans of lacking in empathy and I think this is a good example. They really cannot put themselves in the shoes of a woman unable to afford to go to a doctor and get a prescription for birth control much less afford a baby with serious birth defects. I'm sure that plenty of the men and women who voted for this bill if questioned would respond that the cheapest, most reliable form of birth control is abstinence. And besides there are so many other free/low cost clinics for women. Except that there aren't.
Oh, and as another sting in the tail this funding is offset by cuts to Ebola crisis funding and Obamacare. I'm sure Paul Ryan is very pleased with himself.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:50 PM on June 23, 2016 [21 favorites]
Trump shows off his sharply analytical brainpower in this exchange with NBC’s Lester Holt:
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:58 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump was pressed to back up his claim that the foreign governments had breached the former secretary of State’s server.Terrific. Just what you want in a president. "I had to nuke North Korea because they were getting ready to nuke us. I read it on the internet."
“What evidence do you have?” Holt asked Trump.
Trump answered by saying Clinton shouldn’t have had a personal server because “it’s illegal.”
“But is there any evidence that it was hacked other than routine phishing?” Holt asked.
“I think I read that ... and I heard it,” Trump responded.
“Where?” Holt asked.
“I will report back to you,” Trump answered.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:58 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
“I will report back to you,” Trump answered.
Holt should take this as an invitation to ask Trump again during the debates.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:04 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Holt should take this as an invitation to ask Trump again during the debates.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:04 PM on June 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
That's "Sentient InfoWars Comment Section Donald Trump" to you, pal.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:05 PM on June 23, 2016
posted by tonycpsu at 4:05 PM on June 23, 2016
I have a really hard time reconciling "not all Republicans are bad people" with the things I've learned and personally observed about the policies of the Republican party since the Civil Rights era.
I'm from the South. I grew up in a red state, amongst conservatives. At this point I've purged the awful people from my Facebook feed, and I'm left with what I guess you'd call the "nice kind of Republicans." The fiscal conservatives who aren't frothing racists or religious fundamentalists and mostly just want small government and probably some complicated tax stuff that I would also disagree with if I fully understood it. We disagree, but they're not bad people. A lot of my family are Republican and conservative, some are "good Republicans", others are the frothing racist/fundy kind.
It's also, I gotta tell you, really hard to tell the difference a lot of the time.
My grandfather is the motherfucking best. Top five favorite people on the planet. I cried when I found out that he's not going to be in good enough health to travel for my wedding next year, and it almost caused me to beg my half-black fiance to go back on his request that we not get married in the South, just so he could come. Which leads me to the crux of this. My grandfather is a Republican, and I wish I could tell you that he's "one of the good ones". But I know for a fact that he was pro-segregation well into the 70s and 80s. I know that when my mom started attending her first integrated school, and she made friends with a black kid, he forbade the kid from entering the house. I know that he swore he'd move to Canada if Jesse Jackson got elected President, he voted for David Duke for governor of Louisiana, and he does not have anything good to say about Obama. I've never heard him use the N word, but the way he says "The Blacks" might as well be a slur. We haven't personally discussed it, but I know that he wouldn't approve of me marrying outside my race. My best hope is that it just somehow never comes up. Maybe he won't notice or mention it. Or, hey, maybe he theoretically wouldn't approve, but because it's me, he'll mentally make an exception. He'll call my parter "well-spoken", and our eventual child "beautiful, for a mixed baby." Hopefully this doesn't mean I'm quietly written out of the will and taken off the Christmas card list.
A lot of nice, well-meaning people are racist Republicans. That doesn't mean that the modern Republican party wasn't born on the back of white supremacy and hasn't done a whole lot to distance itself from that.
(No idea what my grandfather thinks of Trump, BTW.)
posted by Sara C. at 4:06 PM on June 23, 2016 [20 favorites]
I'm from the South. I grew up in a red state, amongst conservatives. At this point I've purged the awful people from my Facebook feed, and I'm left with what I guess you'd call the "nice kind of Republicans." The fiscal conservatives who aren't frothing racists or religious fundamentalists and mostly just want small government and probably some complicated tax stuff that I would also disagree with if I fully understood it. We disagree, but they're not bad people. A lot of my family are Republican and conservative, some are "good Republicans", others are the frothing racist/fundy kind.
It's also, I gotta tell you, really hard to tell the difference a lot of the time.
My grandfather is the motherfucking best. Top five favorite people on the planet. I cried when I found out that he's not going to be in good enough health to travel for my wedding next year, and it almost caused me to beg my half-black fiance to go back on his request that we not get married in the South, just so he could come. Which leads me to the crux of this. My grandfather is a Republican, and I wish I could tell you that he's "one of the good ones". But I know for a fact that he was pro-segregation well into the 70s and 80s. I know that when my mom started attending her first integrated school, and she made friends with a black kid, he forbade the kid from entering the house. I know that he swore he'd move to Canada if Jesse Jackson got elected President, he voted for David Duke for governor of Louisiana, and he does not have anything good to say about Obama. I've never heard him use the N word, but the way he says "The Blacks" might as well be a slur. We haven't personally discussed it, but I know that he wouldn't approve of me marrying outside my race. My best hope is that it just somehow never comes up. Maybe he won't notice or mention it. Or, hey, maybe he theoretically wouldn't approve, but because it's me, he'll mentally make an exception. He'll call my parter "well-spoken", and our eventual child "beautiful, for a mixed baby." Hopefully this doesn't mean I'm quietly written out of the will and taken off the Christmas card list.
A lot of nice, well-meaning people are racist Republicans. That doesn't mean that the modern Republican party wasn't born on the back of white supremacy and hasn't done a whole lot to distance itself from that.
(No idea what my grandfather thinks of Trump, BTW.)
posted by Sara C. at 4:06 PM on June 23, 2016 [20 favorites]
Fabius Maximus: Much of what we love about America was true only for a moment
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:11 PM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:11 PM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
In a stunning surprise that will shock everyone I am sure, Donald Trump says he cannot remember saying he has the world's greatest memory.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:13 PM on June 23, 2016 [25 favorites]
during his deposition for a lawsuit over Trump University.Boy I thought the World's Greatest Memory would be better at remembering things. Now I'm starting to wonder if perhaps Trump doesn't have the Best Words.
"I don't remember," Trump told lawyers 35 times during his December testimony, which was released on Wednesday.
His inability to recall covered a wide range of subjects — including whether he had told NBC News' Katy Tur just a month earlier that he had the "world's Greatest memory." [snip]
You've described it as being one of the all-time great memories, right?" the attorney asked.
"I have a good memory," Trump said in a rare display of understatement.
"'One of the best in the world' is what the reporter quoted you as saying," the lawyer pressed.
"I don't remember saying that," Trump answered. "As good as my memory is, I don't remember that, but I have a good memory."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:13 PM on June 23, 2016 [25 favorites]
Corey Lewandowski is giving Trump a nice hot stone massage on CNN right now. I am shocked.
posted by johnpowell at 4:15 PM on June 23, 2016
posted by johnpowell at 4:15 PM on June 23, 2016
"a nice hot stone massage" translation, please.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:18 PM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:18 PM on June 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
Returning to something that somebody said a bit earlier in this thread, as this conversation about values and rhetoric was just kicking off:
Lee Atwater in 1981:
Here is Ron Suskind reporting on something Karl Rove said, after three years of 9/11 fear and a false-pretenses war in Iraq:
I already wrote about Frankfurter's essay On Bullshit and how it pertains to this election. Trump is bullshit incarnate. He’s even bullshittier than Sarah Palin was in ’08, because Palin was humiliated by the revelation that somebody as lightweight as Katie Couric could make her out to be incoherent and unprepared. Trump makes his bullshittiness into his primary appeal. If you like Trump, you can flagrantly ignore reality, without even pretending to give it respect.
But it’s important to realize that this bullshit isn’t somehow a threat to the Republican Party. It’s what they’ve been pushing for all along. Since Rove in ’04. Since Atwater in ’81. Likely since earlier than that. Ever since they anticipated, correctly, that the nation was going to change so much that they wouldn’t be able to cling to their values and still survive—unless, that is, they undertook drastic measures, assaulted the freedom of press that forms the cornerstone of this country (and now Trump and ilk, Peter Thiel included, are literally trying to ban institutions that report the truth), and broke with all pretenses of governmental civility. Refusing to open Supreme Court hearings, anybody? How about shutting off the cameras in the House to prevent a major political party from publicly discussing a bill?
It’s all intentional, and it’s all necessary, if these groups want to survive. I don’t think they will, although I’m hoping they don’t kill the rest of us in the process. I think their current desperation, and all the limits it faces, is just the final face of a decades-old desperation, which knew of those limitations from the start, and formed its strategy in the hope that it could overcome them. And it might. America doesn’t get to last forever just because we want it to.
I’d like to clearly state here that I don’t blame the people caught up in this desperation for reacting and believing and choosing the things they do. That includes Trump supporters, mainstream Republicans, CNN employees, and liberals whose responses to the world they live in are less than perfectly efficient. But you can understand why people feel and act the way that they do, and still acknowledge that one group, more than the other, is responsible for the world we live in. That they did what they did deliberately and in cold blood, and got away with it in part because their opponents tried to be high-handed or lofty or impartial or cynically adaptive without forming that same kind of aggression in response. Now, clearly, aggressive leftism has become kinda mainstream, and I think that that’s because it’s become increasingly clear that nothing else will work. We had our iconic hope messiah for eight years, and he even he found it hard to get things done (and got much more effective once he started playing hardball).
I love a long, compassionate conversation as much as the next guy. But if you bring a willingness to put in an effort to a conversation with somebody who’ll exploit your patience and compassion to drain you and beat you down, then at some point you have to shift tactics. That’s as true in politics as it is in feminism, and the tone argument of “why are you being such assholes?” is just as facetious here. If scorn, mockery, and contempt are what’s on the playing field right now, and they are, then that’s the way this is going to play out—and the decision to withdraw from that mode of play is gonna have to be a partisan one, so until the right-wing nutjobs of the world indicate a willingness to play fair, I see no reason why we should delude ourselves into thinking the Cliven Bundies of the world are just waiting for us to extend the olive branch first.
Blaming the Democrats for this tone is beyond hypocritical: it’s bullshit, and tactically-lobbed bullshit at that. One side is to blame here. Let’s call a spade a fucking spade.
posted by rorgy at 4:23 PM on June 23, 2016 [19 favorites]
[I]t would be easier to defeat him if our culture weren't so politically polarized. I don't think that polarization is Democrats' fault either. It's just the result of sociological forces of some kind...The "sociological forces", here, were reactionary responses to a changing America in which enough people realized that, if they didn't act as one, a lot of "traditional" parts of the nation would be swept away in favor of something that acknowledged and paid heed to the new voices that were sounding across the country and being given respect. To achieve their aims, they portrayed change itself as a threat to the nation, and any proponents of change—including people who were different from the status quo in any way—as embodiments of that threat.
Lee Atwater in 1981:
You say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.…The problem is, population and culture have been inexorably pushing towards inclusivity, racial integration, sexual openness—on both the male/female and the straight/queer axes—and these threaten the economic and legal status quo as well, because social injustice tends to go hand-in-hand with every other kind of injustice. There's no real stopping that, not least of which because technology's penchant for "disruption" tends to be irritatingly difficult to reverse. Birth control, new methods of travel, new methods of communication, all result in more voices being heard, more connections between disparate groups. So the American right adopted an unprecedentedly aggressive media strategy. The unprecedented part wasn't the aggression, per se: it was that the aggression came, not from a state power, but from private enterprise, and on such a scale that ostensibly-neutral organizations found themselves suckered into reflecting those tactics. The documentary Outfoxed observes the ways in which CNN found itself pivoting rightward to match Murdoch and Ailes' Fox broadcasting empire—not intentionally, but simply to grab onto the viewers who were drawn to Ailes' "make broadcasters hot and confident, and hire a huge graphic design team" approach. Hence 2008's holographic election reporting. CNN was the naive bullied kid to Fox's natural bully, confusing Fox's presentation and seeming "moral stance" for its actual motivations. CNN thought that if it looked prettier and agreed with what Fox said, then maybe Fox would stop calling it liberal. But all Fox wanted was power—specifically, power to shape the conversation thoroughly enough to shut out all semblance of a reasonable perspective.
Here is Ron Suskind reporting on something Karl Rove said, after three years of 9/11 fear and a false-pretenses war in Iraq:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."Al Franken's The Truth (which I've recommended before) documents how Bush beat Kerry in 2004: by making the central conversation one about fear, "security", and masculine posturing; by shamelessly lying about Kerry's record as a soldier; and by using all manner of underhanded tactics to portray gay men and women as threats to the American way of life. Three different kinds of lie. And what matters isn't the lie itself: it's that the lie prevents some kind of truth. Because truth explicitly became the enemy.
I already wrote about Frankfurter's essay On Bullshit and how it pertains to this election. Trump is bullshit incarnate. He’s even bullshittier than Sarah Palin was in ’08, because Palin was humiliated by the revelation that somebody as lightweight as Katie Couric could make her out to be incoherent and unprepared. Trump makes his bullshittiness into his primary appeal. If you like Trump, you can flagrantly ignore reality, without even pretending to give it respect.
But it’s important to realize that this bullshit isn’t somehow a threat to the Republican Party. It’s what they’ve been pushing for all along. Since Rove in ’04. Since Atwater in ’81. Likely since earlier than that. Ever since they anticipated, correctly, that the nation was going to change so much that they wouldn’t be able to cling to their values and still survive—unless, that is, they undertook drastic measures, assaulted the freedom of press that forms the cornerstone of this country (and now Trump and ilk, Peter Thiel included, are literally trying to ban institutions that report the truth), and broke with all pretenses of governmental civility. Refusing to open Supreme Court hearings, anybody? How about shutting off the cameras in the House to prevent a major political party from publicly discussing a bill?
It’s all intentional, and it’s all necessary, if these groups want to survive. I don’t think they will, although I’m hoping they don’t kill the rest of us in the process. I think their current desperation, and all the limits it faces, is just the final face of a decades-old desperation, which knew of those limitations from the start, and formed its strategy in the hope that it could overcome them. And it might. America doesn’t get to last forever just because we want it to.
I’d like to clearly state here that I don’t blame the people caught up in this desperation for reacting and believing and choosing the things they do. That includes Trump supporters, mainstream Republicans, CNN employees, and liberals whose responses to the world they live in are less than perfectly efficient. But you can understand why people feel and act the way that they do, and still acknowledge that one group, more than the other, is responsible for the world we live in. That they did what they did deliberately and in cold blood, and got away with it in part because their opponents tried to be high-handed or lofty or impartial or cynically adaptive without forming that same kind of aggression in response. Now, clearly, aggressive leftism has become kinda mainstream, and I think that that’s because it’s become increasingly clear that nothing else will work. We had our iconic hope messiah for eight years, and he even he found it hard to get things done (and got much more effective once he started playing hardball).
I love a long, compassionate conversation as much as the next guy. But if you bring a willingness to put in an effort to a conversation with somebody who’ll exploit your patience and compassion to drain you and beat you down, then at some point you have to shift tactics. That’s as true in politics as it is in feminism, and the tone argument of “why are you being such assholes?” is just as facetious here. If scorn, mockery, and contempt are what’s on the playing field right now, and they are, then that’s the way this is going to play out—and the decision to withdraw from that mode of play is gonna have to be a partisan one, so until the right-wing nutjobs of the world indicate a willingness to play fair, I see no reason why we should delude ourselves into thinking the Cliven Bundies of the world are just waiting for us to extend the olive branch first.
Blaming the Democrats for this tone is beyond hypocritical: it’s bullshit, and tactically-lobbed bullshit at that. One side is to blame here. Let’s call a spade a fucking spade.
posted by rorgy at 4:23 PM on June 23, 2016 [19 favorites]
Anybody else on tenterhooks watching the Brexit results as a canary in Trump Coal Mines LLC?
posted by stolyarova at 4:23 PM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by stolyarova at 4:23 PM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
"I never said I was a golden god... or did I?"
posted by kirkaracha at 4:28 PM on June 23, 2016
posted by kirkaracha at 4:28 PM on June 23, 2016
Anybody else on tenterhooks watching the Brexit results as a canary in Trump Coal Mines LLC?
Yeah, it's pretty bad when you're coming to the US election thread for comic relief.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:30 PM on June 23, 2016 [12 favorites]
Yeah, it's pretty bad when you're coming to the US election thread for comic relief.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:30 PM on June 23, 2016 [12 favorites]
Meh. They're different situations. I'm on tenterhooks about the Brexit result because I'm on tenterhooks about the Brexit result, but I don't think it's going to predict anything. But I took a British history class in 1992 in which the prof assured us that Bill Clinton was doomed because British election results predict American election results and the Tories had won the British general election, and maybe that discredited the whole canary in the coalmine theory for me.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:30 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:30 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
The real reason to worry is that a Brexit could cause the economy to destabilize, and if the Republicans can get people to believe it's somehow the Democrats' fault, that could throw the election towards Trump. Not because of some ridiculous voodoo about American elections and British elections.
posted by Sara C. at 4:38 PM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 4:38 PM on June 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
Thank you, Sara C., for articulating my concern precisely and concisely.
Tenterhooks.
posted by stolyarova at 4:39 PM on June 23, 2016
Tenterhooks.
posted by stolyarova at 4:39 PM on June 23, 2016
Anybody else on tenterhooks watching the Brexit results as a canary in Trump Coal Mines LLC?
The results so far have reaffirmed my deep suspicion of political polling.
posted by dirigibleman at 4:47 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
The results so far have reaffirmed my deep suspicion of political polling.
posted by dirigibleman at 4:47 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Somebody appears to have bought shares in tenterhooks.
posted by Etrigan at 4:50 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 4:50 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
On the one hand, that could happen. On the other hand, it's going to be a very long and stressful four-and-a-half months if we all spend the whole time freaking out about hypothetical situations.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:51 PM on June 23, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:51 PM on June 23, 2016
I'm getting my results from Marketwatch which just reported that "Pound fell off a cliff as 'remain' loses lead."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:54 PM on June 23, 2016
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:54 PM on June 23, 2016
“I think I read that ... and I heard it,” Trump responded.
"Oh, all of them, Katie."
posted by dirigibleman at 4:54 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
"Oh, all of them, Katie."
posted by dirigibleman at 4:54 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Will Trump Swallow the G.O.P. Whole?
Priebus and Ryan were relatively powerless during the primaries as Trump undertook his systematic disfiguring of the R.N.C.’s plans for a more inclusive party. Last summer, during the relatively innocent months of Trump’s campaign, Priebus called and urged him to tone down his remarks (about “Mexican rapists,” for example). Trump scoffed at the idea that such a puny figure, a party guy, would ever try such a thing. “We’re not dealing with a five-star Army general,” Trump said. Priebus paid a debasing house call to Trump Tower last fall to accompany Trump as he signed a loyalty pledge to the eventual nominee. He listened this spring to Trump predict “riots” in Cleveland and complain about the “rigged” system that might deny him his rightful nomination. (“Give us all a break,” Priebus tweeted at one point.) He has endured an outpouring from a gallery of never-Trumpers who are urging the R.N.C. to take extraordinary measures and disavow its extraordinary nominee. “If Priebus ends up blessing the Trump nomination,” wrote the Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, the head White House speechwriter for George W. Bush, “it would turn the sins of Trump into the sins of the G.O.P. And Priebus would go down as the head of the party who squandered the legacy of Lincoln, the legacy of Reagan, in a squalid and hopeless political effort.”posted by the man of twists and turns at 4:54 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Priebus is not a man for extraordinary measures. He is an organization man in a time of disruption, runaway self-esteem and selfie campaigns. Party guys go along. It’s not always a fair fight.
Will Trump Swallow the G.O.P. Whole?
When reading that article I felt like the running theme was “I was a dick to Reince Priebus about how his political party was being destroyed and he just had to sit there and take it.” It felt a bit like “why do you have to pile on Reince, reporter guy? Why can’t you just write your report about this doomed party flack and then leave him alone?”
posted by Going To Maine at 5:00 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
When reading that article I felt like the running theme was “I was a dick to Reince Priebus about how his political party was being destroyed and he just had to sit there and take it.” It felt a bit like “why do you have to pile on Reince, reporter guy? Why can’t you just write your report about this doomed party flack and then leave him alone?”
posted by Going To Maine at 5:00 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
It felt a bit like “why do you have to pile on Reince, reporter guy? Why can’t you just write your report about this doomed party flack and then leave him alone?”
Because Priebus deserves a piling on.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:03 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
Because Priebus deserves a piling on.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:03 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
Every once in a while I feel some sympathy for Mr. Priebus but then I remember that he signed on to be head of that clown show with his eyes open and he deserves all the derision he gets.
posted by octothorpe at 5:27 PM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 5:27 PM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]
If the Brexit does pass and if it does cause massive economic damage, the Democrats have to act fast to tie the kind of conservative thinking that led to it with our US conservatives. Make it clear that insular, backwards actions lead to disaster and that's exactly what Trump is selling - stupid, avoidable disaster.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:34 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:34 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
It felt a bit like “why do you have to pile on Reince, reporter guy? Why can’t you just write your report about this doomed party flack and then leave him alone?”
Because Priebus deserves a piling on
(In this case, “piling on” means “making a bunch of snarky comments in your interviews in order to irk him”, not “asking hard hitting questions”. They all deserve hard hitting questions, but asking him if his pet clownfish reminds Priebus of anyone as Priebus rhapsodizes about his aquarium just seems mean.)
posted by Going To Maine at 5:35 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Because Priebus deserves a piling on
(In this case, “piling on” means “making a bunch of snarky comments in your interviews in order to irk him”, not “asking hard hitting questions”. They all deserve hard hitting questions, but asking him if his pet clownfish reminds Priebus of anyone as Priebus rhapsodizes about his aquarium just seems mean.)
posted by Going To Maine at 5:35 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks to adept256 for the timeless observation that if you remove the vowels from Priebus's name you get RNC PR BS.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 5:38 PM on June 23, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 5:38 PM on June 23, 2016 [16 favorites]
If the Brexit does pass and if it does cause massive economic damage, the Democrats have to act fast to tie the kind of conservative thinking that led to it with our US conservatives.
How ever will they manage to thread that needle, though?
posted by tonycpsu at 5:56 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
How ever will they manage to thread that needle, though?
posted by tonycpsu at 5:56 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
How ever will they manage to thread that needle, though?
Boris looks like a character in a Tim Burton movie.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:03 PM on June 23, 2016
Boris looks like a character in a Tim Burton movie.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:03 PM on June 23, 2016
Eh, I feel like 90% of the remaining talk of Bernie vs. Hillary consists of calls to stop talking about Bernie vs. Hillary. That ship's sailed at this point.
posted by tonycpsu at 6:30 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 6:30 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
So it turns out that pasting Donald Trump's head into Calvin and Hobbes works surprisingly well.
More at /r/DonaldandHobbes.
posted by teraflop at 7:37 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
More at /r/DonaldandHobbes.
posted by teraflop at 7:37 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, it explains Donald's popularity, because everybody loves Calvin.
Meanwhile, in the Peanuts Party, Hillary is SO TOTALLY Lucy.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:51 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Meanwhile, in the Peanuts Party, Hillary is SO TOTALLY Lucy.
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:51 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anybody else on tenterhooks watching the Brexit results as a canary in Trump Coal Mines LLC?
The results so far have reaffirmed my deep suspicion of political polling.
...what? Why?
As Nate Silver pointed out, If Leave wins it would be a bit of a victory for polls (which showed it very close) versus conventional wisdom (quite confident of Remain).
Betting markets were giving 3:1 odds this morning against Leave. Polls were equivocal. I know where I'd rather hang my hat in this case.
not meaning to start a Brexit derail but the validity of political polling is definitely important here as well
posted by saturday_morning at 8:01 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
The results so far have reaffirmed my deep suspicion of political polling.
...what? Why?
As Nate Silver pointed out, If Leave wins it would be a bit of a victory for polls (which showed it very close) versus conventional wisdom (quite confident of Remain).
Betting markets were giving 3:1 odds this morning against Leave. Polls were equivocal. I know where I'd rather hang my hat in this case.
not meaning to start a Brexit derail but the validity of political polling is definitely important here as well
posted by saturday_morning at 8:01 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not sure which thread this belongs in, but perhaps here as it is about why we should be watching this Brexit vote with concern. Having spent a good part of the 90's through mid-2000's in Western Pennsylvania and Ohio - I am not at all surprised by Trump's popularity there and articles like this hit on why.
posted by meinvt at 8:09 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by meinvt at 8:09 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
How is there not a Brexit thread?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:24 PM on June 23, 2016
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:24 PM on June 23, 2016
The success of Brexit above-and-beyond most pre-election polls was noted by Chocolate Pickle in the Brexit thread as an example of "social desirability bias". It's certainly not far-fetched to apply the same to the current poor polling for The Donald.
2016: The Year All the Celebrities and Common Sense Died
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:26 PM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]
2016: The Year All the Celebrities and Common Sense Died
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:26 PM on June 23, 2016 [11 favorites]
Yes, this should terrify everyone.
Also any impending economic chaos should help him quite a bit too.
posted by Artw at 8:27 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also any impending economic chaos should help him quite a bit too.
posted by Artw at 8:27 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unless we make it clear that the same ideology that led to the Brexit is the same one that the current Republicans espouse. Start shouting it loud and everywhere.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:29 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:29 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
I really hope the Clinton team is paying attention to this. I have my doubts that they are, though.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:35 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by zombieflanders at 8:35 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh for fuck's sake. Of course they are.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:37 PM on June 23, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:37 PM on June 23, 2016 [28 favorites]
Oh for fuck's sake, I meant the lessons of Labour's complete fuckup of the messaging, and the power of anti-immigration fears.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:39 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 8:39 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think she's already been doing a much much better job of responding to that kind of thing than Cameron and co did.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:42 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by thefoxgod at 8:42 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
As a general rule, I would proceed from the assumption that Hillary Clinton is not a complete fucking moron. Also, as a former Secretary of State, she is probably at least as aware of what's going on in the rest of the world as you are.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:43 PM on June 23, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:43 PM on June 23, 2016 [25 favorites]
The Pound is down to 1.34 and the Euro is down to $1.09. I wouldn't be shocked tomorrow if the Euro is at parity and the Pound is under $1.25.
posted by chimaera at 8:48 PM on June 23, 2016
posted by chimaera at 8:48 PM on June 23, 2016
I want somebody to give me one good reason why I shouldn't just go live in a shack in the woods and wait out World War 3.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:51 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:51 PM on June 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
This is the perfect storm, isn't it? Trump is in Scotland opening his golf course as the UK votes to leave Europe.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:53 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:53 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, I feel terrible for people in the UK, but shitty things happen in the world, and you take stock and plow on. This is unnerving, but it's not the end of the world, and we're just going to have to deal with it and not lose focus.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:55 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:55 PM on June 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Bloomberg has the Pound down to 1.3326 USD (-10.43%)
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GBPUSD:CUR
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:56 PM on June 23, 2016
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GBPUSD:CUR
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:56 PM on June 23, 2016
Of course we have a female nominee and she is now charged with saving the entire Western world, not just the US, and why hasn't she done it already etc
posted by zutalors! at 8:57 PM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 8:57 PM on June 23, 2016 [9 favorites]
I mean, I feel terrible for people in the UK, but shitty things happen in the world, and you take stock and plow on.
Yeah, that sounds about like what the rest of the world will be saying about the USA on November 8th.
posted by mmoncur at 8:59 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yeah, that sounds about like what the rest of the world will be saying about the USA on November 8th.
posted by mmoncur at 8:59 PM on June 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
I really hope the Clinton team is paying attention to this.
My greatest fear is that, after decades of uphill battle, Mrs. Clinton (as well as many like her) is going to see the latest victories of the racist/sexists and decide it isn't even worth trying anymore.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:20 PM on June 23, 2016
My greatest fear is that, after decades of uphill battle, Mrs. Clinton (as well as many like her) is going to see the latest victories of the racist/sexists and decide it isn't even worth trying anymore.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:20 PM on June 23, 2016
We do, but I wouldn't get cocky just yet.
posted by corb at 9:20 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 9:20 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not being cocky, I'm just tired of being ignored as a minority this year, it's like we don't even exist and are somehow #establishment which what even
posted by zutalors! at 9:28 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 9:28 PM on June 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm not being cocky. I'm scared shitless. I just think that performative despair is useless and depressing.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:39 PM on June 23, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:39 PM on June 23, 2016 [18 favorites]
I just think that performative despair is useless and depressing.
Holy crap I have been looking for that phrase for years now and didn't even realize--it describes everything that drives me nuts about following liberal politics, and now finding it has made wading through the performative despair worthwhile.
posted by skewed at 10:39 PM on June 23, 2016 [15 favorites]
Holy crap I have been looking for that phrase for years now and didn't even realize--it describes everything that drives me nuts about following liberal politics, and now finding it has made wading through the performative despair worthwhile.
posted by skewed at 10:39 PM on June 23, 2016 [15 favorites]
Remember! Despair is reactionary. Optimism is progressive and forward looking.
posted by notyou at 10:42 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by notyou at 10:42 PM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just think that performative despair is useless and depressing.
Holy crap I have been looking for that phrase for years now and didn't even realize--it describes everything that drives me nuts about following liberal politics, and now finding it has made wading through the performative despair worthwhile.
Performative despair isn’t necessarily the same thing as self pity, but there’s a potential for overlap.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:42 PM on June 23, 2016
Holy crap I have been looking for that phrase for years now and didn't even realize--it describes everything that drives me nuts about following liberal politics, and now finding it has made wading through the performative despair worthwhile.
Performative despair isn’t necessarily the same thing as self pity, but there’s a potential for overlap.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:42 PM on June 23, 2016
Well, I know they're different people and all, but I guess this goes to show that the Corbyn type of old-school socialist really isn't capable of turning the left into an effective oppositional force.
posted by Apocryphon at 12:04 AM on June 24, 2016
posted by Apocryphon at 12:04 AM on June 24, 2016
Trump Applauds Decisions by British People to Bolt EU
posted by Drinky Die at 2:00 AM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:00 AM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
when donald trump applauds your brilliant stratagem you done fucked up
posted by murphy slaw at 2:15 AM on June 24, 2016 [36 favorites]
posted by murphy slaw at 2:15 AM on June 24, 2016 [36 favorites]
Bernie Sanders was interviewed on MSNBC and said that he's going to vote for Hillary Clinton in November. On the one hand, it's so fucked up that it's news that he said that. On the other hand, I guess that's progress. And if I had three hands, I would say that I wish that he hadn't said it in the middle of a news cycle in which it's going to get completely buried.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:00 AM on June 24, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:00 AM on June 24, 2016 [18 favorites]
A nice full-throated statement of support, coupled with urging his supporters to do the same, is just too much to ask for, I guess.
posted by Superplin at 5:42 AM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 5:42 AM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
Jeremy Corbyn's performance on the EU vote made me glad that Dems did not vote for the socialist backbencher with no coalition-building skills.
posted by palindromic at 5:49 AM on June 24, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by palindromic at 5:49 AM on June 24, 2016 [21 favorites]
A nice full-throated statement of support, coupled with urging his supporters to do the same, is just too much to ask for, I guess.
I hope it'd be forthcoming. I expect Clinton to win, and it'd be political malpractice of the first water for Sanders to foster the perception that Democrats can win the presidency without the support of Sanders' followers. If Sanders voters opt out of joining the Democratic coalition, they have no one to blame but themselves if Democrats focus more on meeting the needs of actual Democratic constituencies first.
posted by Gelatin at 5:52 AM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
I hope it'd be forthcoming. I expect Clinton to win, and it'd be political malpractice of the first water for Sanders to foster the perception that Democrats can win the presidency without the support of Sanders' followers. If Sanders voters opt out of joining the Democratic coalition, they have no one to blame but themselves if Democrats focus more on meeting the needs of actual Democratic constituencies first.
posted by Gelatin at 5:52 AM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean, I'm pretty sure he's just waiting for the convention because that was always the plan and he doesn't want to back out now. Doesn't not backing out give him a better seat at the table when they decide on the platform? I mean, I wish he'd change his mind because his most fervent supporters need to be reigned the fuck in like yesterday, but I don't think he's just being a dick or anything.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:16 AM on June 24, 2016
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:16 AM on June 24, 2016
If Sanders wants to play ball, he could make any kind of arrangement any time he wants to. It seems pretty clear that it's taken him a while to come to grips with the fact that he isn't getting the nomination no matter what.
Sanders has a lot of support that's a good fit with the Democratic coalition, and has the potential to bring in a lot of young voters, many of whom could become lifetime Democrats. He has a right to ask for goodies -- a strong voice in the platform, maybe a prime time speaking slot -- but he could do that with a phone call, and then use the voice that has rallied so many supporters to help achieve their mutual aims with the Democrats and ruin the Republicans' day on Election Day.
I don't think he's just being a dick either, and he's entitled to cope with his loss on his own terms, but the longer he waits the worse, not the better, his leverage becomes.
posted by Gelatin at 6:24 AM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
Sanders has a lot of support that's a good fit with the Democratic coalition, and has the potential to bring in a lot of young voters, many of whom could become lifetime Democrats. He has a right to ask for goodies -- a strong voice in the platform, maybe a prime time speaking slot -- but he could do that with a phone call, and then use the voice that has rallied so many supporters to help achieve their mutual aims with the Democrats and ruin the Republicans' day on Election Day.
I don't think he's just being a dick either, and he's entitled to cope with his loss on his own terms, but the longer he waits the worse, not the better, his leverage becomes.
posted by Gelatin at 6:24 AM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
MetaFilter: can result in a net increase of the common good in the form of positive externalities.
posted by y2karl at 6:24 AM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by y2karl at 6:24 AM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sanders supporters need to be "reined in" but when neocons like Armitage and Scowcroft endorse Clinton everything is hunky-dory?
Many Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, myself included. And like myself, many of us will be holding our noses while we do it.
Did folks really think that complete submission to Clinton would be forthcoming from Sanders supporters who have substantive policy differences? Do those folks think that we'll abandon policy positions that we believe to be in the best interest of the nation? Do folks think that this is over within the Democratic party when things are just getting started? The next ten years are going to be a lot of fun.
Be political and just accept the votes. You'll never get agreement on policy from a lot of us who think that the party has selected the wrong candidate.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:27 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Many Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, myself included. And like myself, many of us will be holding our noses while we do it.
Did folks really think that complete submission to Clinton would be forthcoming from Sanders supporters who have substantive policy differences? Do those folks think that we'll abandon policy positions that we believe to be in the best interest of the nation? Do folks think that this is over within the Democratic party when things are just getting started? The next ten years are going to be a lot of fun.
Be political and just accept the votes. You'll never get agreement on policy from a lot of us who think that the party has selected the wrong candidate.
posted by CincyBlues at 6:27 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why on earth should the Democratic Party change its platform to reflect the interests of people who loudly and repeatedly insist that the whole party is a bunch of scumsucking neocons?
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:33 AM on June 24, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:33 AM on June 24, 2016 [30 favorites]
Like. I agree with most of Sanders' platform. WHICH IS WHY I WANT HIS SUPPORTERS TO PLAY BALL. We will never get these things into the platform if the most liberal people just straight-up refuse to take the seat at the table that is available to them. But no, if they can't have the entire table then they're not interested.
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:37 AM on June 24, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:37 AM on June 24, 2016 [26 favorites]
Elizabeth Warren Should Stay in the Senate
(Personally, I think Baker underestimates Warren's willingness to compromise progressive politics to advance in the Democratic Party and placate Hillary, but time will tell.)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:47 AM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
(Personally, I think Baker underestimates Warren's willingness to compromise progressive politics to advance in the Democratic Party and placate Hillary, but time will tell.)
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 6:47 AM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
when neocons like Armitage and Scowcroft endorse Clinton everything is hunky-dory?
Yup. I'll stipulate that Clinton is more hawkish than I'd prefer -- while also noting that her background includes experience with a Democratic Party that had to work hard to deal with the stigma of being blamed by the Republicans for being against the Vietnam War, and herself having to take positions to dispel the phony notion that a woman might be "too soft" to be president -- but when Clinton's actual preferred policies are quite close to Sanders, who the hell cares if certain Republicans, even ones with deplorable policy preferences, recognize that she's a better alternative to the dumpster fire that is Trump?
I don't care if Sanders' supporters vote for her, or if they think that doing so is "complete submission." Like showbiz_liz, I'd prefer they do, but at this point, if they don't, there are two possibilities: Clinton wins, and owes nothing at all to Sanders' people (and much to her other constituencies), so Sanders voters priorities, inasmuch as there are "substantive policy differences," will naturally have to take a back seat, or Clinton loses, in which case, Sanders voters' priorities haven't a hope in hell, and they'll be rightly perceived as having contributed to a Republican victory.
I see the first possibility as vastly more likely. So for Sanders voters, it's a simple choice: Join the coalition, and have a voice and a seat at the table, or ... don't.
posted by Gelatin at 6:59 AM on June 24, 2016 [19 favorites]
Yup. I'll stipulate that Clinton is more hawkish than I'd prefer -- while also noting that her background includes experience with a Democratic Party that had to work hard to deal with the stigma of being blamed by the Republicans for being against the Vietnam War, and herself having to take positions to dispel the phony notion that a woman might be "too soft" to be president -- but when Clinton's actual preferred policies are quite close to Sanders, who the hell cares if certain Republicans, even ones with deplorable policy preferences, recognize that she's a better alternative to the dumpster fire that is Trump?
I don't care if Sanders' supporters vote for her, or if they think that doing so is "complete submission." Like showbiz_liz, I'd prefer they do, but at this point, if they don't, there are two possibilities: Clinton wins, and owes nothing at all to Sanders' people (and much to her other constituencies), so Sanders voters priorities, inasmuch as there are "substantive policy differences," will naturally have to take a back seat, or Clinton loses, in which case, Sanders voters' priorities haven't a hope in hell, and they'll be rightly perceived as having contributed to a Republican victory.
I see the first possibility as vastly more likely. So for Sanders voters, it's a simple choice: Join the coalition, and have a voice and a seat at the table, or ... don't.
posted by Gelatin at 6:59 AM on June 24, 2016 [19 favorites]
I agree showbiz_liz, I do however think we're being offered a seat at the table that doesn't reflect our numbers and that angers me.
41% or so of Democrats voted Sanders. Obviously that means Clinton gets the nom and most of what she wants. But I don't think it's unreasonable for us to think that we ought to get something like 40% of the prize, that we ought to get 40% of the seats on various committees, and so on.
No, we absolutely don't deserve to be in charge of the Democratic Party. Anyone demanding that is simply being a jackass.
But we do deserve recognition and a large (if not majority) share of the power and influence. Winner takes all is a lousy way to run things for internal Party matters.
The UK vote I think, is rooted in the same core problems that Labor over there ignored and the Democrats over here are ignoring, namely that the elites are stealing all the money and people are in serious economic pain. And people in serious economic pain often do counterproductive and outright awful things, like support Fascists and racists because the Fascist and racists at least address their pain (they do so with lies and plans that just won't work, but to some people that beats the refrain of "STFU, everything is fine, stop whining your whining is annoying the rich people who really matter" the "liberals" keep pushing).
Clinton and the Democrats ignore the Left at not only their own peril, but also at great risk to the future of the nation.
So yes, we lost. But our very good showing illustrates that we deserve a big (if not majority) place at the table and that the coalition the Democrats represent needs to show us some respect and grant us some concessions.
Unfortunately, with Sanders as the visible face of the Left we're pretty much fucked because he's too damn busy sulking to be out there politicking and working to get us that seat at the table. The Democrats *should* just give us the representation we deserve because it's the right thing to do, but it'd be foolhardy to expect that to happen. Power is allocated by pressure, by perception of threat, and with Sanders sulking in his tent instead of applying that pressure and threat the Left is screwed.
So, again, fuck you Sanders. It could have been great, but you blew it.
posted by sotonohito at 7:06 AM on June 24, 2016 [9 favorites]
41% or so of Democrats voted Sanders. Obviously that means Clinton gets the nom and most of what she wants. But I don't think it's unreasonable for us to think that we ought to get something like 40% of the prize, that we ought to get 40% of the seats on various committees, and so on.
No, we absolutely don't deserve to be in charge of the Democratic Party. Anyone demanding that is simply being a jackass.
But we do deserve recognition and a large (if not majority) share of the power and influence. Winner takes all is a lousy way to run things for internal Party matters.
The UK vote I think, is rooted in the same core problems that Labor over there ignored and the Democrats over here are ignoring, namely that the elites are stealing all the money and people are in serious economic pain. And people in serious economic pain often do counterproductive and outright awful things, like support Fascists and racists because the Fascist and racists at least address their pain (they do so with lies and plans that just won't work, but to some people that beats the refrain of "STFU, everything is fine, stop whining your whining is annoying the rich people who really matter" the "liberals" keep pushing).
Clinton and the Democrats ignore the Left at not only their own peril, but also at great risk to the future of the nation.
So yes, we lost. But our very good showing illustrates that we deserve a big (if not majority) place at the table and that the coalition the Democrats represent needs to show us some respect and grant us some concessions.
Unfortunately, with Sanders as the visible face of the Left we're pretty much fucked because he's too damn busy sulking to be out there politicking and working to get us that seat at the table. The Democrats *should* just give us the representation we deserve because it's the right thing to do, but it'd be foolhardy to expect that to happen. Power is allocated by pressure, by perception of threat, and with Sanders sulking in his tent instead of applying that pressure and threat the Left is screwed.
So, again, fuck you Sanders. It could have been great, but you blew it.
posted by sotonohito at 7:06 AM on June 24, 2016 [9 favorites]
41% or so of Democrats voted Sanders. Obviously that means Clinton gets the nom and most of what she wants. But I don't think it's unreasonable for us to think that we ought to get something like 40% of the prize, that we ought to get 40% of the seats on various committees, and so on.
Did I miss the part where in 2012 Romney got 47% of the cabinet seats?
posted by dersins at 7:25 AM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
Did I miss the part where in 2012 Romney got 47% of the cabinet seats?
posted by dersins at 7:25 AM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
Senator Sanders is like Wayne's ex-girlfriend in Wayne's World.
Sanders: You don't like it? Fine. You know Hillary, if you're not careful, you're going to lose me.posted by kirkaracha at 7:32 AM on June 24, 2016 [12 favorites]
Clinton: I lost you 2 months ago. We broke up. Are you mental?
That's interparty stuff dersins, there winner take all makes a bit of sense. And when you look at the way Congress fell out the Republicans wound up with a lot more than 47% of the power.
Intraparty stuff needs to be a lot more balanced. Winner take all just flat doesn't work there.
Again, I think we're facing a problem of the two party nature of the USA. In a sane system the Democrats would be at least two large parties and a handful of smaller parties. The mess we see here is the result of coalition politics playing out not explicitly and openly in negotiations to form a coalition government, but rather the people who should properly belong to different parties being forced into a single party and having to hash out their differences in the context of internal party bickering.
When 40% or so of the people **IN YOUR OWN PARTY** are in deep disagreement with the other 60% of the party over critical matters it isn't wise to ignore them.
But, again, unless there's someone out there pushing it the 60% will ignore us because they can get away with it. That's not a wise thing in the long run, but people are rarely motivated to do painful things because it's wise in the long run.
I don't think even if Sanders had conceded after DC and had spent the time prior to that pushing his agenda rather than conspiracy theories he could have managed to get 40% of the seats, but he could have gotten something for the Left and gotten some of our agenda implemented and made part of the Democratic Party platform.
As it is now, thanks to his snit, we're going to get jack shit. And, again, I do think it'd be not merely gracious and kind of the Democrats to give us stuff, I think it'd be smart too. But they won't because there's no one pushing for it. Clinton has her own constituencies to appease with seats and so on, giving up any she doesn't absolutely have to would be painful for her.
Interparty negotiations are a totally different kettle of fish and there the winner takes all method is at least justifiable if not super nice. I think Clinton should stomp the shit out of the Republicans, I think the long standing Democratic tradition of agreeing that Democrats are total wimps unfit to be Secretary of Defense should be reversed and she should make a wholly Democratic cabinet. Once the Republicans nominated Trump the idea of treating them as sane people we should be nice to vanished.
posted by sotonohito at 7:36 AM on June 24, 2016
Intraparty stuff needs to be a lot more balanced. Winner take all just flat doesn't work there.
Again, I think we're facing a problem of the two party nature of the USA. In a sane system the Democrats would be at least two large parties and a handful of smaller parties. The mess we see here is the result of coalition politics playing out not explicitly and openly in negotiations to form a coalition government, but rather the people who should properly belong to different parties being forced into a single party and having to hash out their differences in the context of internal party bickering.
When 40% or so of the people **IN YOUR OWN PARTY** are in deep disagreement with the other 60% of the party over critical matters it isn't wise to ignore them.
But, again, unless there's someone out there pushing it the 60% will ignore us because they can get away with it. That's not a wise thing in the long run, but people are rarely motivated to do painful things because it's wise in the long run.
I don't think even if Sanders had conceded after DC and had spent the time prior to that pushing his agenda rather than conspiracy theories he could have managed to get 40% of the seats, but he could have gotten something for the Left and gotten some of our agenda implemented and made part of the Democratic Party platform.
As it is now, thanks to his snit, we're going to get jack shit. And, again, I do think it'd be not merely gracious and kind of the Democrats to give us stuff, I think it'd be smart too. But they won't because there's no one pushing for it. Clinton has her own constituencies to appease with seats and so on, giving up any she doesn't absolutely have to would be painful for her.
Interparty negotiations are a totally different kettle of fish and there the winner takes all method is at least justifiable if not super nice. I think Clinton should stomp the shit out of the Republicans, I think the long standing Democratic tradition of agreeing that Democrats are total wimps unfit to be Secretary of Defense should be reversed and she should make a wholly Democratic cabinet. Once the Republicans nominated Trump the idea of treating them as sane people we should be nice to vanished.
posted by sotonohito at 7:36 AM on June 24, 2016
Did I miss the part where in 2012 Romney got 47% of the cabinet seats?
The triumphal posturing will do a fine job of depressing voter turnout. I mean, Hillary is probably going to win, but what kind of congress is she going to have to work with?
Not just the Senate, but the House is in play, but only if voter turnout is high. You only get high voter turnout if you successfully engage those 41% who preferred a candidate to the left of Clinton, and get them on board.
This isn't helping. It's the ol' Circular Firing Squad in action to yank defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:40 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
The triumphal posturing will do a fine job of depressing voter turnout. I mean, Hillary is probably going to win, but what kind of congress is she going to have to work with?
Not just the Senate, but the House is in play, but only if voter turnout is high. You only get high voter turnout if you successfully engage those 41% who preferred a candidate to the left of Clinton, and get them on board.
This isn't helping. It's the ol' Circular Firing Squad in action to yank defeat from the jaws of victory yet again.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:40 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
As it is now, thanks to his snit, we're going to get jack shit. And, again, I do think it'd be not merely gracious and kind of the Democrats to give us stuff, I think it'd be smart too. But they won't because there's no one pushing for it. Clinton has her own constituencies to appease with seats and so on, giving up any she doesn't absolutely have to would be painful for her.
I don't really agree with this actually. I think that if nothing else it is transparently obvious that this is the direction that the party is trending, and it just plain makes logical sense to capitalize on that. And based on statements that Clinton has made recently about economic policy specifically, I think there is at least plenty of reason to realistically hope that she will pursue a more lefty economic agenda than she had in 2008.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:43 AM on June 24, 2016 [13 favorites]
I don't really agree with this actually. I think that if nothing else it is transparently obvious that this is the direction that the party is trending, and it just plain makes logical sense to capitalize on that. And based on statements that Clinton has made recently about economic policy specifically, I think there is at least plenty of reason to realistically hope that she will pursue a more lefty economic agenda than she had in 2008.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:43 AM on June 24, 2016 [13 favorites]
I do however think we're being offered a seat at the table that doesn't reflect our numbers and that angers me.
That's because it's not just numbers that factors into how much pull a given faction has in an organization like a political party. Your faction has spent the last few months making the argument that the party is corrupt, has attacked other allied groups because they didn't side with you (the way progressives treated Planned Parenthood after they backed Clinton was shameful), and have shown that purity is more important than actually making some forward progress. Oh, and while you point to your numbers in a major nationwide election as why you should be given a bigger seat, your numbers at the smaller, lower level elections that have been shown to be vitally important to progressive causes aren't as impressive.
Surprisingly, this sort of stuff does, in fact, get factored in. And it's why progressives routinely get smaller seats at the table.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:43 AM on June 24, 2016 [28 favorites]
That's because it's not just numbers that factors into how much pull a given faction has in an organization like a political party. Your faction has spent the last few months making the argument that the party is corrupt, has attacked other allied groups because they didn't side with you (the way progressives treated Planned Parenthood after they backed Clinton was shameful), and have shown that purity is more important than actually making some forward progress. Oh, and while you point to your numbers in a major nationwide election as why you should be given a bigger seat, your numbers at the smaller, lower level elections that have been shown to be vitally important to progressive causes aren't as impressive.
Surprisingly, this sort of stuff does, in fact, get factored in. And it's why progressives routinely get smaller seats at the table.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:43 AM on June 24, 2016 [28 favorites]
When 40% or so of the people **IN YOUR OWN PARTY** are in deep disagreement with the other 60% of the party over critical matters it isn't wise to ignore them.
If you believe these numbers posted earlier in the thread, nearly half of that 40% prefer Johnson or Trump over Clinton.
I feel pretty fucking OK about ignoring them when it comes to determining the direction of the Democratic party.
posted by dersins at 7:44 AM on June 24, 2016 [26 favorites]
If you believe these numbers posted earlier in the thread, nearly half of that 40% prefer Johnson or Trump over Clinton.
I feel pretty fucking OK about ignoring them when it comes to determining the direction of the Democratic party.
posted by dersins at 7:44 AM on June 24, 2016 [26 favorites]
Did I miss the part where in 2012 Romney got 47% of the cabinet seats?
The triumphal posturing will do a fine job of depressing voter turnout.
So one side wins, the other side demands concessions, the winning side points out that they won, and that's "triumphal posturing"? The Sanders side is somehow doing antitriumphal posturing here.
posted by Etrigan at 7:44 AM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
The triumphal posturing will do a fine job of depressing voter turnout.
So one side wins, the other side demands concessions, the winning side points out that they won, and that's "triumphal posturing"? The Sanders side is somehow doing antitriumphal posturing here.
posted by Etrigan at 7:44 AM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
So one side wins, the other side demands concessions, the winning side points out that they won, and that's "triumphal posturing"?
You haven't won jack shit, yet, apart from a slot on the ballot in November. You want to win it and have a co-operative congress, you'll have to learn to get along with your own party members. That means concessions and compromise, yes. Welcome to politics.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:52 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
You haven't won jack shit, yet, apart from a slot on the ballot in November. You want to win it and have a co-operative congress, you'll have to learn to get along with your own party members. That means concessions and compromise, yes. Welcome to politics.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:52 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
\You want to win it and have a co-operative congress, you'll have to learn to get along with your own party members. That means concessions and compromise, yes. Welcome to politics.
Before I registered the first sentence of this post I genuinely could not tell if it was addressed to Clinton's faction or Sanders' faction.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:01 AM on June 24, 2016 [11 favorites]
Before I registered the first sentence of this post I genuinely could not tell if it was addressed to Clinton's faction or Sanders' faction.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:01 AM on June 24, 2016 [11 favorites]
Clinton's already made a fuckton of leftward concessions. I assume she'll keep making those, especially as it looks increasingly viable to be openly progressive in America and still win votes. She's pretty pinko in her way.
I don't see anybody here who's closed to the possibility of listening to Sanders fans that are rooted at least somewhat in reality. But that increasingly isn't the fan. A lot of his supporters are fucking nuts.
posted by rorgy at 8:06 AM on June 24, 2016 [10 favorites]
I don't see anybody here who's closed to the possibility of listening to Sanders fans that are rooted at least somewhat in reality. But that increasingly isn't the fan. A lot of his supporters are fucking nuts.
posted by rorgy at 8:06 AM on June 24, 2016 [10 favorites]
Geesh, gang. Clinton's and Sanders' voting records in the Senate were nearly identical. Their differences are more of degree than substance in most cases. The Democratic platform will reflect a lot of what (I think) Sanders' supporters would like regardless of any compromises on either side.
Clinton won, and Sanders ran a strong campaign. Both sides have to respect the other's accomplishments. So where are the differences, and how can the Democrats bridge them?
posted by haiku warrior at 8:08 AM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
Clinton won, and Sanders ran a strong campaign. Both sides have to respect the other's accomplishments. So where are the differences, and how can the Democrats bridge them?
posted by haiku warrior at 8:08 AM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
A lot of his supporters are fucking nuts.
Only because a small percentage of millions of people is still a lot of people, though. At this point, I think it's time to let the dead-enders rage, rage against the dying of the light while we welcome the rest of them back into the coalition with open arms.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:10 AM on June 24, 2016 [9 favorites]
Only because a small percentage of millions of people is still a lot of people, though. At this point, I think it's time to let the dead-enders rage, rage against the dying of the light while we welcome the rest of them back into the coalition with open arms.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:10 AM on June 24, 2016 [9 favorites]
The most recent Axelrod podcast features Al Franken and Axelrod asks him about the current disillusionment of the left (at 41:30).
But generally a good listen, Axelrod's poor interview skills are well countered by Franken's knowledge and sincerity.
posted by readery at 8:17 AM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
But generally a good listen, Axelrod's poor interview skills are well countered by Franken's knowledge and sincerity.
posted by readery at 8:17 AM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
You only get high voter turnout if you successfully engage those 41% who preferred a candidate to the left of Clinton, and get them on board.
Or by engaging in a strong GOTV effort among reliable members of one's caucus. So, "only"? No, not really.
Look, many of Sanders' supporters are young voters, and young voters are notoriously unreliable about actually voting. Ask Hunter S. Thompson. (We may not like the power that, say, the National Rifle Association holds over our national discourse, but their supporters show up at the polls.)
Many of Sanders' supporters complained that some primaries were not open, which would only be a problem if one was not a registered Democrat. dersins points out that some are making noises about supporting a libertarian or whatever instead.
Moreover, not every Democratic voter participates in the primary process.
So I disagree that Sanders voters are as strong a contingent of the Democratic coalition as you claim. They could be, and I'd like them to be, but Clinton's campaign will rightly focus its GOTV efforts where they perceive they can get the most bang for the buck, and there are probably plenty of Democratic voters, or potential Democratic voters, for them to work with without spending lots of time and effort wooing a rump contingent that's playing hard to get.
And as I said, if Clinton wins without Sanders voters' support -- or worse still, doesn't -- they can forget about their voices being more important to a Clinton administration that those of the people that actually voted for her.
It's really simple -- not voting for Clinton doesn't gain leverage; it's throwing it away. If Sanders voters want influence past November, they can join the coalition and make it clear that they're a key part of getting her elected. And it's a two-fer -- they prevent Trump from heading a Republican Congress, into the bargain.
posted by Gelatin at 8:18 AM on June 24, 2016 [16 favorites]
Or by engaging in a strong GOTV effort among reliable members of one's caucus. So, "only"? No, not really.
Look, many of Sanders' supporters are young voters, and young voters are notoriously unreliable about actually voting. Ask Hunter S. Thompson. (We may not like the power that, say, the National Rifle Association holds over our national discourse, but their supporters show up at the polls.)
Many of Sanders' supporters complained that some primaries were not open, which would only be a problem if one was not a registered Democrat. dersins points out that some are making noises about supporting a libertarian or whatever instead.
Moreover, not every Democratic voter participates in the primary process.
So I disagree that Sanders voters are as strong a contingent of the Democratic coalition as you claim. They could be, and I'd like them to be, but Clinton's campaign will rightly focus its GOTV efforts where they perceive they can get the most bang for the buck, and there are probably plenty of Democratic voters, or potential Democratic voters, for them to work with without spending lots of time and effort wooing a rump contingent that's playing hard to get.
And as I said, if Clinton wins without Sanders voters' support -- or worse still, doesn't -- they can forget about their voices being more important to a Clinton administration that those of the people that actually voted for her.
It's really simple -- not voting for Clinton doesn't gain leverage; it's throwing it away. If Sanders voters want influence past November, they can join the coalition and make it clear that they're a key part of getting her elected. And it's a two-fer -- they prevent Trump from heading a Republican Congress, into the bargain.
posted by Gelatin at 8:18 AM on June 24, 2016 [16 favorites]
This thread was so interesting and engaging when it stopped being about Clinton/Sanders for a while. And I say that as a disillusioned progressive. I was planning on disaffiliating after the general. Instead, yesterday, I reached out to join my state's Democratic Women's Caucus. I always felt a little uncomfortable when I would see comments like "if you want to see things become more progressive, run for office" because running for office is not cheap. But! My fellow Sanders supporters, there are ways to get involved in the local and state levels to help advance the progressive platform. No matter how you feel about the primary, you can't change the past. You can, however, change the future.
(This comment brought to you by the 'Ruki's tired of reading this argument again' committee.)
posted by Ruki at 8:28 AM on June 24, 2016 [29 favorites]
(This comment brought to you by the 'Ruki's tired of reading this argument again' committee.)
posted by Ruki at 8:28 AM on June 24, 2016 [29 favorites]
I don't recall the arguments back in 2008 for Clinton to be given a voice in determining Obama's policy and that primary was a hell of a lot closer than this one is.
posted by peacheater at 8:31 AM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by peacheater at 8:31 AM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
I've said it before, but I'll say again that the offer I'd like to see Clinton make to the Sanders faction is "Okay, we'll go after bigger, tougher Wall Street reforms. And we'll try to cut down the size of some of the 'too big to fail' banks."
I think this would actually play well with a lot of anti-establishment Republicans (!) and would undermine some of Trump's support, along with buying some enthusiasm from Sanders fans. Also, I think it's the right thing to do. Though I think it will have to be done very carefully to keep from tanking the economy... I think Clinton is just the kind of detail-oriented policy wonk to figure out how to do that.
Fortunately, Clinton is making overtures in that direction.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:37 AM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
I think this would actually play well with a lot of anti-establishment Republicans (!) and would undermine some of Trump's support, along with buying some enthusiasm from Sanders fans. Also, I think it's the right thing to do. Though I think it will have to be done very carefully to keep from tanking the economy... I think Clinton is just the kind of detail-oriented policy wonk to figure out how to do that.
Fortunately, Clinton is making overtures in that direction.
posted by OnceUponATime at 8:37 AM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
And yet, the stink raised by the so-called PUMAs aside, Clinton wound up as Obama's Secretary of State and actually did have a voice in determining Obama's policy. Because Obama recognized her talent, her ambition, and the fact that she actually enjoys considerable support among Democrats (then and now).
Clinton is anything but a fool; she's already staked out positions left-leaning voters should approve of. Elizabeth Warren wouldn't be boosting her if she expected Clinton to govern as a Republican. It's really up to Sanders voters whether they want to have a voice in the Democratic Party, or not.
posted by Gelatin at 8:37 AM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
Clinton is anything but a fool; she's already staked out positions left-leaning voters should approve of. Elizabeth Warren wouldn't be boosting her if she expected Clinton to govern as a Republican. It's really up to Sanders voters whether they want to have a voice in the Democratic Party, or not.
posted by Gelatin at 8:37 AM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
Clinton also suspended her campaign and endorsed Obama shortly after the last primary. June 7, 2008: Clinton Ends Campaign With Clear Call to Elect Obama
posted by kirkaracha at 8:50 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 8:50 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
My dream scenario would not be Warren as VP, but Warren as Secretary of the Treasury.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:51 AM on June 24, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:51 AM on June 24, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm a progressive Clinton supporter. I would appreciate Dems taking some lessons from the failure of the Remain side in the Brexit vote, particularly offering left-wing solutions to problems associated with the status quo rather than simply arguing that the status quo is way, way better than what we would get if Trump wins. While it is true that the status quo is better for working-class and middle-class Americans than 4+ years of Trump/Revanchist Republican control, it is also true that the status quo is sub-par for a lot of those people.
Going after Trump, as Clinton/Warren/Obama/Biden are doing now, is necessary but not sufficient for a Democratic win in November. Clinton's campaign has put forth some positive alternative proposals. Where Sanders and his folks could be particularly helpful is in publicizing their support for Clinton proposals they already largely agree with. Even if they will never love Clinton qua Clinton, many of her proposed policies should resonate with progressives. Demonstrations of progressive enthusiasm for her existing policy proposals would likely open the door to greater progressive involvement in actual policy making.
posted by palindromic at 8:53 AM on June 24, 2016 [13 favorites]
Going after Trump, as Clinton/Warren/Obama/Biden are doing now, is necessary but not sufficient for a Democratic win in November. Clinton's campaign has put forth some positive alternative proposals. Where Sanders and his folks could be particularly helpful is in publicizing their support for Clinton proposals they already largely agree with. Even if they will never love Clinton qua Clinton, many of her proposed policies should resonate with progressives. Demonstrations of progressive enthusiasm for her existing policy proposals would likely open the door to greater progressive involvement in actual policy making.
posted by palindromic at 8:53 AM on June 24, 2016 [13 favorites]
I see the Sander's supporters'press for influence to be more than anything else a ploy to give Sanders credit for Clinton's policies. That is, Clinton will propose and enact the same policies she's always favored, and the Sanders supporters will congratulate themselves on "forcing her to the left".
posted by happyroach at 8:59 AM on June 24, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by happyroach at 8:59 AM on June 24, 2016 [11 favorites]
I agree with most of Sanders' platform. WHICH IS WHY I WANT HIS SUPPORTERS TO PLAY BALL. We will never get these things into the platform if the most liberal people just straight-up refuse to take the seat at the table that is available to them.You gotta be in the room where it happens.
(Guess which soundtrack I just gave my wife?)
posted by msalt at 9:02 AM on June 24, 2016 [9 favorites]
I see the Sander's supporters'press for influence to be more than anything else a ploy to give Sanders credit for Clinton's policies. That is, Clinton will propose and enact the same policies she's always favored, and the Sanders supporters will congratulate themselves on "forcing her to the left".
Hey, so long as they vote for her, they can claim credit for naming the Clinton family cat Socks for all I care.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:05 AM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hey, so long as they vote for her, they can claim credit for naming the Clinton family cat Socks for all I care.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:05 AM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, everything I know about shifting politics further to one side, I learned from the Republicans. I'm sure anti-choicers were irritated as hell by the folks they elected not doing much to stop abortions at that very moment, but they recognized that someone who was sympathetic to their views was more likely to vote the 'right' way than the committed pro-choicer. They got involved with local politics, made sure that their state reps would vote the 'right' way. When a better option came up, they took that option, but even when their candidates were sub-par on their important issues, they voted for them anyway and stayed involved. They voted in every primary, every mid-term, every local election. They did not threaten to walk if they didn't get everything they wanted in every election - they kept at it, knowing that 'the base' is only really the base if they always turn up.
The state of abortion availability in the country today should be a strong signal for the viability of this electoral strategy.
posted by palindromic at 9:06 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
The state of abortion availability in the country today should be a strong signal for the viability of this electoral strategy.
posted by palindromic at 9:06 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
I kinda think it's real fuckin important that a President Clinton gets credited for the good things she does, rather than some dude
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:07 AM on June 24, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:07 AM on June 24, 2016 [22 favorites]
Did I miss the part where in 2012 Romney got 47% of the cabinet seats?
Do you understand that Romney is in a different political party than Obama?
I don't recall the arguments back in 2008 for Clinton to be given a voice in determining Obama's policy and that primary was a hell of a lot closer than this one is.
Do you recall the part where Hillary Clinton, Obama's primary opponent, became Obama's Secretary of State?
posted by vibrotronica at 9:08 AM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do you understand that Romney is in a different political party than Obama?
I don't recall the arguments back in 2008 for Clinton to be given a voice in determining Obama's policy and that primary was a hell of a lot closer than this one is.
Do you recall the part where Hillary Clinton, Obama's primary opponent, became Obama's Secretary of State?
posted by vibrotronica at 9:08 AM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hillary became Secretary of State in part because she was willing to recognize that Obama won and work with him. Before the convention.
She didn't strategically dump a mushmouthed and half-hearted comment in support on a Friday morning when she knew everyone would be paying attention to a much bigger news story.
Sanders had leverage back in April and has gradually squandered it. That's his fault, not hers.
posted by Sara C. at 9:14 AM on June 24, 2016 [43 favorites]
She didn't strategically dump a mushmouthed and half-hearted comment in support on a Friday morning when she knew everyone would be paying attention to a much bigger news story.
Sanders had leverage back in April and has gradually squandered it. That's his fault, not hers.
posted by Sara C. at 9:14 AM on June 24, 2016 [43 favorites]
I kinda think it's real fuckin important that a President Clinton gets credited for the good things she does, rather than some dude
I didn't mean she should cede credit to them. It was more of a "let the baby have its bottle" type of sentiment.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:22 AM on June 24, 2016
I didn't mean she should cede credit to them. It was more of a "let the baby have its bottle" type of sentiment.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:22 AM on June 24, 2016
Wait, isn't the plan to kill all the men after Hillary gets elected anyway? So it doesn't matter what we let them think for the time being. We really need to coordinate our conspiracies, y'all.
posted by rorgy at 9:28 AM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by rorgy at 9:28 AM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sanders had leverage back in April and has gradually squandered it. That's his fault, not hers.
Congress, especially the senate, is in play in a way that it wasn't in 2008, and Obama was up against a clear and very credible contender in McCaine. This year we may or may not be up against Trump, and you're going to need populist sentiment in your corner if we are.
Bernie has a very dedicated base that does a great job of getting out the vote. He's an inspiring speaker and a hard campaigner, and the GOP is in complete disarray at the moment. He's squandered nothing, unless you like the idea of waiting four years until the next SC justice gets a confirmation hearing.
The conventions are where the rubber meets the road, and when the campaign really kicks off. There's time to negotiate what comes next.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:31 AM on June 24, 2016
Congress, especially the senate, is in play in a way that it wasn't in 2008, and Obama was up against a clear and very credible contender in McCaine. This year we may or may not be up against Trump, and you're going to need populist sentiment in your corner if we are.
Bernie has a very dedicated base that does a great job of getting out the vote. He's an inspiring speaker and a hard campaigner, and the GOP is in complete disarray at the moment. He's squandered nothing, unless you like the idea of waiting four years until the next SC justice gets a confirmation hearing.
The conventions are where the rubber meets the road, and when the campaign really kicks off. There's time to negotiate what comes next.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:31 AM on June 24, 2016
Sanders supporters need to be "reined in" but when neocons like Armitage and Scowcroft endorse Clinton everything is hunky-dory?
Calling Scowcroft a neocon does not suggest a strong grasp of foreign policy.
posted by one_bean at 9:33 AM on June 24, 2016
Calling Scowcroft a neocon does not suggest a strong grasp of foreign policy.
posted by one_bean at 9:33 AM on June 24, 2016
I don't really understand what Sanders has to do with down-ticket races, since he's not actively campaigning in support of any of them and the bulk of his "target demographic" so to speak historically does not GOTV for those types of races. Hell, they couldn't even GOTV themselves, for their own candidate.
posted by Sara C. at 9:36 AM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 9:36 AM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
The one takeaway from Brexit that I find deeply troubling as relates to the US election: the age breakdown of Leave vs. Remain. I hope Sanders does focus on GOTV efforts after the convention, because his supporters could find themselves extremely screwed if they opt to stay home.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:42 AM on June 24, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 9:42 AM on June 24, 2016 [9 favorites]
(It's because Obama is black and what the hysterical elderly in the UK are worried about is black people)
posted by Sara C. at 9:50 AM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 9:50 AM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
With regard to blaming everything bad on Obama, at least in this respect there is absolutely no difference between Trump and the rest of the GOP.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:58 AM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:58 AM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Simultaneously, he claims that Obama is personally responsible for the Brexit, which is bad; while also claiming that the Brexit itself is good, and something that Trump foresaw, despite not knowing what the phrase meant three weeks ago.
I'm starting to think it's not a coincidence that I've developed migraines for the first time in my life during the Trump candidacy.
posted by Superplin at 10:03 AM on June 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm starting to think it's not a coincidence that I've developed migraines for the first time in my life during the Trump candidacy.
posted by Superplin at 10:03 AM on June 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
Congress, especially the senate, is in play in a way that it wasn't in 2008
Because of Trump's unpopularity, not because of anything at all to do with Sanders. It's the Republicans, not Democrats, who are panicking right now.
and Obama was up against a clear and very credible contender in McCaine.
Until his idiotic "suspension" of his campaign, not to mention picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. So, yeah, no. Obama walloped McCain 365 electoral votes to 173 and claimed a decisive edge in the popular vote into the bargain.
This year we may or may not be up against Trump, and you're going to need populist sentiment in your corner if we are.
If "populist sentiment" isn't in Clinton's corner against the prospect of a Trump presidency, then who needs them and good riddance. Clinton's campaign will focus its GOTV efforts on loyal Democrats instead. I again refer you to the electoral map to reference how that works out.
Bernie has a very dedicated base that does a great job of getting out the vote.
Which is why he received more votes than Clinton in the primaries! Oh, wait.
He's an inspiring speaker and a hard campaigner
And his efforts on Clinton's behalf will doubtless be welcomed by the Clinton campaign, and suitably rewarded. Which is all as it should be.
and the GOP is in complete disarray at the moment
Yeah, Trump's campaign is a mess, but that fact only undercuts the argument that a Clinton campaign that got more votes than Sanders -- and Trump -- in the primaries needs to make upfront concessions to a fractious fringe that's threatening to sit out the election.
One of the the things the Democrats have gotten very good at is turning out the vote, at least in Presidential years. Obama did it. Clinton will do it. Sanders voters can choose to be among them. If so, they will have, and deserve, a seat at the table as a member of the victorious Democratic coalition -- and an opportunity to establish themselves as a reliable Democratic voting bloc. (Hey, if y'all want to help with the admittedly lame turnout in off-year elections, I expect you'd get some real notice then, seriously.) Then -- and only then -- will the claim that Sanders voters can't just be ignored have resonance.
posted by Gelatin at 10:06 AM on June 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
Because of Trump's unpopularity, not because of anything at all to do with Sanders. It's the Republicans, not Democrats, who are panicking right now.
and Obama was up against a clear and very credible contender in McCaine.
Until his idiotic "suspension" of his campaign, not to mention picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. So, yeah, no. Obama walloped McCain 365 electoral votes to 173 and claimed a decisive edge in the popular vote into the bargain.
This year we may or may not be up against Trump, and you're going to need populist sentiment in your corner if we are.
If "populist sentiment" isn't in Clinton's corner against the prospect of a Trump presidency, then who needs them and good riddance. Clinton's campaign will focus its GOTV efforts on loyal Democrats instead. I again refer you to the electoral map to reference how that works out.
Bernie has a very dedicated base that does a great job of getting out the vote.
Which is why he received more votes than Clinton in the primaries! Oh, wait.
He's an inspiring speaker and a hard campaigner
And his efforts on Clinton's behalf will doubtless be welcomed by the Clinton campaign, and suitably rewarded. Which is all as it should be.
and the GOP is in complete disarray at the moment
Yeah, Trump's campaign is a mess, but that fact only undercuts the argument that a Clinton campaign that got more votes than Sanders -- and Trump -- in the primaries needs to make upfront concessions to a fractious fringe that's threatening to sit out the election.
One of the the things the Democrats have gotten very good at is turning out the vote, at least in Presidential years. Obama did it. Clinton will do it. Sanders voters can choose to be among them. If so, they will have, and deserve, a seat at the table as a member of the victorious Democratic coalition -- and an opportunity to establish themselves as a reliable Democratic voting bloc. (Hey, if y'all want to help with the admittedly lame turnout in off-year elections, I expect you'd get some real notice then, seriously.) Then -- and only then -- will the claim that Sanders voters can't just be ignored have resonance.
posted by Gelatin at 10:06 AM on June 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
Donald Trump’s Brexit press conference was beyond bizarre
posted by zachlipton at 10:24 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 10:24 AM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
-- Bernie has a very dedicated base that does a great job of getting out the vote. --
Which is why he received more votes than Clinton in the primaries! Oh, wait.
He did such a great job that turnout was down 23% from 2008.
posted by chris24 at 10:26 AM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
Which is why he received more votes than Clinton in the primaries! Oh, wait.
He did such a great job that turnout was down 23% from 2008.
posted by chris24 at 10:26 AM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
Donald Trump’s Brexit press conference was beyond bizarre
Reading that transcript, the penny finally dropped.
Trump is Zaphod Beeblebrox. Just way less cool.
posted by Superplin at 10:41 AM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
Reading that transcript, the penny finally dropped.
Trump is Zaphod Beeblebrox. Just way less cool.
posted by Superplin at 10:41 AM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
we deserve a big (if not majority) place at the table
I think you mean although, not if. If you don't mean although, then I disagree. And the losing side generally does not get proportional representation. Even in coalition governments, the smaller party doesn't always get a proportional number of cabinet seats.
My impression of Clinton is that her inclinations are more progressive on economic and social issues than her positions might indicate, because she is incredibly pragmatic. She plays the game (and very well) of politics and has spent much of her political life in an America where the public sentiment was quite conservative. She is running for president in an environment where public sentiment is showing much more vocal support for progressive policy. I think she will respond to that. I've said something similar before, but I don't think Sanders has pulled her left; the support he has gained has left her the room to advocate the kinds of policy she really believes in. On war, she is more interventionist than most progressives, and in that set of intervention tools, she is more willing to use military ones than I would like. However, a lot of American progressives come off as profoundly uninterested in using the non-military set of intervention tools. American foreign policy could be so much better without disengaging. I worry about whether a President Clinton can find that balance. But the fact of the matter is that the POTUS wields American power in the interest of American imperialism and that fact doesn't much change regardless of who is filling the role.
posted by bardophile at 10:54 AM on June 24, 2016 [11 favorites]
I think you mean although, not if. If you don't mean although, then I disagree. And the losing side generally does not get proportional representation. Even in coalition governments, the smaller party doesn't always get a proportional number of cabinet seats.
My impression of Clinton is that her inclinations are more progressive on economic and social issues than her positions might indicate, because she is incredibly pragmatic. She plays the game (and very well) of politics and has spent much of her political life in an America where the public sentiment was quite conservative. She is running for president in an environment where public sentiment is showing much more vocal support for progressive policy. I think she will respond to that. I've said something similar before, but I don't think Sanders has pulled her left; the support he has gained has left her the room to advocate the kinds of policy she really believes in. On war, she is more interventionist than most progressives, and in that set of intervention tools, she is more willing to use military ones than I would like. However, a lot of American progressives come off as profoundly uninterested in using the non-military set of intervention tools. American foreign policy could be so much better without disengaging. I worry about whether a President Clinton can find that balance. But the fact of the matter is that the POTUS wields American power in the interest of American imperialism and that fact doesn't much change regardless of who is filling the role.
posted by bardophile at 10:54 AM on June 24, 2016 [11 favorites]
If have reached my limit of access to WaPo, so if anyone has another access to the Trumo brexit transcript, bring it, thanks.
posted by readery at 10:59 AM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by readery at 10:59 AM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can we please not have another derail based on the belief that the default is that Clinton is going to completely ignore the Sanders supporters? (She's hiring some of Bernie's staff, isn't she?) Or that the reason that Clinton delegates need to negotiate with Sanders delegates now is because Clinton is holding back, and not because Sanders was consistently running his campaign in a hostile way so it wasn't possible before now?
posted by halifix at 11:10 AM on June 24, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by halifix at 11:10 AM on June 24, 2016 [11 favorites]
She's hiring some of Bernie's staff, isn't she?
In particular, Sanders' director of campus outreach was among the first.
posted by Gelatin at 11:19 AM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
In particular, Sanders' director of campus outreach was among the first.
posted by Gelatin at 11:19 AM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
She plays the game (and very well) of politics and has spent much of her political life in an America where the public sentiment was quite conservative. She is running for president in an environment where public sentiment is showing much more vocal support for progressive policy. I think she will respond to that.
I suspect that this is part of the reason younger voters may not trust her to enact progressive policy - they weren't around (or were little kids) in the 80s and early 90s, and so they don't realize why the establishment Democrats have been so centrist for the past few decades. (And they don't remember a younger HRC being derided as an evil super-leftist by the Republicans...)
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:23 AM on June 24, 2016 [23 favorites]
I suspect that this is part of the reason younger voters may not trust her to enact progressive policy - they weren't around (or were little kids) in the 80s and early 90s, and so they don't realize why the establishment Democrats have been so centrist for the past few decades. (And they don't remember a younger HRC being derided as an evil super-leftist by the Republicans...)
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:23 AM on June 24, 2016 [23 favorites]
Donald Trump’s Brexit press conference was beyond bizarre
I'll just skip to the end for you guys:
I'll just skip to the end for you guys:
QUESTION: The country's not a golf course.posted by zachlipton at 11:44 AM on June 24, 2016
TRUMP: It's not.
Donald Trump’s Brexit press conference was beyond bizarre
"I'm an honest politician, probably one of the few." - Donald Trump
That phrase jumped out at me when I was doing a quick-and-dirty word count analysis:
very - 38
really - 20
great/greatest - 17
big/bigger/biggest - 13
actually - 12
tremendous - 6
let me tell you/I can tell you - 5
phenomenal - 5
incredible - 3
best - 3
very, very - 3
Trump - 3
magnificent - 2
I don't know why, but I'm fascinated with his overuse of superlatives.
posted by zakur at 11:47 AM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
"I'm an honest politician, probably one of the few." - Donald Trump
That phrase jumped out at me when I was doing a quick-and-dirty word count analysis:
very - 38
really - 20
great/greatest - 17
big/bigger/biggest - 13
actually - 12
tremendous - 6
let me tell you/I can tell you - 5
phenomenal - 5
incredible - 3
best - 3
very, very - 3
Trump - 3
magnificent - 2
I don't know why, but I'm fascinated with his overuse of superlatives.
posted by zakur at 11:47 AM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump is Zaphod Beeblebrox. Just way less cool.
Zaphod is so cool you could store a side of beef in him for a month. He's so hip he has trouble seeing past his pelvis.
Trump is so uncool that you couldn't leave a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster in a room with him without it going all sour and frumpy. He's so unhip that if he broke his pelvis he probably wouldn't notice for a week.
posted by chimaera at 11:49 AM on June 24, 2016 [22 favorites]
Zaphod is so cool you could store a side of beef in him for a month. He's so hip he has trouble seeing past his pelvis.
Trump is so uncool that you couldn't leave a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster in a room with him without it going all sour and frumpy. He's so unhip that if he broke his pelvis he probably wouldn't notice for a week.
posted by chimaera at 11:49 AM on June 24, 2016 [22 favorites]
So is Mia Love pretty much the anti-Sarah Palin? Just asking. Would she walk back some of the quotes here for the chance to be VP? (Well, the number of Republicans who have backtracked on #NeverTrump is -- substantial.)
posted by maudlin at 12:10 PM on June 24, 2016
posted by maudlin at 12:10 PM on June 24, 2016
There's also the ridiculousness of putting obvious fixed assets (they all have his goddamn name plastered all over them for crying out loud) in a blind trust for his kids to run. As though he could be President and be blissfully ignorant of anything related to his business because everything was moved into a trust.
This isn't like you stick your run of the mill stock portfolio in a blind trust and someone makes sure the dividends get reinvested in index funds for you (and to the extent that's a conflict of interest, we're pretty much ok with the President being personally long on the US economy). It's not like his kids are going to sell Mar-a-Lago out from under him while he's President. There's nothing blind about it.
posted by zachlipton at 12:14 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
This isn't like you stick your run of the mill stock portfolio in a blind trust and someone makes sure the dividends get reinvested in index funds for you (and to the extent that's a conflict of interest, we're pretty much ok with the President being personally long on the US economy). It's not like his kids are going to sell Mar-a-Lago out from under him while he's President. There's nothing blind about it.
posted by zachlipton at 12:14 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
The group "Delegates Unbound" intends to launch a nationwide television commercial this Sunday on potentially multiple cable news outlets [...] Dane Waters, one of the backers of "Delegates Unbound," said the group will spend between $2.5 million and $3.5 million on the three-day ad buy, calling these next two weeks "telling of whether all the pieces can be pulled together."
You guys. Watch this ad. It is B R U T A L, and targeted directly at conservative voters.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:24 PM on June 24, 2016 [28 favorites]
You guys. Watch this ad. It is B R U T A L, and targeted directly at conservative voters.
posted by showbiz_liz at 12:24 PM on June 24, 2016 [28 favorites]
I think the takeaway is that Dubya was a terrible businessman anyway, but what was the deal with that when he was running for President in 2000? Or did his time as governor result in a solution to what to do about a politician's personal business holdings that was continued for his presidency?
posted by Sara C. at 12:27 PM on June 24, 2016
posted by Sara C. at 12:27 PM on June 24, 2016
Ouch!
I wonder if Clinton's campaign can buy TV time in purple states and run that very ad. She may not convince many conservatives to vote for her, but persuading them that Trump is not a choice they can make in good conscience might help her prospects anyway.
posted by Gelatin at 12:27 PM on June 24, 2016
I wonder if Clinton's campaign can buy TV time in purple states and run that very ad. She may not convince many conservatives to vote for her, but persuading them that Trump is not a choice they can make in good conscience might help her prospects anyway.
posted by Gelatin at 12:27 PM on June 24, 2016
That ad is a fucking monster. But then, I'm flummoxed how any person of principle, left or right, can support Trump.
posted by chimaera at 12:30 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by chimaera at 12:30 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
(I wonder if "potentially multiple cable news outlets" means Fox. Regardless, that ad would be targeted directly at many likely lean-Trump voters.)
posted by Gelatin at 12:30 PM on June 24, 2016
posted by Gelatin at 12:30 PM on June 24, 2016
Considering Donald's well-documented past actions, he will absolutely make sure that a shitton of Federal money goes into the coffers of Trump Corporations, including the money we can't get from Mexico for his Wall that he has publicly said will be built by his own construction companies because he's so good at it.
Voting for Trump IS agreeing to let him reach into your wallet for as much money as he wants.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:31 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
Voting for Trump IS agreeing to let him reach into your wallet for as much money as he wants.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:31 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
What Trump said today is a half-truth, at least. If a corporation he controls provides something of value to his campaign, he does have to pay them fair market value, because otherwise it's an illegal corporate donation to his campaign.
The half that's a lie is, he doesn't have to use his corporations' services in the first place. But given his "brand." it does make sense to give press conferences at places like Mar-a-lago and flaunt his wealth. I think this is overplayed, and the least of his many sins.
posted by msalt at 12:49 PM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
The half that's a lie is, he doesn't have to use his corporations' services in the first place. But given his "brand." it does make sense to give press conferences at places like Mar-a-lago and flaunt his wealth. I think this is overplayed, and the least of his many sins.
posted by msalt at 12:49 PM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the takeaway is that Dubya was a terrible businessman anyway, but what was the deal with that when he was running for President in 2000? Or did his time as governor result in a solution to what to do about a politician's personal business holdings that was continued for his presidency?
By that time he had run all his business interests into the ground so it wasn't a big issue.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:51 PM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
he doesn't have to use his corporations' services in the first place
No he doesn't, but he does because "it's one of those things."
No he doesn't, but he does because "it's one of those things."
TRUMP: And the other thing is, why should I use somebody else's properties? Number one, they're not as good and number two, it's one of those things.posted by zakur at 12:56 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
This all won't be a problem for Trump -- the requirement for government employees to avoid conflicts of interest with their business holdings specifically exempts the President:
posted by Etrigan at 12:58 PM on June 24, 2016
Except as otherwise provided in such sections, the terms "officer" and "employee" in sections 203, 205, 207 through 209, and 218 of this title shall not include the President, the Vice President, a Member of Congress, or a Federal judge.So it might be better for him to do it politically, but that doesn't really stop him on any other topic.
posted by Etrigan at 12:58 PM on June 24, 2016
> So is Mia Love pretty much the anti-Sarah Palin? Just asking. Would she walk back some of the quotes here for the chance to be VP?
There's only one quote from her there:
posted by languagehat at 1:00 PM on June 24, 2016
There's only one quote from her there:
“Because I believe we need a president with less bravado and more real courage to act on conservative principles, I will be casting my vote Tuesday for Ted Cruz,” Love said in a statement ahead of the caucuses. “He has proven himself to be a principled, courageous leader with a positive agenda for our future.”I'm not sure what she would have to "walk back," since if Trump's going to reject everyone who wasn't with him from the beginning he doesn't have many options.
posted by languagehat at 1:00 PM on June 24, 2016
Sanders Edges a Little Closer to a Clinton Endorsement:
Without question, Bernie Sanders is in a difficult position. The whole world knows he will eventually have to support Clinton; the longer he delays supporting her, the more enthusiastic he will have to be, and the longer the path from here to there becomes. Being publicly churlish about Clinton does not increase his actual leverage, but it does embolden the Bernie or Bust faction of his supporters who may be hoping he'll stay neutral or get behind Jill Stein.posted by kirkaracha at 1:04 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
hmm
TRUMP/LOVE '16
yeah, this is gonna be it; the grotesque irony is just too much for the malevolent fates in charge of 2016 to pass up
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:17 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
TRUMP/LOVE '16
yeah, this is gonna be it; the grotesque irony is just too much for the malevolent fates in charge of 2016 to pass up
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:17 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
PBS NewsHour: The hidden sexism that could sway the election
posted by tonycpsu at 1:55 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
Heading into the general election, Clinton has a wide lead over Donald Trump among minority and female voters. But Clinton, who made history last week as the first woman to clinch the nomination of a major U.S. party, has struggled with the one big voting bloc that’s truly up for grabs in 2016: moderate white men. White men also happen to be Trump’s base. If he doesn’t get a record number of them to turn out, it’s hard to see how he wins the presidency. Women, African-Americans, and Latinos will still play a crucial role in the race. They skew Democratic and anti-Trump. If Clinton keeps that coalition together, she can afford to lose some white men. But she can’t afford to lose too many.Definitely one of those "read the whole thing" pieces.
The Clinton campaign knows this. Clinton spent significant time in the primaries courting white male voters — in particular white, mostly working-class men in the key Rust Belt and Midwestern swing states that usually decide presidential elections. And yet, despite all the effort, the results were abysmal. Clinton lost the overall male vote to Bernie Sanders by an average of 10 points in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, according to an analysis of exit poll data. She also lost men by double-digits in states as varied as Nevada, Connecticut and Oklahoma. In contrast, she won the male vote by wide margins in states that have large numbers of African-American and Latino voters. In short, white men are the last holdout.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:55 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
Elections matter. Ban on transgender troops to be lifted July 1
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:00 PM on June 24, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:00 PM on June 24, 2016 [13 favorites]
Trump/Love '16. Tagline...live through this
posted by ian1977 at 2:10 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ian1977 at 2:10 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
/r/SandersForPresident
Just, wow. These are not people Clinton can expect to win over, even with policy concessions or an endorsement from Sanders himself. In truth, they do not want these things to happen, so they can feel justified continuing to hate Clinton.
posted by ryanrs at 2:28 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
Just, wow. These are not people Clinton can expect to win over, even with policy concessions or an endorsement from Sanders himself. In truth, they do not want these things to happen, so they can feel justified continuing to hate Clinton.
posted by ryanrs at 2:28 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
Donald Trump's Really Big Brexit Flip-Flop: The presumptive GOP nominee once said "we will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity."
Donald Trump Celebrates How Great Brexit Will Be for His Golf Business
posted by homunculus at 2:31 PM on June 24, 2016
Donald Trump Celebrates How Great Brexit Will Be for His Golf Business
posted by homunculus at 2:31 PM on June 24, 2016
The hidden sexism that could sway the election
Good article, and I'm reading the whole thing, but not sure how to square this:
She has real shortcomings, like any male or female candidate. They were evident in her failure to put Sanders away early on in the primaries.with this:
Super Tuesday was still one week away, but at that point her Democratic primary battle with Sanders was effectively over.I was going to point out that the primary was effectively over by March and the article rebutted itself.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:32 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
At this point, I really do not know if Sanders will endorse Clinton. It sounds like he's saying he will not if she doesn't make tuition-free college part of her platform—something I do not think will happen. I also really don't know if his endorsement matters at this point. If he actually gives it, any die-hard holdouts will think it was coerced or something.
posted by defenestration at 2:36 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 2:36 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Agreed, Defenestration. This article, if accurately reported, certain appears to confirm that he won't endorse her unless she adopts his key policy positions of a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition, and free healthcare for all citizens (I assume he means the public option?).
She's made noises about the first, is highly unlikely to adopt the second, and while her record suggests she is in favor of the third, I'm not sure she'll make it a cornerstone of her campaign.
posted by Superplin at 2:45 PM on June 24, 2016
She's made noises about the first, is highly unlikely to adopt the second, and while her record suggests she is in favor of the third, I'm not sure she'll make it a cornerstone of her campaign.
posted by Superplin at 2:45 PM on June 24, 2016
It sounds like he's saying he will not if she doesn't make tuition-free college part of her platform—something I do not think will happen.
God I hope it doesn't. It's like the ultimate vanity platform-plank for the myopically privileged.
Spend the fucking money to fix K-12, which would be of direct benefit not only to every parent and child in the US, but to every single member of every future generation of Americans.
posted by dersins at 2:47 PM on June 24, 2016 [40 favorites]
God I hope it doesn't. It's like the ultimate vanity platform-plank for the myopically privileged.
Spend the fucking money to fix K-12, which would be of direct benefit not only to every parent and child in the US, but to every single member of every future generation of Americans.
posted by dersins at 2:47 PM on June 24, 2016 [40 favorites]
Breaking: Sanders announces that Clinton has earned the first "E" in "ENDORSE"
posted by mmoncur at 2:49 PM on June 24, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 2:49 PM on June 24, 2016 [22 favorites]
he won't endorse her unless she adopts his key policy positions of a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition, and free healthcare for all citizens
This is in such incredibly bad faith.
She already supports a $15 minimum wage.
She was the main public figure associated with healthcare reform in this country prior to the passing of the ACA. She fucking supports free healthcare for all citizens. Come the fuck on.
Free college tuition is a nice slogan, but it's one of those policy things where it's arguable whether that's really the best way to spend educational funding vs. any number of other educational initiatives. Anyone who would honestly not vote for an otherwise promising and qualified candidate because she supports Good Educational Plan X while your guy prefers Good Educational Plan Y is a fucking bonehead.
Anyone setting the "I'm with her if" bar on these issues is about as informed as all the Brexit voters who voted Leave but didn't get that it was an actual election that would have a real impact.
posted by Sara C. at 2:54 PM on June 24, 2016 [31 favorites]
This is in such incredibly bad faith.
She already supports a $15 minimum wage.
She was the main public figure associated with healthcare reform in this country prior to the passing of the ACA. She fucking supports free healthcare for all citizens. Come the fuck on.
Free college tuition is a nice slogan, but it's one of those policy things where it's arguable whether that's really the best way to spend educational funding vs. any number of other educational initiatives. Anyone who would honestly not vote for an otherwise promising and qualified candidate because she supports Good Educational Plan X while your guy prefers Good Educational Plan Y is a fucking bonehead.
Anyone setting the "I'm with her if" bar on these issues is about as informed as all the Brexit voters who voted Leave but didn't get that it was an actual election that would have a real impact.
posted by Sara C. at 2:54 PM on June 24, 2016 [31 favorites]
Aziz Ansari: Why Trump Makes Me Scared for My Family
"Today, with the presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and others like him spewing hate speech, prejudice is reaching new levels. It’s visceral, and scary, and it affects how people live, work and pray. It makes me afraid for my family. It also makes no sense."
posted by sweetmarie at 3:03 PM on June 24, 2016 [19 favorites]
"Today, with the presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and others like him spewing hate speech, prejudice is reaching new levels. It’s visceral, and scary, and it affects how people live, work and pray. It makes me afraid for my family. It also makes no sense."
posted by sweetmarie at 3:03 PM on June 24, 2016 [19 favorites]
So weird to me that the Wall Street reform / break up the Big Banks stuff is just not on that list of "must haves" at all. I thought the Sanders movement considered themselves the descendants of Occupy Wall Street? I would have thought that would be a bigger priority than demanding further leftward movement on the issues where Clinton is already pretty far left. I mean, it's not as if she can realistically get either through Congress, so what does it matter if she's nominally in favor of a $12 or a $15 minimum wage? But the executive branch has some power over our financial regulatory agencies, I think.
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:21 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:21 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
Audience members clapped and chanted "Bernie" when he walked on stage. About half gave Sanders a standing ovation.
"You’ve gotten used to that," Colbert said. "Sounds awfully good," Sanders replied. "We're going to go all over this country because that is what the political revolution is about," he told the packed performance hall. "It is millions of people getting involved in the political process in a way that has never been seen in the modern history of this country."
People have gone to rallies, and voted in primaries, though the numbers are down from 2008. It remains to be seen how well this will translate into actual engagement with the political process, which is decidedly difficult and requires compromise and... well... politics. I truly hope it happens, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. It's a lot easier to post on Facebook or attend a rally than it is to follow through on doing the difficult work required to enact change. And the idea that his support is unprecedented in the modern history of this country is absurd. One word: Obama.
Also, I really do not get the all-primaries-should-be-open thing. Sounds like a really bad idea to me.
posted by defenestration at 3:28 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
"You’ve gotten used to that," Colbert said. "Sounds awfully good," Sanders replied. "We're going to go all over this country because that is what the political revolution is about," he told the packed performance hall. "It is millions of people getting involved in the political process in a way that has never been seen in the modern history of this country."
People have gone to rallies, and voted in primaries, though the numbers are down from 2008. It remains to be seen how well this will translate into actual engagement with the political process, which is decidedly difficult and requires compromise and... well... politics. I truly hope it happens, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. It's a lot easier to post on Facebook or attend a rally than it is to follow through on doing the difficult work required to enact change. And the idea that his support is unprecedented in the modern history of this country is absurd. One word: Obama.
Also, I really do not get the all-primaries-should-be-open thing. Sounds like a really bad idea to me.
posted by defenestration at 3:28 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
This article, if accurately reported, certain appears to confirm that he won't endorse her unless she adopts his key policy positions of a $15 minimum wage, free college tuition, and free healthcare for all citizens
I expect he will endorse her without those concessions. If not, good riddance to him and to his dead-enders. Brexit has made it clear that we have more important things to worry about than people who can't see reason.
posted by Justinian at 3:28 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
I expect he will endorse her without those concessions. If not, good riddance to him and to his dead-enders. Brexit has made it clear that we have more important things to worry about than people who can't see reason.
posted by Justinian at 3:28 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Aziz Ansari: Why Trump Makes Me Scared for My Family
The ice burn that article ends on.
posted by palindromic at 3:37 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
The ice burn that article ends on.
posted by palindromic at 3:37 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
She fucking supports free healthcare for all citizens. Come the fuck on.
She opposes attempting a single payer system. Is there another way to free for all citizens universal coverage?
posted by Drinky Die at 3:37 PM on June 24, 2016
She opposes attempting a single payer system. Is there another way to free for all citizens universal coverage?
posted by Drinky Die at 3:37 PM on June 24, 2016
Are you unfamiliar with what happened with respect to Hillary Clinton and single payer health care reform in the 90's?
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 3:43 PM on June 24, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 3:43 PM on June 24, 2016 [17 favorites]
She opposes attempting a single payer system. Is there another way to free for all citizens universal coverage?
Yes, as the diversity of systems around the world show. Not to mention that "free to all citizens" doesn't exist anywhere.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:43 PM on June 24, 2016 [15 favorites]
Yes, as the diversity of systems around the world show. Not to mention that "free to all citizens" doesn't exist anywhere.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:43 PM on June 24, 2016 [15 favorites]
Aziz Ansari: Why Trump Makes Me Scared for My Family
Did anyone else read this in Aziz's Tom Haverford voice?
posted by Talez at 3:44 PM on June 24, 2016
Did anyone else read this in Aziz's Tom Haverford voice?
posted by Talez at 3:44 PM on June 24, 2016
Unless she has 70 votes in the Senate (since a bunch of Democrats wouldn't support single player) and 60 or 80 more (D) Reps than currently exist it's completely irrelevant whether Clinton would prefer single-payer or expanding Obamacare or what. It's like arguing about whether she really wants to colonize Neptune.
posted by Justinian at 3:45 PM on June 24, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 3:45 PM on June 24, 2016 [22 favorites]
And it's worth reminding people that the original Sanders single payer proposal stated that it would save more money on pharmaceuticals than is actually spent.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:45 PM on June 24, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:45 PM on June 24, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yes, as the diversity of systems around the world show. Not to mention that "free to all citizens" doesn't exist anywhere.
You say "Yes" but then try and move the goalposts to define away the question. In the sense we mean by free here single payer is the only way. Hillary Clinton does not support free healthcare for all citizens. It's okay if you think that's the right move, just don't pretend it isn't the move.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:48 PM on June 24, 2016
You say "Yes" but then try and move the goalposts to define away the question. In the sense we mean by free here single payer is the only way. Hillary Clinton does not support free healthcare for all citizens. It's okay if you think that's the right move, just don't pretend it isn't the move.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:48 PM on June 24, 2016
She was proposing a plan a lot closer to single-payer than Obama in 2008. She had a ringside seat for the struggle to get the 5/8-of-a-loaf that is now called Obamacare passed, implemented and protected. Her own sights seem to be set lower now than they were in 2008, but she still is pledging to do more than we have now. It's called pragmatism, something many people fault her for, but she realizes that even after winning the White House in 2016, there are later elections to work on, and both after the failure of 1993's Hillarycare and the minimal success of 2009's Obamacare, the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. Yep, pragmatism.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:49 PM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:49 PM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
Not to mention that she herself got spanked hard for trying to implement a single-payer system back in the 90s. Much like the comment upthread that assumed that she clearly has never heard of Brexit, you have to give her a *little* credit, here.
posted by Sara C. at 3:54 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 3:54 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's okay if you think that's the right move, just don't pretend it isn't the move.
Here's the thing - nobody else does "free for all citizens" healthcare. Even in countries with single payer systems, there are still costs borne by citizens (granted, they are significantly less than in the US.) This was one of the major issues with the way Sanders presented his proposal - he tried to make it out like it was the same as what other countries do, when in fact it was a significant departure as well.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:55 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
Here's the thing - nobody else does "free for all citizens" healthcare. Even in countries with single payer systems, there are still costs borne by citizens (granted, they are significantly less than in the US.) This was one of the major issues with the way Sanders presented his proposal - he tried to make it out like it was the same as what other countries do, when in fact it was a significant departure as well.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:55 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
Drinky Die: "She fucking supports free healthcare for all citizens. Come the fuck on.
She opposes attempting a single payer system. Is there another way to free for all citizens universal coverage?"
So what's Johnson/Weld's universal health care proposal?
posted by octothorpe at 4:06 PM on June 24, 2016
She opposes attempting a single payer system. Is there another way to free for all citizens universal coverage?"
So what's Johnson/Weld's universal health care proposal?
posted by octothorpe at 4:06 PM on June 24, 2016
Germany: Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance... There are two separate types of health insurance: public health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) and private insurance (Private Krankenversicherung)
France: The entire population must pay compulsory health insurance. The insurers are non-profit agencies that annually participate in negotiations with the state regarding the overall funding of health care in France... A premium is deducted from all employees' pay automatically.
Japan: Health insurance is, in general, mandatory for residents of Japan, though there is no penalty on individuals who choose not to comply, and around 10% of the population does not enroll. There are a total of eight health insurance systems in Japan, with around 3,500 health insurers.
These are the first three countries that sprung to mind as examples of more hybridized health care systems. There are more options to attain universal coverage at significantly lower per capita costs than are currently incurred in the US. Given what I know of US politics, I suspect something like the German system would be more amenable to the population than Canadian or UK-style health systems, and would still accomplish the goal of low-cost universal coverage. Single payer and universal coverage are not synonymous, and single payer systems do not necessarily cost less or get better results than more hybridized systems.
posted by palindromic at 4:07 PM on June 24, 2016 [15 favorites]
France: The entire population must pay compulsory health insurance. The insurers are non-profit agencies that annually participate in negotiations with the state regarding the overall funding of health care in France... A premium is deducted from all employees' pay automatically.
Japan: Health insurance is, in general, mandatory for residents of Japan, though there is no penalty on individuals who choose not to comply, and around 10% of the population does not enroll. There are a total of eight health insurance systems in Japan, with around 3,500 health insurers.
These are the first three countries that sprung to mind as examples of more hybridized health care systems. There are more options to attain universal coverage at significantly lower per capita costs than are currently incurred in the US. Given what I know of US politics, I suspect something like the German system would be more amenable to the population than Canadian or UK-style health systems, and would still accomplish the goal of low-cost universal coverage. Single payer and universal coverage are not synonymous, and single payer systems do not necessarily cost less or get better results than more hybridized systems.
posted by palindromic at 4:07 PM on June 24, 2016 [15 favorites]
Here's the thing - nobody else does "free for all citizens" healthcare. Even in countries with single payer systems, there are still costs borne by citizens (granted, they are significantly less than in the US.) This was one of the major issues with the way Sanders presented his proposal - he tried to make it out like it was the same as what other countries do, when in fact it was a significant departure as well.
His proposal is a single payer system modeled on other single payer systems such as Medicare. When he spoke about other countries with universal coverage sometimes he implied they all use the same free system. This was part of the debate during the primaries and Clinton pushed back very well, pointing out other routes to universal coverage that are not free in the sense Medicare is free.
I feel like people are responding to me as if I am arguing against the idea that Clinton supports universal coverage. But I am not denying that. Sanders wants the system to be free in the sense Medicare is free. Clinton wants to continue with the Obamacare private insurance with subsidies based on need model. There is a clear difference in those models, and Sanders is pressuring Clinton to adopt his position and support healthcare being free in the sense Medicare is free.
I'm not interested in re-arguing if it should be or not because everybody here has probably heard all of the common arguments in both directions a million times.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:15 PM on June 24, 2016
His proposal is a single payer system modeled on other single payer systems such as Medicare. When he spoke about other countries with universal coverage sometimes he implied they all use the same free system. This was part of the debate during the primaries and Clinton pushed back very well, pointing out other routes to universal coverage that are not free in the sense Medicare is free.
I feel like people are responding to me as if I am arguing against the idea that Clinton supports universal coverage. But I am not denying that. Sanders wants the system to be free in the sense Medicare is free. Clinton wants to continue with the Obamacare private insurance with subsidies based on need model. There is a clear difference in those models, and Sanders is pressuring Clinton to adopt his position and support healthcare being free in the sense Medicare is free.
I'm not interested in re-arguing if it should be or not because everybody here has probably heard all of the common arguments in both directions a million times.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:15 PM on June 24, 2016
Also, a system that is not fee-for-service is by no means 'free.' Taxes, premiums, co-insurance payments, fees at point of service - some combination of those have to be levied to pay physicians, nurses, other medical/administrative professionals, medical equipment/supplies manufacturers, drug companies, facilities, utilities, transport. People are paying at some point, even if they never receive a bill from their physician.
posted by palindromic at 4:15 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by palindromic at 4:15 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sorry Drinky Die, by profession I'm pretty wonkish over health care policy, and the conflation of single payer and universal coverage is one of my pedantic pet peeves.
posted by palindromic at 4:17 PM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by palindromic at 4:17 PM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
Here's the thing: Sanders endorsed Obama in '08, even though Obama did not meet those three requirements.
Sure, it's '16, not '08, and Sanders ran this cycle, and those were part of his platform. But it's not "I cannot endorse someone who doesn't agree about these three things." It's "I won't endorse someone who won't change her position on these three things to be in line with my platform." And honestly, I feel like those are a weird group of demands at which to draw the line. As noted above, where is the talk about banks and Wall Street? Is it not there because Clinton has been actively campaigning in regards to trying to fix/change those things? If so, why is that not enough to sway Sanders?
I feel like those three things are an arbitrary litmus test. It's more about picking a list of things that represent purity, knowing that Clinton won't meet the standard.
What is the lesson to the people he is trying to get involved in politics if he chooses not to endorse her because of those three things? Is it let perfect be the enemy of good? Because bringing a bunch of people into the fold of the process under the banner of Be outraged, Don't compromise, Use loaded rhetoric, Remain pure isn't likely to achieve much within the political landscape besides being performatively more progressive than thou.
posted by defenestration at 4:27 PM on June 24, 2016 [16 favorites]
Sure, it's '16, not '08, and Sanders ran this cycle, and those were part of his platform. But it's not "I cannot endorse someone who doesn't agree about these three things." It's "I won't endorse someone who won't change her position on these three things to be in line with my platform." And honestly, I feel like those are a weird group of demands at which to draw the line. As noted above, where is the talk about banks and Wall Street? Is it not there because Clinton has been actively campaigning in regards to trying to fix/change those things? If so, why is that not enough to sway Sanders?
I feel like those three things are an arbitrary litmus test. It's more about picking a list of things that represent purity, knowing that Clinton won't meet the standard.
What is the lesson to the people he is trying to get involved in politics if he chooses not to endorse her because of those three things? Is it let perfect be the enemy of good? Because bringing a bunch of people into the fold of the process under the banner of Be outraged, Don't compromise, Use loaded rhetoric, Remain pure isn't likely to achieve much within the political landscape besides being performatively more progressive than thou.
posted by defenestration at 4:27 PM on June 24, 2016 [16 favorites]
honestly, at this point it's little more than narcissistic posturing
posted by dersins at 4:29 PM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by dersins at 4:29 PM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
honestly, if she is perceived to have met Sanders' demands to get his endorsement the fucking "SHE HAS NO PRINCIPLES, LOOK HOW SHE CAVED" talking points write themselves. and, yknow, fuck that noise, fuck it forever.
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:32 PM on June 24, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:32 PM on June 24, 2016 [16 favorites]
'I won't endorse someone who won't change her position on these three things to be in line with my platform.'
He already ran a campaign based on those things, and the majority of the delegates in the Democratic primary voted for her instead of being persuaded to vote for him. A $15 minimum wage, free college tuition, and free healthcare for all citizens aren't exactly going to pull in a lot of Republicans, either. Why should Clinton adopt positions that were part of a losing argument in the primary and unlikely to be part of a winning argument in the general election?
posted by kirkaracha at 4:41 PM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
At the end of the day, if (when? I hope) Hillary Clinton is elected President, she will actually have to get these policies implemented. It makes no sense for to agree to all the pie-in-the-sky policies Sanders is demanding when she has no actual chance of getting those things done. She is a pragmatist and a realist - and I for one applaud her for not promising things that cannot be done.
posted by peacheater at 4:42 PM on June 24, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by peacheater at 4:42 PM on June 24, 2016 [10 favorites]
Sanders's free college proposal is not good policy. It could be a good idea if it were part of a comprehensive plan to completely revamp the American educational system from early childhood ed on up, but it's not. As it's currently written, it will increase inequality. I would be pretty pissed off if Clinton submitted to that particular demand.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:45 PM on June 24, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:45 PM on June 24, 2016 [24 favorites]
I think it's that he feels that his endorsement is a bargaining chip, so he's trying to get her to change her platform to represent those three things. Which fine, but that seems a bit shortsighted ya know? Especially with what's at stake.
posted by defenestration at 4:46 PM on June 24, 2016
posted by defenestration at 4:46 PM on June 24, 2016
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Right Wing Radio:
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:47 PM on June 24, 2016
Arpaio, who notoriously makes inmates wear pink underwear and socks, said he is planning to add U.S. flags to their uniforms.Trump/Arpaio....a match made in heaven.
“I’ll give you a scoop: I’m going to put American flags — I was going to do it on my birthday but I didn’t want to get involved because of what happened in Florida — but on Fourth of July, every inmate is going to wear an American flag on their uniform.”
“So it was 136 degrees in those tents the last time you were in there, huh?” Carr asked.
“Two days ago,” Arpaio responded. [snip]
Arpaio boasted to Carr that he had "chewed out some Republicans at a Trump rally" he spoke at in Arizona on Saturday, criticizing them for offering only tepid endorsements of the presumptive GOP nominee.
“They always say they’re gonna endorse the nominee,” Arpaio said. “I guess when you endorse someone, should you not mention the name of the guy you’re endorsing, at least build up his name ID? Why wouldn’t they say, ‘I’m endorsing Donald Trump for president?' Why is it always ‘the nominee’ without using his name? You know why and I know why.”
Arpaio continued, “Let’s knock off the personal feelings, let’s knock off the jealousy. Let’s, you know, forget that you have losers out there. He’s a winner, and let’s get with him.”
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:47 PM on June 24, 2016
Yeah, the college proposal was one of his worst.
Like (basically) all Democrats, I'm for universal coverage. I prefer the Clinton/ACA style approach (aka, the Japan and Germany approach, two of the countries with the best outcomes and lowest costs, although comparing costs across countries is necessarily problematic due to culture/lifestyle diffrerences), but I could live with single payer. Either approach (a much more robust ACA-style universal coverage or single payer) would be a huge improvement for most people, and the Republican approach would be a huge step back.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:49 PM on June 24, 2016
Like (basically) all Democrats, I'm for universal coverage. I prefer the Clinton/ACA style approach (aka, the Japan and Germany approach, two of the countries with the best outcomes and lowest costs, although comparing costs across countries is necessarily problematic due to culture/lifestyle diffrerences), but I could live with single payer. Either approach (a much more robust ACA-style universal coverage or single payer) would be a huge improvement for most people, and the Republican approach would be a huge step back.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:49 PM on June 24, 2016
Especially with what's at stake.
Sanders has nothing at stake.
posted by ryanrs at 4:50 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders has nothing at stake.
posted by ryanrs at 4:50 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sanders wants the system to be free in the sense Medicare is free.
Pardon me while I gather up all the invoices from my grandmother's recent surgery, hospital stay, transitional care facility stay, and rehospitalization, and use them to wipe away my tears of laughter and despair. Invoices, multiple, because Medicare doesn't cover everything. And they take money out of her Social Security payments each month for her coverage.
"Free". Ain't that some shit.
posted by palomar at 4:52 PM on June 24, 2016 [24 favorites]
Pardon me while I gather up all the invoices from my grandmother's recent surgery, hospital stay, transitional care facility stay, and rehospitalization, and use them to wipe away my tears of laughter and despair. Invoices, multiple, because Medicare doesn't cover everything. And they take money out of her Social Security payments each month for her coverage.
"Free". Ain't that some shit.
posted by palomar at 4:52 PM on June 24, 2016 [24 favorites]
As noted above, where is the talk about banks and Wall Street?
Nothing on the trade deals either, which is odd because that is probably the issue of most agreement between any potential Sanders -> Trump voter.
posted by FJT at 4:52 PM on June 24, 2016
Nothing on the trade deals either, which is odd because that is probably the issue of most agreement between any potential Sanders -> Trump voter.
posted by FJT at 4:52 PM on June 24, 2016
After the last couple of days I think Clinton's VP pick will be either Warren or Kaine. Depending on where the Clinton folk's polling tells them they get the most electoral bang for the buck.
posted by Justinian at 4:53 PM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 4:53 PM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
the Republican approach would be a huge step back.
The Republican approach being "Oh are you sick? Hey, well, good luck with that, pal. Here, have some tax cuts and assault weapons. Feel better!"
posted by dersins at 4:53 PM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
The Republican approach being "Oh are you sick? Hey, well, good luck with that, pal. Here, have some tax cuts and assault weapons. Feel better!"
posted by dersins at 4:53 PM on June 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yep, thats the one.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:56 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 4:56 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Please don't let it be Kaine. I prefer Warren in the Senate or cabinet, but I'd rather have her as VP over Kaine any day.
posted by Superplin at 5:07 PM on June 24, 2016
posted by Superplin at 5:07 PM on June 24, 2016
It's going to be Kaine
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:10 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:10 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
What happened to the Castro brothers? What could possibly be better than for Clinton to meet Trump's bigotry with a (talented and young!) Latino VP pick?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:35 PM on June 24, 2016
posted by scaryblackdeath at 5:35 PM on June 24, 2016
In one comment, Why is Tim Kaine great? asking sincerely, as I know little of him beyond that he’s the previous governor of Virginia.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:46 PM on June 24, 2016
posted by Going To Maine at 5:46 PM on June 24, 2016
I'm guessing they believe the Latino vote is fairly solid already.
posted by Justinian at 5:46 PM on June 24, 2016
posted by Justinian at 5:46 PM on June 24, 2016
Tim Kaine is mediocre. But winning the election is great. They should pick whoever helps them win the election.
posted by Justinian at 5:48 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:48 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think Kaine is great, I just think he's the most obvious choice. Myself I would prefer one of the Castro brothers.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:49 PM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:49 PM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I still don't think Warren even remotely wants it.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:53 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:53 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
I looooove the idea of a Latino from Texas on the Democratic ticket, but I get the sense that Castro is considered to be a bit too much of a lightweight at present - a rising star in the party who could possibly be a great option down the road, but not at heartbeat-away-from-the-Presidency status yet. But who knows? This whole primary season has been so profoundly weird that I don't feel I can make any real predictions.
Kaine...urgh, I guess? I don't have any real dealbreakers, but he leaves me the most uninterested out of the named possibilities.
posted by Salieri at 5:57 PM on June 24, 2016
Kaine...urgh, I guess? I don't have any real dealbreakers, but he leaves me the most uninterested out of the named possibilities.
posted by Salieri at 5:57 PM on June 24, 2016
Honestly, I'm Team Xavier Becerra, but he doesn't seem to be on the list anymore.
posted by Superplin at 5:57 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 5:57 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm actually sort of getting the sense that Warren does want it, which is interesting, because I don't really think it's the right position for her.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:12 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:12 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
Hahahaha I just ordered one of those supporter cards earlier today. I'm such a sucker for the marketing.
posted by Salieri at 6:13 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Salieri at 6:13 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
It dawned on me when Eric Garcetti was floated that Antonio Villaraigosa would be perfect. He has more executive experience than Julian Castro and yet is also Latino, and like Garcetti he was mayor of Los Angeles, except that he has 2-3 terms under his belt. He also worked on Clinton's 2008 campaign, was chair of the 2012 DNC, and has had other close ties to Obama, Clinton, the Democratic establishment, etc. He's still a bit of a lightweight having never held national office before, but he's less of a lightweight than Castro or Garcetti.
On the other hand, the fact that he's had close ties to HRC and the Obama Administration and hasn't been shortlisted probably means there are very real reasons he isn't getting called up. (My guess is that he has skeletons in his closet that Clinton's people know about already.)
posted by Sara C. at 6:18 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, the fact that he's had close ties to HRC and the Obama Administration and hasn't been shortlisted probably means there are very real reasons he isn't getting called up. (My guess is that he has skeletons in his closet that Clinton's people know about already.)
posted by Sara C. at 6:18 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
I hope Elizabeth Warren doesn't become VP because I want her to run the Senate in a few years, but it really seems like she wants the job.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 6:20 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Elementary Penguin at 6:20 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why is Tim Kaine great?
He fills in a few of the electoral checkboxes where moderates might find Clinton lacking: popular governor and senator from a swing state in "the south", before that mayor of a majority African-American city (Richmond), he's Catholic and speaks Spanish fluently which will help with the Hispanic vote, serves on the Armed Services Committee, taught ethics in law school, and is a white dude who has a penis.
I think Clinton's VP choice is going to depend on who Trump rolls out at his convention, but I think Kaine is the most likely safe choice to reach out to moderate undecideds and non-crazy republicans.
posted by peeedro at 6:20 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
He fills in a few of the electoral checkboxes where moderates might find Clinton lacking: popular governor and senator from a swing state in "the south", before that mayor of a majority African-American city (Richmond), he's Catholic and speaks Spanish fluently which will help with the Hispanic vote, serves on the Armed Services Committee, taught ethics in law school, and is a white dude who has a penis.
I think Clinton's VP choice is going to depend on who Trump rolls out at his convention, but I think Kaine is the most likely safe choice to reach out to moderate undecideds and non-crazy republicans.
posted by peeedro at 6:20 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Kaine was also vetted by Obama in 2008. He's a fine boring-but-safe pick. Might help a little, won't hurt.
I was pulling for Julian Castro, but now I think Labor Secretary Tom Perez might be a good pick if they go the Latino male route.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:29 PM on June 24, 2016
I was pulling for Julian Castro, but now I think Labor Secretary Tom Perez might be a good pick if they go the Latino male route.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:29 PM on June 24, 2016
I just tried to watch last night's Colbert, but had to switch it off just a couple of minutes into Sanders' segment.
A few months ago, I was so excited at the idea this man could be president, and now I can't even stand to listen to him speak. I'm sure this says more about me as a voter--a lot that isn't good--than him as a candidate, but I am so glad Clinton is our nominee.
posted by Superplin at 7:02 PM on June 24, 2016 [11 favorites]
A few months ago, I was so excited at the idea this man could be president, and now I can't even stand to listen to him speak. I'm sure this says more about me as a voter--a lot that isn't good--than him as a candidate, but I am so glad Clinton is our nominee.
posted by Superplin at 7:02 PM on June 24, 2016 [11 favorites]
I'm pro-Steixit.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:22 PM on June 24, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:22 PM on June 24, 2016 [25 favorites]
Jill Stein is pro-Brexit.Of course she is.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:36 PM on June 24, 2016 [9 favorites]
Why am I surprised by that? I think of myself as so weary and cynical. Yet clearly I've a ways yet to go, because I find Stein's pro-Brexit take nothing short of infuriating.
posted by rorgy at 7:44 PM on June 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by rorgy at 7:44 PM on June 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think Tim Kaine is more likely than either of the Castro brothers.
Far too many Democratic voters are racist and sexist enough that I'm sure Clinton's advisers are advocating she pick an older white man to reassure the fence sitting Democrats that a "proper" candidate is involved, not just a woman. Same reason Obama basically had to pick an old white guy as his VP.
I'm not at all sure that viewpoint is even remotely rooted in reality, but I'd be very surprised if there weren't a lot of senior Democratic analysts and advisers strongly urging for an older white guy, ideally from the south, just to make up for Clinton's crippling lack of a penis.
Kaine doesn't enthuse me at all, but I don't hate him and I doubt many do. He's kind of bland, a bit too far to the right on some topics (abortion, for example), but nothing really awful.
And, of course, he has pink skin and a penis, which is apparently something that at least one member of the ticket absolutely must have.
I'd rather see either of the Castros, or Barbara Lee (one of my fave Representatives), but I don't think Clinton will go that way.
Remember back in 2008 when the polls showed that something like 20% of Democrats said they wouldn't vote for a black man? Biden was there, in part, as a sop to that sort of voter.
I'd bet on Kaine or someone like him, a kind of blah white guy with nothing really objectionable about him.
posted by sotonohito at 7:45 PM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Far too many Democratic voters are racist and sexist enough that I'm sure Clinton's advisers are advocating she pick an older white man to reassure the fence sitting Democrats that a "proper" candidate is involved, not just a woman. Same reason Obama basically had to pick an old white guy as his VP.
I'm not at all sure that viewpoint is even remotely rooted in reality, but I'd be very surprised if there weren't a lot of senior Democratic analysts and advisers strongly urging for an older white guy, ideally from the south, just to make up for Clinton's crippling lack of a penis.
Kaine doesn't enthuse me at all, but I don't hate him and I doubt many do. He's kind of bland, a bit too far to the right on some topics (abortion, for example), but nothing really awful.
And, of course, he has pink skin and a penis, which is apparently something that at least one member of the ticket absolutely must have.
I'd rather see either of the Castros, or Barbara Lee (one of my fave Representatives), but I don't think Clinton will go that way.
Remember back in 2008 when the polls showed that something like 20% of Democrats said they wouldn't vote for a black man? Biden was there, in part, as a sop to that sort of voter.
I'd bet on Kaine or someone like him, a kind of blah white guy with nothing really objectionable about him.
posted by sotonohito at 7:45 PM on June 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
From Jill Stein's post: "It is also a rejection of the European political elite and their contempt for ordinary people"
Because the Polish man who came to the UK to work isn't an ordinary person? Because the student who went to France to study and fell in love isn't an ordinary person? Because the researcher who is funded by EU funding isn't an ordinary person? The referendum vote screws over plenty of ordinary people just as much as it professes to help other ordinary people.
posted by zachlipton at 7:57 PM on June 24, 2016 [30 favorites]
Because the Polish man who came to the UK to work isn't an ordinary person? Because the student who went to France to study and fell in love isn't an ordinary person? Because the researcher who is funded by EU funding isn't an ordinary person? The referendum vote screws over plenty of ordinary people just as much as it professes to help other ordinary people.
posted by zachlipton at 7:57 PM on June 24, 2016 [30 favorites]
Wow! That Jill Stein pro-Brexit piece is really something else. Does she have any idea of the implications of Brexit for immigrants already in Britain? Does her position give any Stein fans second thoughts about their support?
There's likely to be quite a bit of buyer's remorse among pro-leave voters in the coming months and beyond. It's unfortunate that the rest of Britain will suffer along with them.
posted by haiku warrior at 8:08 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's likely to be quite a bit of buyer's remorse among pro-leave voters in the coming months and beyond. It's unfortunate that the rest of Britain will suffer along with them.
posted by haiku warrior at 8:08 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Did anyone else miss Sanders endorsing Clinton on Colbert? He mentioned the presumptive nominee by name, Secretary Clinton. He's. On. Her. Side.
Yes, he will take his fight to the convention floor. Yes, he will marshal his voters to fight against Trump. He will fight Trump harder than any Third Way democrat.
So, please, tell me how I'm racist/misogynist for demanding what Bernie demanded, while endorsing Sec. Clinton over trump as his top priority, while not endorsing her until she moves as left as we need her to be.
I mean, I have a daughter. I flunked out of college in the early '90s. My folks actually made money on accident, as they bought then sold a Floridian condo where my college was. Tuition and kinda cheap books I covered with minimum wage jobs. I am terrified, as the usual student debt for a bachelors is six figures these days. I can barely afford to make my car payments, never-mind an entire mortgage for higher learning.
Bernie has a plan that helps the middle class. Now that I am voting Clinton, I hope to Christ Sec. Clinton does, too.
Also, Voting Jill is Voting Trump. She will deliver unto you exactly nothing for your vote. Sanders will deliver a new Democratic Party, and also Fuck Trump.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:13 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, he will take his fight to the convention floor. Yes, he will marshal his voters to fight against Trump. He will fight Trump harder than any Third Way democrat.
So, please, tell me how I'm racist/misogynist for demanding what Bernie demanded, while endorsing Sec. Clinton over trump as his top priority, while not endorsing her until she moves as left as we need her to be.
I mean, I have a daughter. I flunked out of college in the early '90s. My folks actually made money on accident, as they bought then sold a Floridian condo where my college was. Tuition and kinda cheap books I covered with minimum wage jobs. I am terrified, as the usual student debt for a bachelors is six figures these days. I can barely afford to make my car payments, never-mind an entire mortgage for higher learning.
Bernie has a plan that helps the middle class. Now that I am voting Clinton, I hope to Christ Sec. Clinton does, too.
Also, Voting Jill is Voting Trump. She will deliver unto you exactly nothing for your vote. Sanders will deliver a new Democratic Party, and also Fuck Trump.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:13 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
A few months ago, I was so excited at the idea [Sanders] could be president, and now I can't even stand to listen to him speak.
Yeah, I'm pretty happy California was late in the primary cycle, or else I'd probably be mad at myself right now.
posted by ryanrs at 8:15 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, I'm pretty happy California was late in the primary cycle, or else I'd probably be mad at myself right now.
posted by ryanrs at 8:15 PM on June 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
MetaFilter: and also Fuck Trump.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:17 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 8:17 PM on June 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
Are we still doing the #notallberniesupporters thing? Because I have yet to see anyone actually saying that ALL Bernie supporters are racists and sexists.
posted by palomar at 8:27 PM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by palomar at 8:27 PM on June 24, 2016 [14 favorites]
Mia Love is skipping the Republican convention to concentrate on getting re-elected in Utah:
posted by maudlin at 8:49 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Rep. Mia Love has decided to skip the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, giving up her delegate slot to focus on her re-election bid and to go on a congressional trip to Israel. She saw no benefit in attending the gathering where Donald Trump is expected to claim the party's presidential nomination. "I don't see any upsides to it," Love said Friday. "I don't see how this benefits the state."That seems like a pretty firm slam of the door.
posted by maudlin at 8:49 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
I've been saying that the Democrats should tie the policies that led to the Brexit to Trump and the Republicans so I'm delighted that Trump has saved them the trouble and just embraced the Brexit as an ideal thing to emulate.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:56 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:56 PM on June 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
The idea that Sanders will endorse if and only if Clinton goes for free tuition seems to be based solely on around thirty seconds of footage in this video. In that clip, he actually seems to begin by clarifying that he's not actually talking in terms of demands that must necessarily be met before he endorses, but rather things that are part of his negotiation with HRC and that he'd like her to adopt. That preface seems pretty important to me, but is elided in the written article under the clip.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:58 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 10:58 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
I miss liking Sanders.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:34 PM on June 24, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 11:34 PM on June 24, 2016 [23 favorites]
I don't think, in the year where governors are advocating for a Convention of States, that tying Trump to the Brexit is going to be super damaging to his potential constituency.
posted by corb at 11:44 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by corb at 11:44 PM on June 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't think, in the year where governors are advocating for a Convention of States, that tying Trump to the Brexit is going to be super damaging to his potential constituency.
I think when you can point to the immediately visible and quite obvious negative economic repercussions for people who are the British equivalent of that constituency, you may have some success. If not, then we might as well abandon all hope and watch out for dragons.
posted by bardophile at 11:53 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think when you can point to the immediately visible and quite obvious negative economic repercussions for people who are the British equivalent of that constituency, you may have some success. If not, then we might as well abandon all hope and watch out for dragons.
posted by bardophile at 11:53 PM on June 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's my point Bardophile. Thank you for stating it better than I!
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:16 AM on June 25, 2016
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:16 AM on June 25, 2016
Mod note: One deleted. If you have non-US election related questions or commentary about Brexit, please do that over here. Thanks!
posted by taz (staff) at 3:35 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 3:35 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Fiscal Times: An Anti-Trump Conservative Group Sharpens Its Shivs
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:16 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
However, according to the conservative website The Federalist, and an op-ed written by Better for America founder John Kingston III, there will be a third-party candidate and the announcement is coming soon. [snip][my bold] Let the speculations begin!
They wrote, “The group, comprised of religious leaders and political operatives, is in the process of selecting that candidate, and its chief strategist Joel Searby has confirmed that three recognizable names have already committed to run if asked. At an off-the-record dinner in New York City on Tuesday night, Better For America laid out its plan and the considerable talent and resources behind it.”
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:16 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:26 AM on June 25, 2016
posted by showbiz_liz at 6:26 AM on June 25, 2016
They seriously think that they can get a viable third-party campaign up and running in late June? The filing deadline for the November ballot is as early as July 15 in some states and you need 178,039 signitures just to get on the ballot in California. The time to think about a more viable candidate was this time last year.
posted by octothorpe at 6:33 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:33 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
NJ.Com: Former Gov. Tom Kean's advice to Trump: Don't pick Christie for vice president
Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!
But note that the group is described as "religious leaders and political operatives." I don't think they would chose a Mormon. I think they will go with someone who is a Bible thumper like Huckabee but not a loser like Huckabee or like Cruz for that matter. I would think they would avoid any of the people who ran in the Republican primaries this year.
They seriously think that they can get a viable third-party campaign up and running in late June? The filing deadline for the November ballot is as early as July 15 in some states and you need 178,039 signitures just to get on the ballot in California. The time to think about a more viable candidate was this time last year.
That was addressed in the article:
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:38 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Kean stressed that Trump needs to build a first-class team. He said Christie, who's Trump's transition chief, is "just one person" and cannot provide all of the needed counsel or expertise.So this boils down to "Yes, Trump has expressed some terrible things but if he changes his tone I will vote for him." I don't understand this. Trump says terrible things in large part because he believes terrible things so even if he stops saying outlandish things for the few months up to the election that doesn't guarantee that he won't go back to being "disagreeable" after the election.
"What any president needs to do is get the best people," Kean said. "He hasn't done that yet."
The former governor professed admiration for Trump's single-handed rout of a crowded GOP field, but said his tendency to speak outlandishly and disagreeably has thus far kept many top Republicans — including himself — from embracing the mogul and offering crucial support and advice. [snip]
"It's unlikely the GOP nominee is going to win New Jersey," said Kean. "But if Trump can carry New Jersey, he'll be the next President of the United States."
But what about Trump winning Tom Kean, Sr.'s vote? He says it's not out of the question.
"I have some strong disagreements with Donald Trump has said, but I will hope to support my party's nominee," Kean said. "I'll be waiting and watching."
Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!
But note that the group is described as "religious leaders and political operatives." I don't think they would chose a Mormon. I think they will go with someone who is a Bible thumper like Huckabee but not a loser like Huckabee or like Cruz for that matter. I would think they would avoid any of the people who ran in the Republican primaries this year.
They seriously think that they can get a viable third-party campaign up and running in late June? The filing deadline for the November ballot is as early as July 15 in some states and you need 178,039 signitures just to get on the ballot in California. The time to think about a more viable candidate was this time last year.
That was addressed in the article:
One of the most significant challenges to a third-party run will be getting a candidate on the ballot in the first place. Many states have strict rules about what a candidate must do to have his or her name appear on the ballot, and some have deadlines that have already passed.I think they are looking for a spoiler rather than a winner. They want someone who can bring Republicans who don't like Trump to the polls who will vote for down ballot races and spoil Trump's chances of winning. Better for them than telling anti-Trumpers to stay home or, worse, Vote for Clinton.
Mandel and Marcus, however, seem convinced that won’t be a problem either.
“This may sound a bit pie in the sky, but Better For America has already mobilized to establish access in the states with the earliest deadlines,” they write. “Should a compelling new candidate enter the race and show some legs, the group is ready to pounce on the opportunity to put him or her on the ballots.”
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:38 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think when you can point to the immediately visible and quite obvious negative economic repercussions for people who are the British equivalent of that constituency, you may have some success.
This assumes that facts matter to the Trump voter.
A Trump win will be like the Brexit result minus the wide-eyed "what have we done" responses from people who voted for Trump.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 6:43 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
This assumes that facts matter to the Trump voter.
A Trump win will be like the Brexit result minus the wide-eyed "what have we done" responses from people who voted for Trump.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 6:43 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
They seriously think that they can get a viable third-party campaign up and running in late June? The filing deadline for the November ballot is as early as July 15 in some states and you need 178,039 signitures just to get on the ballot in California.
But does a third-party conservative candidate even need to bother with getting on the ballot in California? Not like they'd be competitive there anyway, right?
Seems like the big hurdle would be Texas--whose deadline has passed already--but perhaps there's a minor party already on the ballot in Texas that could be convinced to play ball. Sounds like that may have been accounted for:
But does a third-party conservative candidate even need to bother with getting on the ballot in California? Not like they'd be competitive there anyway, right?
Seems like the big hurdle would be Texas--whose deadline has passed already--but perhaps there's a minor party already on the ballot in Texas that could be convinced to play ball. Sounds like that may have been accounted for:
“This may sound a bit pie in the sky, but Better For America has already mobilized to establish access in the states with the earliest deadlines,” they write. “Should a compelling new candidate enter the race and show some legs, the group is ready to pounce on the opportunity to put him or her on the ballots.”posted by dersins at 6:43 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
The lies Trump told this week: from his tax plan to the Iraq war
In the first of a regular series, the Guardian turns a spotlight on Donald Trump’s most outrageous claims and falsehoods
They fact check most of the usual stuff (how he started his business, if he opposed the war in Iraq, if Hillary Clinton is a liar, if America is "the highest-taxed nation in the world, etc.) I did like this tidbit, "Trump has a history of overstating his properties: he has, for instance, told the FEC that a New York golf club is worth $50m but also argued in court that it is worth only $1.4m." I remember reading in a recent article that he claimed his golf course in Scotland made millions in profits to one group and claimed it lost millions to another.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:48 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
In the first of a regular series, the Guardian turns a spotlight on Donald Trump’s most outrageous claims and falsehoods
They fact check most of the usual stuff (how he started his business, if he opposed the war in Iraq, if Hillary Clinton is a liar, if America is "the highest-taxed nation in the world, etc.) I did like this tidbit, "Trump has a history of overstating his properties: he has, for instance, told the FEC that a New York golf club is worth $50m but also argued in court that it is worth only $1.4m." I remember reading in a recent article that he claimed his golf course in Scotland made millions in profits to one group and claimed it lost millions to another.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:48 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think they are looking for a spoiler rather than a winner. They want someone who can bring Republicans who don't like Trump to the polls who will vote for down ballot races and spoil Trump's chances of winning. Better for them than telling anti-Trumpers to stay home or, worse, Vote for Clinton.I think the idea here is to concede that Clinton is going to win the presidency, but still figure out a way to get conservative voters to turn out in sufficient numbers to keep Congress and the state legislatures in Republican hands. Then they can spend four years obstructing every single thing that the Clinton administration tries to do, and then they can run a viable candidate for President in 2020.
I don't know if they're going to be able to stall on confirming a Supreme Court justice for 5 years, though.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:49 AM on June 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't know if they're going to be able to stall on confirming a Supreme Court justice for 5 years, though.
I got twenty bucks says they try.
Fuckheads.
posted by dersins at 6:52 AM on June 25, 2016 [14 favorites]
There are important questions about the legitimacy of the election results. As long as these questions remain, it wouldn't make sense to vote on any nominees.
posted by nom de poop at 7:00 AM on June 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by nom de poop at 7:00 AM on June 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Can Obama push a recess appointment in between the formation of the next Congress? I know that currently the Republicans never actually enter recess in order to block Recess appointments from happening but isn't there a formal end to the congressional calendar and I would assume that as long as Obama is in office during that period you could jam a recess appointment through.
posted by vuron at 7:24 AM on June 25, 2016
posted by vuron at 7:24 AM on June 25, 2016
Oh fuck fuck fuck I really hope people don't start falling for this. I'm seeing it shared all over Evangelical circles, and everyone loves a repentant sinner.
posted by corb at 7:40 AM on June 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by corb at 7:40 AM on June 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Do you think that Trump is capable of pulling off repentant sinner, though? I don't believe that repentance is in the Trump lexicon. I don't think that the man is capable of admitting he ever made a mistake, much less that he is reliant on grace to save him from his sinful nature.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:45 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:45 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't think he has to pull off repentant sinner. He just has to get just enough traction to make the Evangelical urban legend roster. I still personally know people who won't buy Procter & Gamble products or Liz Claiborne because they're Satanic. They believe Obama is a secret Muslim. All it takes is for a snake like Dobson to say he's a secret Christian (it would have to be a secret, see? It all goes into the persecution complex, because a "true Christian" can't get elected anymore, so Trump's deep undercover). They'll eat it up.
posted by chimaera at 8:13 AM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by chimaera at 8:13 AM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
There are important questions about the legitimacy of the election results. As long as these questions remain, it wouldn't make sense to vote on any nominees.
not sure if serious
posted by dersins at 8:20 AM on June 25, 2016
not sure if serious
posted by dersins at 8:20 AM on June 25, 2016
> I'm actually sort of getting the sense that Warren does want it, which is interesting, because I don't really think it's the right position for her.
I hope you're wrong, but I guess it wouldn't surprise me. Proximity to power really is a powerful drug; you get a whiff of the White House, and suddenly everything feels different.
posted by languagehat at 8:47 AM on June 25, 2016
I hope you're wrong, but I guess it wouldn't surprise me. Proximity to power really is a powerful drug; you get a whiff of the White House, and suddenly everything feels different.
posted by languagehat at 8:47 AM on June 25, 2016
At our house we are referring to him as "Ponald." ( Saul --> Paul)
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:53 AM on June 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:53 AM on June 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm warming to the idea of Elizabeth Warren as VP. Remember the heady days of the Clinton Gore team, Gore was to be more than just a funeral attending VP serving a more active role on policy. This very well may not have panned out, but what I've thought Obama could have used is a personal Whip, someone that could get get congressional backing and serve as an ear for both the president and leaders in the house and senate and also serve as a cheerleader getting the public educated about the agenda. Warren would be ideal for this role.
I think she's very persuasive, an LBJ for our times working with Hillary the policy wonk. Could work.
posted by readery at 9:04 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think she's very persuasive, an LBJ for our times working with Hillary the policy wonk. Could work.
posted by readery at 9:04 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
> I'm warming to the idea of Elizabeth Warren as VP.
You realize that puts another Republican in the Senate, right? Where she's currently doing a great job?
posted by languagehat at 9:06 AM on June 25, 2016
You realize that puts another Republican in the Senate, right? Where she's currently doing a great job?
posted by languagehat at 9:06 AM on June 25, 2016
I'm a soft member of team Senator Warren as opposed to VP Warren.
But, honestly, she and Hillary Clinton are both politically astute, wise and careful politicians and I trust them together to make the right decision about Warren as VP.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:09 AM on June 25, 2016 [9 favorites]
But, honestly, she and Hillary Clinton are both politically astute, wise and careful politicians and I trust them together to make the right decision about Warren as VP.
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:09 AM on June 25, 2016 [9 favorites]
Looks like the Sanders delegates' proposals on the environment, TPP, and Palestine didn't make it into the Democratic Party platform.
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:11 AM on June 25, 2016
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 9:11 AM on June 25, 2016
I remember reading in a recent article that he claimed his golf course in Scotland made millions in profits to one group and claimed it lost millions to another.
Could be this article:
posted by peeedro at 9:22 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Could be this article:
In financial disclosures required for his presidential bid, Trump claimed income of $20.3 million from Trump Turnberry, a course he bought for about 41 million pounds ($58 million) in 2014. Yet the accounts for Golf Recreation Scotland, which owns the course, show a loss of 3.6 million pounds for 2014.And that's why he can't release his tax returns, because they will have another set of numbers made-up to reduce his tax liability.
There’s a similar discrepancy with the accounts for two other golf courses. Trump claimed income of $4.3 million from Trump International Golf Links Scotland -- the course he built from scratch north of Aberdeen -- yet accounts filed with Companies House show it lost £1.1 million in 2014, its third consecutive annual loss.
In Ireland, Trump reported $10.7 million in income from Trump International Golf Links Ireland. The course, which he bought in February 2014, reported a loss of 2.5 million euros in 2014.
Trump said in the interview that the amounts listed in his financial disclosures are based on "projected future income."
posted by peeedro at 9:22 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
corb: Oh fuck fuck fuck I really hope people don't start falling for this. I'm seeing it shared all over Evangelical circles, and everyone loves a repentant sinner.
Poe's Law strikes in the comment section:
posted by clawsoon at 9:41 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Poe's Law strikes in the comment section:
He must not have done anything really bad because GOD has been very good to him and his family.That's great sarcasm! I... think?
posted by clawsoon at 9:41 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
nope I don't think it is sarcasm
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:47 AM on June 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:47 AM on June 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Reuters' new poll (June 20-24): HRC over Uncooked Pastry 46.6-33.3
posted by saturday_morning at 10:02 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by saturday_morning at 10:02 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Looks like the Sanders delegates' proposals on the environment, TPP, and Palestine didn't make it into the Democratic Party platform.
I would be interested to see some actual journalism about this. I trust USUNCUT's "reporting" to be accurate, unbiased, and non-directive about as much as I trust RedState's.
posted by dersins at 10:03 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would be interested to see some actual journalism about this. I trust USUNCUT's "reporting" to be accurate, unbiased, and non-directive about as much as I trust RedState's.
posted by dersins at 10:03 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
These are excerpts of two emails I've received from both Democratic campaigns verbatim.
Bernie:
posted by Talez at 10:08 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bernie:
Split a contribution between our campaign and these two great progressive members of Congress and we will have the resources to continue our political revolution while providing critical support to the kind of leaders we need in Congress.Hillary:
Chip in $8 to stand with Hillary and Democrats down the ticket -- and be automatically entered to meet her at a performance of Hamilton:The difference speaks for itself.
posted by Talez at 10:08 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Could be this article:
Yes. Thanks, peeedro. I've read so much about Trump in the past few weeks that all of the articles have started to blur together. Which makes it doubly amazing to me that he can keep all of his lies straight. He sure does live a complicated life.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:14 AM on June 25, 2016
Yes. Thanks, peeedro. I've read so much about Trump in the past few weeks that all of the articles have started to blur together. Which makes it doubly amazing to me that he can keep all of his lies straight. He sure does live a complicated life.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:14 AM on June 25, 2016
these two great progressive members of Congress
Who are they, Talez?
posted by dersins at 10:15 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who are they, Talez?
posted by dersins at 10:15 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I trust USUNCUT's "reporting" to be accurate, unbiased, and non-directive about as much as I trust RedState's.
For real. USUNCUT has its niche but its not anything I would consider news.
Of course I'm not immune to leavening the information I receive with my own preexisting paranoias. That latest Reuters poll is reassuring, but post-Brexit, I'll be assuming Trump has ~5% extra support from that most cowardly class of voter - the ones who intend to cast a regressive vote but lie about it all the way to the booth.
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:18 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
For real. USUNCUT has its niche but its not anything I would consider news.
Of course I'm not immune to leavening the information I receive with my own preexisting paranoias. That latest Reuters poll is reassuring, but post-Brexit, I'll be assuming Trump has ~5% extra support from that most cowardly class of voter - the ones who intend to cast a regressive vote but lie about it all the way to the booth.
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:18 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's been pathetic watching Jill Stein on Twitter trying to me-too her way into relevance on Sanders' coattails, but that fractally wrong pro-Brexit post is just the worst.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:22 AM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:22 AM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
Many experienced GOP strategists unwilling to work for Trump
posted by octothorpe at 10:26 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 10:26 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yep getting a chance to go to Hamilton with Hillary would be beyond fucking awesome. Sanders has nothing to compare to that.
Yeah I could see giving him money if I thought there would be a possibility he would deliver but he seems completely willing to backtrack on all sorts of things.
posted by vuron at 10:29 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Yeah I could see giving him money if I thought there would be a possibility he would deliver but he seems completely willing to backtrack on all sorts of things.
posted by vuron at 10:29 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
What does the difference speak to you, Talez? To me, it's not obvious at all what your take on those two emails is.
posted by defenestration at 10:55 AM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 10:55 AM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
I would be interested to see some actual journalism about this
Perhaps you would prefer CBS / AP?
Perhaps you would prefer CBS / AP?
Democrats on Friday voted down an amendment to the party's platform that would have opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, avoiding an awkward scenario that would have put its statement of values at odds with President Barack Obama.posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 10:57 AM on June 25, 2016
Members of a Democratic National Convention drafting committee defeated a proposal led by Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota, that would have added language rejecting the Pacific Rim trade pact, which has been opposed by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
...
Working into the evening, the panel narrowly rejected amendments offered by environmentalist Bill McKibben, a Sanders supporter, that would have imposed a tax on carbon and imposed a national moratorium on fracking.
A final discussion centered on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The committee defeated an amendment by Sanders supporter James Zogby that would have called for providing Palestinians with "an end to occupation and illegal settlements" and urged an international effort to rebuild Gaza. Zogby said Sanders helped craft the language.
Sometimes the most effective fundraising and messaging strategies are not the ones we wish they were. Even so, efficacy is all.
posted by Miko at 10:57 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 10:57 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
If it's that one has a raffle for a meet and greet at an event a lot of people are interested in, big fucking deal. It's a tried and true fundraising technique and personally I see nothing unethical or weird about it. In my opinion, it's also a lot more honest than promising your dollars will lead to revolution.
posted by defenestration at 11:02 AM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 11:02 AM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
Perhaps you would prefer CBS / AP?
I would, thank you. I generally prefer my fact:agenda ratio a little higher than USUNCUT seems willing to provide most of the time.
posted by dersins at 11:09 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
I would, thank you. I generally prefer my fact:agenda ratio a little higher than USUNCUT seems willing to provide most of the time.
posted by dersins at 11:09 AM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
What does the difference speak to you, Talez? To me, it's not obvious at all what your take on those two emails is.
Bernie is supporting two tickets on his "side". Hillary is raising money that's going to be split with the entire party. There's something like 40 states worth of DNC that have teamed up with her. She's supporting the party as a (almost) whole. Bernie is out to raise money only for himself.
posted by Talez at 11:14 AM on June 25, 2016 [12 favorites]
Bernie is supporting two tickets on his "side". Hillary is raising money that's going to be split with the entire party. There's something like 40 states worth of DNC that have teamed up with her. She's supporting the party as a (almost) whole. Bernie is out to raise money only for himself.
posted by Talez at 11:14 AM on June 25, 2016 [12 favorites]
Bernie is supporting two tickets on his "side".
Out of curiosity, which two?
posted by dersins at 11:15 AM on June 25, 2016
Out of curiosity, which two?
posted by dersins at 11:15 AM on June 25, 2016
Thank you for clarifying, Talez. I would not have guessed that you were pointing that out in a million years.
posted by defenestration at 11:15 AM on June 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 11:15 AM on June 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hamilton with HRC would be an amazing night. Hamilton with Bernie would be an amazing night. I really want to see Hamilton.
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:18 AM on June 25, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:18 AM on June 25, 2016 [18 favorites]
Me too, EatTheWeak. Me too.
posted by defenestration at 11:19 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by defenestration at 11:19 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think seeing Hamilton with Sanders would go a long way towards healing the rift between us.
posted by Superplin at 11:19 AM on June 25, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 11:19 AM on June 25, 2016 [9 favorites]
Imagine going to it with both of them and then going for a slice of pie and coffee after and talking about which songs you all liked the best oh my god, oh my god I want that.
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:21 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:21 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
The question is: are you desperate enough to see Hamilton that you would voluntarily see it with Trump?
posted by jackbishop at 11:22 AM on June 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by jackbishop at 11:22 AM on June 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump would be bored out of his mind and profoundly uncomfortable.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:24 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:24 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
He'd talk through the whole thing and be a complete pain in the ass to drag back in after intermission. No thank you.
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:24 AM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:24 AM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
I saw Cirque du Soleil with the Clintons, sorta. Back in 1992ish, before the show every when the house lights were still on, the whole tent stood up and applauded. I asked the woman next to me what was going on and she pointed to Bill, Hillary and Chelsea being led to their seats. They sat up front, I was in the cheap seats so they were way far away. Bill and Hillary waved to the house and sat down, the lights went off and the show began.
posted by peeedro at 11:26 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 11:26 AM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Out of curiosity, which two?
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur and Congressman Rick Nolan.
posted by Talez at 11:28 AM on June 25, 2016
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur and Congressman Rick Nolan.
posted by Talez at 11:28 AM on June 25, 2016
Marcy Katpur, the "progressive" anti-abortion congressperson who thinks Trump is a Clinton plant? Blegh.
posted by msalt at 11:32 AM on June 25, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by msalt at 11:32 AM on June 25, 2016 [15 favorites]
10 Politicians Who Can Come to Hamilton With Me and Hang Out After If They Want
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. Bernie Sanders
4. Lindsey Graham (2016 IDGAF version only)
5. Elizabeth Warren
6. Eleanor Holmes Norton
7. Barney Frank
8. Al Franken
9. Bill Richardson
10. Anthony Weiner (he has to leave his phone at home though)
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:33 AM on June 25, 2016 [16 favorites]
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. Bernie Sanders
4. Lindsey Graham (2016 IDGAF version only)
5. Elizabeth Warren
6. Eleanor Holmes Norton
7. Barney Frank
8. Al Franken
9. Bill Richardson
10. Anthony Weiner (he has to leave his phone at home though)
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:33 AM on June 25, 2016 [16 favorites]
Hamilton with Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, and Michelle Obama is now my personal political fantasy happy place. This is the image I'll summon when election panic threatens to overtake me.
posted by Superplin at 11:38 AM on June 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 11:38 AM on June 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
Is it fucked up that I'm a little teary eyed about this idea?
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:39 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:39 AM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hamilton with Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, and Michelle Obama
Werk!
posted by TwoStride at 11:41 AM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
Werk!
posted by TwoStride at 11:41 AM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
It has to be Hamilton, though? There's no room in a modern campaign for Death Race 2000 or Basket Case?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:49 AM on June 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:49 AM on June 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
Michelle, Hillary and Elizabeth doing the Schyler Sisters would indeed be awesome. I could support it even though it might be seen as white washing the cast.
So Trump as Burr?
"Trump you disgust me.
So you've discussed me"
posted by vuron at 11:50 AM on June 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
So Trump as Burr?
"Trump you disgust me.
So you've discussed me"
posted by vuron at 11:50 AM on June 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
I have tickets for Hamilton in Chicago this fall and will bring Bernie if he lightens up a bit
posted by readery at 11:52 AM on June 25, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by readery at 11:52 AM on June 25, 2016 [9 favorites]
It has to be Hamilton, though? There's no room in a modern campaign for Death Race 2000 or Basket Case?
In this comforting fantasy, I would say any show is a valid choice to build it around. My list might change depending on what we're watching, though.
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:52 AM on June 25, 2016
In this comforting fantasy, I would say any show is a valid choice to build it around. My list might change depending on what we're watching, though.
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:52 AM on June 25, 2016
Hamilton with Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, and Michelle Obama
Dear Santa,
I know it's only June, but I promise I've been a good girl so far this year....
posted by Salieri at 11:55 AM on June 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Dear Santa,
I know it's only June, but I promise I've been a good girl so far this year....
posted by Salieri at 11:55 AM on June 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
For serious if I ever ran I would have a raffle where the winners would get to watch Zardoz and Saturn 3 with me while we eat waaaaaaay too many hot wings and then argue about how large or small the cores of actually good movie inside them are and then they will have a wrong opinion and I will look them right in their dead eyes and tell that this is why we can't be friends and storm away cursing but really it would just be to leave them alone with the last few hot wings so they can finish gorging without the shame.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:56 AM on June 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:56 AM on June 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
I remember reading in a recent article that he claimed his golf course in Scotland made millions in profits to one group and claimed it lost millions to another.
I think someone mentioned it in an early election thread, but Slate has a Trump-focused podcast and I've been consuming the back episodes like candy. Highly recommended. One episode has Tim O'Brian on (the guy who wrote a book about Trump and got sued for $5 billion for it) and he goes into detail on Trump's various and inconsistent statements about his wealth.
posted by aka burlap at 12:01 PM on June 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think someone mentioned it in an early election thread, but Slate has a Trump-focused podcast and I've been consuming the back episodes like candy. Highly recommended. One episode has Tim O'Brian on (the guy who wrote a book about Trump and got sued for $5 billion for it) and he goes into detail on Trump's various and inconsistent statements about his wealth.
posted by aka burlap at 12:01 PM on June 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur and Congressman Rick Nolan.
Nolan's district may be competitive, but Kaptur has been in congress for more than 30 years and won her last two elections by 50-some and 30-some points. It seems kind of insane for Sanders to be fundraising for her instead of someone who might actually, y'know, need the money, whether to keep their own seat or win a new one.
(And that's leaving aside the questionable strategic merit of suggesting that people spend money on his own moribund candidacy in a race which he has unquestionably lost but obstinately refuses to formally concede.)
posted by dersins at 12:25 PM on June 25, 2016 [13 favorites]
Nolan's district may be competitive, but Kaptur has been in congress for more than 30 years and won her last two elections by 50-some and 30-some points. It seems kind of insane for Sanders to be fundraising for her instead of someone who might actually, y'know, need the money, whether to keep their own seat or win a new one.
(And that's leaving aside the questionable strategic merit of suggesting that people spend money on his own moribund candidacy in a race which he has unquestionably lost but obstinately refuses to formally concede.)
posted by dersins at 12:25 PM on June 25, 2016 [13 favorites]
not sure if serious
Kinda yes kinda no. After Hillary wins there's probably going to be some kind of denial backlash, right? The urge to reject reality will be very strong. The GOP is leaderless now, they don't have anyone who can calm the base and concede gracefully.
I don't really think the GOP is organized enough to coordinate it, but if some kind of voting incident falls in their lap, I can see them going all bananacakes. It would bring the asshole Trump supporters back, it'll be just like old times doing everything they can to bring down a Clinton presidency. They'll want to get back at the Dems for the congressional sit-in, too. One congressman shouting "You lie!" is just a warmup. It'll be like Birtherism but official.
Maybe they'll make election reform a huge important issue. That'll distract the public because voting reform is something everyone wants, and everyone has their pet dumb ideas about. Every time the GOP emphasizes "This is an issue whose time has come," is another little chip at the legitimacy of Clinton's victory.
I don't really think it will go that far, but the GOP is so out of control and irresponsible...
posted by nom de poop at 12:43 PM on June 25, 2016
Kinda yes kinda no. After Hillary wins there's probably going to be some kind of denial backlash, right? The urge to reject reality will be very strong. The GOP is leaderless now, they don't have anyone who can calm the base and concede gracefully.
I don't really think the GOP is organized enough to coordinate it, but if some kind of voting incident falls in their lap, I can see them going all bananacakes. It would bring the asshole Trump supporters back, it'll be just like old times doing everything they can to bring down a Clinton presidency. They'll want to get back at the Dems for the congressional sit-in, too. One congressman shouting "You lie!" is just a warmup. It'll be like Birtherism but official.
Maybe they'll make election reform a huge important issue. That'll distract the public because voting reform is something everyone wants, and everyone has their pet dumb ideas about. Every time the GOP emphasizes "This is an issue whose time has come," is another little chip at the legitimacy of Clinton's victory.
I don't really think it will go that far, but the GOP is so out of control and irresponsible...
posted by nom de poop at 12:43 PM on June 25, 2016
I'm pretty sure the resale value of Hamilton tickets are high enough that bringing Sanders along would constitute a bribe or at least put you over your legal giving limit to a single candidate.
Plus do we really know that Sanders would be a decent person to take to Hamilton because might just tslk about class struggle and miss the other narratives
posted by vuron at 1:18 PM on June 25, 2016
Plus do we really know that Sanders would be a decent person to take to Hamilton because might just tslk about class struggle and miss the other narratives
posted by vuron at 1:18 PM on June 25, 2016
Also, I have a lot of opinions about all the missed opportunities to insert Biggie lyrical references in 'Ten Duel Commandments' that would be completely lost on him.
posted by box at 1:21 PM on June 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 1:21 PM on June 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
4. Lindsey Graham (2016 IDGAF version only)
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
posted by wallabear at 1:41 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
posted by wallabear at 1:41 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Michelle, Hillary and Elizabeth doing the Schyler Sisters would indeed be awesome.
Michelle would be "Peggy," I think. I don't know what I'd even say if I met the actress who plays that character. "Oh. Well, awesome you're in the hottest play rigfht now anyway, eh?!"
posted by msalt at 1:42 PM on June 25, 2016
Michelle would be "Peggy," I think. I don't know what I'd even say if I met the actress who plays that character. "Oh. Well, awesome you're in the hottest play rigfht now anyway, eh?!"
posted by msalt at 1:42 PM on June 25, 2016
Peggy is one of several roles that is double-cast. The same actress plays Maria Reynolds in Act II.</derail>
posted by mbrubeck at 1:46 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mbrubeck at 1:46 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Jasmine Cephas Jones plays both Peggy and Maria Reynolds. She's fabulous.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:46 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:46 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
He'd talk through the whole thing and be a complete pain in the ass to drag back in after intermission.
Why would you drag him back IN?!? Leave him outside the theater and go enjoy the second half without him.
posted by Anonymous at 2:38 PM on June 25, 2016
Why would you drag him back IN?!? Leave him outside the theater and go enjoy the second half without him.
posted by Anonymous at 2:38 PM on June 25, 2016
Why would you drag him back IN?!?
I don't think I'd want to pass up even a single opportunity to watch Trump struggling desperately to applaud as if he had real, actual big boy hands.
posted by dersins at 3:01 PM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
I don't think I'd want to pass up even a single opportunity to watch Trump struggling desperately to applaud as if he had real, actual big boy hands.
posted by dersins at 3:01 PM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
Now that the primary season is over I'm jonesing for news. Hurry up, conventions!
I'm really looking forward to the debates. They are either going to be riveting or the most ridiculous un-presidential clusterfuck ever. Possibly both.
posted by Justinian at 3:11 PM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm really looking forward to the debates. They are either going to be riveting or the most ridiculous un-presidential clusterfuck ever. Possibly both.
posted by Justinian at 3:11 PM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
I would say I'm happy for the lull between storms and eager to catch my breath before the conventions, but Brexit appears to have stepped in to fill that gap and make sure I keep huffing and puffing. Sigh.
posted by Superplin at 3:21 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Superplin at 3:21 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
George Will says he has left the Republican Party because of Trump.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:26 PM on June 25, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:26 PM on June 25, 2016 [13 favorites]
It's kind of fun to see George Will and David Brooks clutching their pearls about Trump when they've largely been willing to ignore all sorts of Republican malfeasance in previous years.
I guess that somehow being seen as Pro-Trump is hurting their brands or maybe they are not getting invited to the same parties anymore because they are contaminated by Trump cooties.
posted by vuron at 3:37 PM on June 25, 2016 [11 favorites]
I guess that somehow being seen as Pro-Trump is hurting their brands or maybe they are not getting invited to the same parties anymore because they are contaminated by Trump cooties.
posted by vuron at 3:37 PM on June 25, 2016 [11 favorites]
Bernie is supporting two tickets on his "side". Hillary is raising money that's going to be split with the entire party. There's something like 40 states worth of DNC that have teamed up with her. She's supporting the party as a (almost) whole. Bernie is out to raise money only for himself.
Your email was for Kaptur and Nolan, but I received an email from the Sanders campaign today to make calls for Zephyr Teachout and Eric Kingson (both running for congress in New York) using their dialer system. There wasn't even a request for splitting a donation. I am guessing the emails are geo-targeted and should not be construed as him only raising money for himself or just a few other politicians. He is genuinely trying to support many Democrats down the ballot.
posted by upplepop at 3:53 PM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Your email was for Kaptur and Nolan, but I received an email from the Sanders campaign today to make calls for Zephyr Teachout and Eric Kingson (both running for congress in New York) using their dialer system. There wasn't even a request for splitting a donation. I am guessing the emails are geo-targeted and should not be construed as him only raising money for himself or just a few other politicians. He is genuinely trying to support many Democrats down the ballot.
posted by upplepop at 3:53 PM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Brooks and Will (and others) have been working diligently for years trying to convince us that the Republican party isn't a bunch of know-nothing racist, sexist homophobes but I guess that they've realized that there isn't anything that you can say to paper over the idiocy of Trump. I'm not sure if we should welcome them or point and laugh.
posted by octothorpe at 3:53 PM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 3:53 PM on June 25, 2016 [8 favorites]
I vote for Point and Laugh.
posted by wallabear at 4:01 PM on June 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by wallabear at 4:01 PM on June 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
Trump: Texas won't secede because 'Texas loves me'
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:12 PM on June 25, 2016
Trump: Texas won't secede because 'Texas loves me'
A win-win scenario comes to mind.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:14 PM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
A win-win scenario comes to mind.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:14 PM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
John Oliver’s popular “Make Donald Drumpf Again” segment helped Last Week Tonight sell more than 50,000 Drumpf hats.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:18 PM on June 25, 2016
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:18 PM on June 25, 2016
Your email was for Kaptur and Nolan, but I received an email from the Sanders campaign today to make calls for Zephyr Teachout and Eric Kingson (both running for congress in New York) using their dialer system. There wasn't even a request for splitting a donation. I am guessing the emails are geo-targeted and should not be construed as him only raising money for himself or just a few other politicians. He is genuinely trying to support many Democrats down the ballot.
I'm in MA, nowhere near Ohio or Minnesota.
posted by Talez at 4:25 PM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm in MA, nowhere near Ohio or Minnesota.
posted by Talez at 4:25 PM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump: Texas won't secede because 'Texas loves me'
But I don't love him and I don't want to secede. :(
I feel like this sentence can be put in the dictionary next to "non sequitur".
posted by Salieri at 4:29 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
But I don't love him and I don't want to secede. :(
I feel like this sentence can be put in the dictionary next to "non sequitur".
posted by Salieri at 4:29 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
is he scrunching up his face like he's trying not to cry but crying anyway please tell me he's scrunching up his face like he's trying not to cry but crying anyway
posted by dersins at 5:07 PM on June 25, 2016
posted by dersins at 5:07 PM on June 25, 2016
I would prefer Odom to deliver the beat down because it would be awesome having Burr call Trump out for being a craven opportunist.
posted by vuron at 5:13 PM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by vuron at 5:13 PM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
> I'm not sure if we should welcome them or point and laugh.
I choose the latter! Seriously, does anyone here want to hang out with those guys?
posted by languagehat at 5:15 PM on June 25, 2016
I choose the latter! Seriously, does anyone here want to hang out with those guys?
posted by languagehat at 5:15 PM on June 25, 2016
Well, how about these guys ?
posted by y2karl at 5:43 PM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
The next generation of industrial titans do not appear to have much confidence that Republicans are the political party that’s good for business. The tech elite are almost exclusively backing Democrats this election cycle: Tesla’s Elon Musk donated to Hillary Clinton; Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg gave handsomely to the San Francisco Democratic Party organization; Microsoft’s Bill Gates gave to three Democratic congressmen.Tech billionaires like Democrats more than Republicans. Here’s why.
Donald Trump is accelerating this shift, as even one of the big conservative tech investors, Marc Andreessen, pledged “#ImWithHer” (Hillary Clinton) on Twitter the night Trump become the presumptive Republican nominee earlier this month.
Without historical data, it might be tempting to blame this on the 2016 election madness...
posted by y2karl at 5:43 PM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Geez you guys. This ain't tiddliwinks. There are real stakes here. Of course we welcome Republicans against Trump. How is the enjoyment you get from laughing remotely worth the risk of intimidating people into supporting Trump rather than be mocked (or be associated with people who are being mocked.) Don't you want to win?
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:47 PM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by OnceUponATime at 5:47 PM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
Don't you want to win?
the working model i have for understanding people here is that, above all, they want to be part of a group of like-minded people. i think if you look at things like that (in-group signalling yadda yadda) then mefi politics discussions make a lot more sense than trying to square how people behave with wanting to win.
hence it's more often about laughing at people, calling people names, differentiating from the other: Seriously, does anyone here want to hang out with those guys?; joined by the whole cast and it is glorious and the audience turns on Trump; Point and Laugh; etc etc ad infinitum.
posted by andrewcooke at 5:55 PM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
the working model i have for understanding people here is that, above all, they want to be part of a group of like-minded people. i think if you look at things like that (in-group signalling yadda yadda) then mefi politics discussions make a lot more sense than trying to square how people behave with wanting to win.
hence it's more often about laughing at people, calling people names, differentiating from the other: Seriously, does anyone here want to hang out with those guys?; joined by the whole cast and it is glorious and the audience turns on Trump; Point and Laugh; etc etc ad infinitum.
posted by andrewcooke at 5:55 PM on June 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you scratch out the word "here" in your first sentence I think you have a good working model for everyone, everywhere.
posted by Justinian at 6:04 PM on June 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 6:04 PM on June 25, 2016 [7 favorites]
the working model i have for understanding people here is that, above all, they want to be part of a group of like-minded people.
So, those snowflakes aren't special after all ? OMG!!!
posted by y2karl at 6:05 PM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
So, those snowflakes aren't special after all ? OMG!!!
posted by y2karl at 6:05 PM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Grew up in a seriously Republican household (mother a Republican Womens Group member, father a Southern Strategy-won bigot), and I've been alternating for many years between 'pointing and laughing' and 'pointing and crying'.
Yes, I want to win, but not just in 2016, and not just the Presidency. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to make America and the World better, and the people working hardest are trying to do the opposite.
Per y2karl's link, "as much as Republicans, the Democrats are now also the party of billionaires". But many of the 'tech billionaires' are not so much moving leftward as finding Democratic positions that are advantageous to them: "The CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, has publicly stated that he’s a fan of Obamacare, since it helps his entrepreneurial drivers keep their health insurance as they transition between jobs." Any program that keeps them from paying for benefits for employees is okay for them... as long as it doesn't raise THEIR taxes. Meanwhile, "early Facebook investor Peter Thie... now backs Trump" and expects his pal the President to help him mount a Facebook coup over Zuckerberg (while Trump forces Bezos to sell the Washington Post to NewsCorp).
above all, they want to be part of a group of like-minded people
It's been a long time since I came to the realization that there aren'tmanyany 'like-minded people' like me. I'm a weirdo, and I'm happy to be here in a place where I am not automatically shunned/unfollowed when I make one of my not-way-out-in-left-field-but-way-past-the-fowl-ball-line-up-in-the-cheap-seats comments. (Although occasionally deleted, mostly for my own good). I am NOT a Special Snowflake, I am a Happy Hailstone.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:07 PM on June 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yes, I want to win, but not just in 2016, and not just the Presidency. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to make America and the World better, and the people working hardest are trying to do the opposite.
Per y2karl's link, "as much as Republicans, the Democrats are now also the party of billionaires". But many of the 'tech billionaires' are not so much moving leftward as finding Democratic positions that are advantageous to them: "The CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick, has publicly stated that he’s a fan of Obamacare, since it helps his entrepreneurial drivers keep their health insurance as they transition between jobs." Any program that keeps them from paying for benefits for employees is okay for them... as long as it doesn't raise THEIR taxes. Meanwhile, "early Facebook investor Peter Thie... now backs Trump" and expects his pal the President to help him mount a Facebook coup over Zuckerberg (while Trump forces Bezos to sell the Washington Post to NewsCorp).
above all, they want to be part of a group of like-minded people
It's been a long time since I came to the realization that there aren't
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:07 PM on June 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
In re Garrison Keillor:
I for one, will miss him after his last show, which is the weekend after next, I believe...
Turned out to be today -- I'm so glad I listened because I would have missed hearing the 17 minute sing along encore live and getting to sing along. Not my usual thing but considering the occasion...
posted by y2karl at 7:41 PM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I for one, will miss him after his last show, which is the weekend after next, I believe...
Turned out to be today -- I'm so glad I listened because I would have missed hearing the 17 minute sing along encore live and getting to sing along. Not my usual thing but considering the occasion...
posted by y2karl at 7:41 PM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
"...since it helps his entrepreneurial drivers keep their health insurance as they transition between jobs."
I did notice that & billionaires gonna billionaire and all that but still you got Zuckerburg and Gates, who are less evil than some. Seattleite that I am, Paul Allen comes to mind in that regard.
posted by y2karl at 7:47 PM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I did notice that & billionaires gonna billionaire and all that but still you got Zuckerburg and Gates, who are less evil than some. Seattleite that I am, Paul Allen comes to mind in that regard.
posted by y2karl at 7:47 PM on June 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
So my parents are off the Trump train, but still hate HRC. My mom is thinking of abstaining from voting, but actually said to me, "Well, how bad could Trump be?" To which I replied, "Ask the people of Scotland." And she laughed for a really long time. So I thank ye, Scots, for yer colorful language because those Facebook memes are chipping away the appeal. (We then proceeded to have a long conversation about why, even though "both are bad," Clinton is better and I made shameless appeals to my teenage daughter's future. I'mma sway her by November, I will.)
posted by Ruki at 7:59 PM on June 25, 2016 [26 favorites]
posted by Ruki at 7:59 PM on June 25, 2016 [26 favorites]
The tech billionaires understand that their future is built on a well educated workforce and they've just about maxed out how much they can use the H-1B program to bring in foreign talent and while you can send programming jobs to India and other emerging markets there is a challenge to coordinating geographically diverse workplaces when you are basically also trying to adopt extremely nimble management and operational practices.
Ignoring the disruptors who benefit from ACA Tech companies can see value in reforms like ACA because even though they are expected to provide decent benefits like health insurance ACA has been able to substantially slow down cost growth in the health care industry which has typically been one of the biggest pressures on employers.
Yes some percentage of those savings probably comes back to shareholders in the form of increased profits but it should also lead to increased wage growth as less of the productivity gains are directed at inflationary pressures related to employee benefits but also employee base compensation.
Furthermore Democrats have also shown to be much better stewards of the economic health of the US. Yes billionaires might like a decrease in the tax rate but they also like financial stability and the continual shenanigans with the national debt limit simply indicate that a sizable number of Republicans are willing to take the US economy hostage and that is bad for business.
posted by vuron at 8:51 PM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
Ignoring the disruptors who benefit from ACA Tech companies can see value in reforms like ACA because even though they are expected to provide decent benefits like health insurance ACA has been able to substantially slow down cost growth in the health care industry which has typically been one of the biggest pressures on employers.
Yes some percentage of those savings probably comes back to shareholders in the form of increased profits but it should also lead to increased wage growth as less of the productivity gains are directed at inflationary pressures related to employee benefits but also employee base compensation.
Furthermore Democrats have also shown to be much better stewards of the economic health of the US. Yes billionaires might like a decrease in the tax rate but they also like financial stability and the continual shenanigans with the national debt limit simply indicate that a sizable number of Republicans are willing to take the US economy hostage and that is bad for business.
posted by vuron at 8:51 PM on June 25, 2016 [10 favorites]
...and most REAL billionaires are more concerned about other people than Fake Billionaire Donald Trump.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:53 PM on June 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:53 PM on June 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
MetaFilter: I am NOT a Special Snowflake, I am a Happy Hailstone.
posted by homunculus at 9:56 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 9:56 PM on June 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm really trying not to focus on individual polls but this one from ABC News/Washington Post is the first one showing Clinton over the 50% mark. 51% to 39% (+-4%) to be exact. That seems like a milestone.
posted by octothorpe at 6:19 AM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:19 AM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
According to the Washington Posts's analysis of the poll, the reason for the jump is that Bernie supporters are now saying they support Hillary. Last month, 20% of Bernie supporters said they would vote for Trump. This month, that's down to 8%.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:59 AM on June 26, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:59 AM on June 26, 2016 [12 favorites]
So long, #BernieOrBust, we hardly knew ye.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:01 AM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 7:01 AM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
That poll is good news for Clinton, but those are big error bars, and there's a long way until November--no complacency.
How the fallout on Brexit and Clinton's and Trump's responses to it will play out will be interesting. My feeling is that Clinton will benefit.
The Republican Convention could be a real mess, and Trump's VP pick will be a defining moment for him. These events are likely favor Clinton a lot, too.
What a crazy, crazy year...
posted by haiku warrior at 7:12 AM on June 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
How the fallout on Brexit and Clinton's and Trump's responses to it will play out will be interesting. My feeling is that Clinton will benefit.
The Republican Convention could be a real mess, and Trump's VP pick will be a defining moment for him. These events are likely favor Clinton a lot, too.
What a crazy, crazy year...
posted by haiku warrior at 7:12 AM on June 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
So, I'm seeing a meme and some stories going around on Facebook, about how Clinton supporters/the DNC establishment approved a platform that is anti-progressive, and Cornel West (self-righteous attention whore) is modeling the power of abstention--a pretty clear and potentially dangerous message to voters.
That seems to be the dominant media narrative, too, with varying degrees of shrillness and emphasis on the Cornel West bit, depending on the leanings of the media outlet.
I can't seem to find any solid information about the platform voting process. Anyone have any authoritative sources to find out more about what actually took place, and where the platform stands? This is mostly for my own edification, although if I can link to facts that might help stem the tide of "stay true to your principles and withhold your vote" posts, that'd be super.
posted by Superplin at 7:49 AM on June 26, 2016
That seems to be the dominant media narrative, too, with varying degrees of shrillness and emphasis on the Cornel West bit, depending on the leanings of the media outlet.
I can't seem to find any solid information about the platform voting process. Anyone have any authoritative sources to find out more about what actually took place, and where the platform stands? This is mostly for my own edification, although if I can link to facts that might help stem the tide of "stay true to your principles and withhold your vote" posts, that'd be super.
posted by Superplin at 7:49 AM on June 26, 2016
From Slate's Political Gabfest podcast, with Jamelle Bouie, Adam Davidson, and Rachel Martin this week.
From Adam Davidson re:Trump
There is a very real chance based on the data we have that he inherited something close to $200,000,000.00 and he is now worth something less than that...
...there is a decent chance that this is not a business man but a wealthy hobbiest, this is someone who has consistently lost money over the course of his career and his hobby is projecting his deranged psychosis on the American people, and that is important, it speaks to his very credibility. If we found out that Hillary Clinton never really went to the Secretary of State's office, that would be an important thing to know...
poor Rachel Martin, trying to do all the NPR false equivalencies on an opinion show
posted by readery at 8:17 AM on June 26, 2016 [8 favorites]
From Adam Davidson re:Trump
There is a very real chance based on the data we have that he inherited something close to $200,000,000.00 and he is now worth something less than that...
...there is a decent chance that this is not a business man but a wealthy hobbiest, this is someone who has consistently lost money over the course of his career and his hobby is projecting his deranged psychosis on the American people, and that is important, it speaks to his very credibility. If we found out that Hillary Clinton never really went to the Secretary of State's office, that would be an important thing to know...
poor Rachel Martin, trying to do all the NPR false equivalencies on an opinion show
posted by readery at 8:17 AM on June 26, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's been a long time since I came to the realization that there aren't many any 'like-minded people' like me. I'm a weirdo...
Excusez-moi, but the one-of-a-kind first adopter unique individual is the Special Snowflake par excellence...
posted by y2karl at 8:36 AM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Excusez-moi, but the one-of-a-kind first adopter unique individual is the Special Snowflake par excellence...
posted by y2karl at 8:36 AM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
there is a decent chance that this is not a business man but a wealthy hobbiest,
He's the hobbiest asshole in American politics.
posted by dersins at 8:36 AM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
He's the hobbiest asshole in American politics.
posted by dersins at 8:36 AM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Square pegs in round holes are peas in the pod 'round here, pod-nuh...
posted by y2karl at 8:38 AM on June 26, 2016
posted by y2karl at 8:38 AM on June 26, 2016
> Apple won't aid GOP convention over Trump
Trump Surrogate Warns Apple 'Will Feel It In Pocketbook' For Boycotting GOP Convention
posted by homunculus at 8:48 AM on June 26, 2016
Trump Surrogate Warns Apple 'Will Feel It In Pocketbook' For Boycotting GOP Convention
posted by homunculus at 8:48 AM on June 26, 2016
Apple reaches into its pocket, pulls out enough pocket change to purchase all of Donald Trump's business interests, checks the other pocket to make sure it has enough left over to buy off every member of the GOP, pats Trump surrogate on the head softly.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:53 AM on June 26, 2016 [38 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 8:53 AM on June 26, 2016 [38 favorites]
The daily interest on Apple's couch change is probably more than Trump's net assets.
Being associated with Trump can do more damage to the brand than any sort of boycott would ever achieve
posted by vuron at 9:08 AM on June 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
Being associated with Trump can do more damage to the brand than any sort of boycott would ever achieve
posted by vuron at 9:08 AM on June 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
Jake Tapper is very firmly holding Sanders feet to the fire about whether he is going to endorse Clinton and encourage his voters to vote for her. Sanders is of course digging in and still campaigning against her. Ay yi yi. (No video or transcript yet, it was just on State of the Union on CNN)
posted by hollygoheavy at 9:15 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by hollygoheavy at 9:15 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
The thing is, as Sanders's voters decide on their own to back Hillary, Sanders is losing any leverage that he could have had with the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party. The time to negotiate was a month ago, and he's quickly becoming irrelevant. He's kind of a doofus at strategy, and at this point he's going to have a hard time getting enough concessions to save face and walk away with his dignity intact.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:34 AM on June 26, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:34 AM on June 26, 2016 [16 favorites]
It's incredible that Sanders is holding out until Clinton starts making all his same overcooked promises. And of course, he skips right over the generous portion of the platform which already reflects his priorities and focuses on the stuff he still wants. Whatever. I'm not sure if there's enough time left even to start bringing his hardcore partisans back down to planet earth, where we needs to focus on legislation which can actually be accomplished. Clinton seems to be doing fine without his endorsement so far.
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:51 AM on June 26, 2016
posted by EatTheWeek at 9:51 AM on June 26, 2016
The thing is, as Sanders's voters decide on their own to back Hillary, Sanders is losing any leverage that he could have had with the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party. The time to negotiate was a month ago, and he's quickly becoming irrelevant. He's kind of a doofus at strategy, and at this point he's going to have a hard time getting enough concessions to save face and walk away with his dignity intact.
Honestly, the longer this goes on, the more I start to wonder if it's intentional. Maybe he's worried that the core -or-busters are just unpersuadable, and endorsing Clinton sooner will fire them up more. Whereas holding off will give his other supporters more wiggle room to pivot to supporting Clinton. I know I've seen more and more regular-Bernie-supporters show up in Hillary forums feeling frustrated with the -or-busters and ready to focus on the general, even if she wasn't their first choice.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 9:51 AM on June 26, 2016
Honestly, the longer this goes on, the more I start to wonder if it's intentional. Maybe he's worried that the core -or-busters are just unpersuadable, and endorsing Clinton sooner will fire them up more. Whereas holding off will give his other supporters more wiggle room to pivot to supporting Clinton. I know I've seen more and more regular-Bernie-supporters show up in Hillary forums feeling frustrated with the -or-busters and ready to focus on the general, even if she wasn't their first choice.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 9:51 AM on June 26, 2016
Basically every inside account of the Sanders campaign for the last six weeks suggests that he is running the show as far as strategy goes. I don't think we've got anything to go on that suggests otherwise. This is what he wants, this is how he wants it to go down. The idea that it's reverse-psychology or something is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking that I can understand--I am someone who has only made 6-7 political donations in my life, and 3 of them were to Sanders. He has been so disappointing to me over the last 4-5 months, it's really disheartening.
posted by skewed at 9:58 AM on June 26, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by skewed at 9:58 AM on June 26, 2016 [11 favorites]
Acceptance is setting in around my little corner of the world, at least. My roommate and I finally convinced our other roommate that it was time for her Bernie sign to come out of the yard. The demographics in my town are custom built for Sanders so I expect to see his signs and stickers clear through the general. That said, ours isn't the only sign in the neighborhood to disappear lately.
My Hillary shirt has arrived. I wore it out to dinner with a group which included my friend who, a few weeks back, told me she wanted Bernie to win no matter what and she didn't care how he did it. She side-eyed my shirt, I said "a grim compromise we can believe in," she laughed and the rest of the political portion of the night's discussion was about all the things she could live with regarding Clinton, and how she was planning to vote for her.
After the DC primary, I put up a selfie in that shirt on my Facebook. My avowed gamergater for Bernie acquaintance* came along soon enough with his textwalls and his reddit copypasta links. So it goes. He'll probably vote for Johnson, and that's fine. This ain't a swing state bro, knock yourself out.
*(he's a good friend's roommate. He's also a brony. Answering his Clinton complaints on my FB wall is about the most we've ever spoken)
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:19 AM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
My Hillary shirt has arrived. I wore it out to dinner with a group which included my friend who, a few weeks back, told me she wanted Bernie to win no matter what and she didn't care how he did it. She side-eyed my shirt, I said "a grim compromise we can believe in," she laughed and the rest of the political portion of the night's discussion was about all the things she could live with regarding Clinton, and how she was planning to vote for her.
After the DC primary, I put up a selfie in that shirt on my Facebook. My avowed gamergater for Bernie acquaintance* came along soon enough with his textwalls and his reddit copypasta links. So it goes. He'll probably vote for Johnson, and that's fine. This ain't a swing state bro, knock yourself out.
*(he's a good friend's roommate. He's also a brony. Answering his Clinton complaints on my FB wall is about the most we've ever spoken)
posted by EatTheWeek at 10:19 AM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
> Geez you guys. This ain't tiddliwinks. There are real stakes here. Of course we welcome Republicans against Trump. How is the enjoyment you get from laughing remotely worth the risk of intimidating people into supporting Trump rather than be mocked (or be associated with people who are being mocked.) Don't you want to win?
Oh, come on. The question was about Brooks and Will, not everyone everywhere who ever changes their minds. I'll point and laugh at those doofuses till the day I die.
posted by languagehat at 10:40 AM on June 26, 2016 [15 favorites]
Oh, come on. The question was about Brooks and Will, not everyone everywhere who ever changes their minds. I'll point and laugh at those doofuses till the day I die.
posted by languagehat at 10:40 AM on June 26, 2016 [15 favorites]
Yeah, but Brooks and Will have fans and followers. If we point and laugh at Brooks and Will, then fewer of their followers will want to make the same move. When someone is getting laughed at, people usually aren't eager to be associated with them.
I disagree with about 75% of what Brooks writes and 85% of what Will writes, but I actually respect the hell out of them for having the guts to go out on a limb like this. It hard to go against your tribe. And I'm sure they're getting a lot of hate-mail from their own side already. But there's a chance they can bring some of their admirers with them, can reach people who would ordinarily be very reliable Republican voters and convince them to make a different choice, in a way that no campaigning from people outside that tribe really could. They're putting the good of the country ahead of their own personal comfort and popularity, ahead of partisanship. They're making the hard choice, and I have to respect them for that.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:49 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
I disagree with about 75% of what Brooks writes and 85% of what Will writes, but I actually respect the hell out of them for having the guts to go out on a limb like this. It hard to go against your tribe. And I'm sure they're getting a lot of hate-mail from their own side already. But there's a chance they can bring some of their admirers with them, can reach people who would ordinarily be very reliable Republican voters and convince them to make a different choice, in a way that no campaigning from people outside that tribe really could. They're putting the good of the country ahead of their own personal comfort and popularity, ahead of partisanship. They're making the hard choice, and I have to respect them for that.
posted by OnceUponATime at 10:49 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
They're putting the good of the country ahead of their own personal comfort and popularity, ahead of partisanship.
I am stunned that someone could come to that conclusion. They simply know where the political currents within their tribe are going, and that the future isn't with Donald Trump. Movement conservatism has largely relegated them to the role of paleocon curiosities that people occasionally visit in a museum to remember what the GOP was like in the 70s and 80s, so I just can't buy this notion that their desertion from the sinking ship is going to cause any significant ripples through the GOP power structure, or that this is coming from some kind of patriotic desire to do what's right for America.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:56 AM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
I am stunned that someone could come to that conclusion. They simply know where the political currents within their tribe are going, and that the future isn't with Donald Trump. Movement conservatism has largely relegated them to the role of paleocon curiosities that people occasionally visit in a museum to remember what the GOP was like in the 70s and 80s, so I just can't buy this notion that their desertion from the sinking ship is going to cause any significant ripples through the GOP power structure, or that this is coming from some kind of patriotic desire to do what's right for America.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:56 AM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
the future isn't with Donald Trump.
I'm sure 90% of party regulars are looking for a landing spot. I can't even imagine the VP vetting process. There are very few people that will risk getting Trump stink on them, tainting their future.
posted by readery at 11:03 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm sure 90% of party regulars are looking for a landing spot. I can't even imagine the VP vetting process. There are very few people that will risk getting Trump stink on them, tainting their future.
posted by readery at 11:03 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
There are very few people that will risk getting Trump stink on them, tainting their future.
Ah, yes, boor taint.
posted by MonkeyToes at 11:07 AM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ah, yes, boor taint.
posted by MonkeyToes at 11:07 AM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
So the future of the party doesn't lie with Donald Trump, but it also doesn't lie with "paleocon curiosities" like George F. Will... Will and Brooks are jumping on some kind of anti-Trump bandwagon that is distinct from their own brand of traditional conservatism? I mean, what movement is that? Who are its leaders? (Ted Cruz? Lindsey Graham?) I'm sorry, I just don't see this bandwagon.
I think Will and Brooks are helping to lead the anti-Trump Republican movement such as it is (and much of that is indeed among paleoconservatives), not just following. If they're following -- who are they following?
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:13 AM on June 26, 2016
I think Will and Brooks are helping to lead the anti-Trump Republican movement such as it is (and much of that is indeed among paleoconservatives), not just following. If they're following -- who are they following?
posted by OnceUponATime at 11:13 AM on June 26, 2016
Any cracks in any misbegotten conservative coalition that could help Trump get elected ought to be applauded.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:37 AM on June 26, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:37 AM on June 26, 2016 [9 favorites]
I don't think that Brooks has ever been that much of a conservative. He's a pompous scold who spoke with great authority about things that he actually didn't know much about, and watching him realize he's an unclothed emperor has been one of the few fun things about this election cycle.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:48 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:48 AM on June 26, 2016 [5 favorites]
Will and Brooks aren't members of the Republican tribe. They are members of the political elite pundit class that got rich off of selling some post ww2 Norman Rockwell illusion of a nonpartisan past.
It's snake oil and should be rejected as such.
Trump revealed the lie. There are 2 tribes at war in the US and being seen as a member of the reactionary tribe is probably not s great thing for getting dinner reservations
posted by vuron at 1:21 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's snake oil and should be rejected as such.
Trump revealed the lie. There are 2 tribes at war in the US and being seen as a member of the reactionary tribe is probably not s great thing for getting dinner reservations
posted by vuron at 1:21 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
...The poll finds that Americans are not at ease with the thought of a Trump presidency, a surge from just last month, when Clinton was leading Trump by a narrow 3 percentage points. According to the poll, about two-thirds of Americans view Trump as biased against women, minorities, or Muslims, and view his comments about a federal judge of Mexican American heritage as racist.Hillary Clinton Climbs Ahead With 12-Point Lead on Donald Trump
posted by y2karl at 1:26 PM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
Any cracks in any misbegotten conservative coalition that could help Trump get elected ought to be applauded.
I'm one of those "both and" people, so let's consider changing "point and laugh" to just "laugh" so that both hands are available for applause, while also enjoying a good chuckle, guffaw, or snicker at the notion that they're doing it for any reason other than to protect their "reasonable conservative" image.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:30 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm one of those "both and" people, so let's consider changing "point and laugh" to just "laugh" so that both hands are available for applause, while also enjoying a good chuckle, guffaw, or snicker at the notion that they're doing it for any reason other than to protect their "reasonable conservative" image.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:30 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
According to the Washington Posts's analysis of the poll, the reason for the jump is that Bernie supporters are now saying they support Hillary. Last month, 20% of Bernie supporters said they would vote for Trump. This month, that's down to 8%.
And I mean, we haven't even hit the convention yet - maybe that 8% is composed of just die-hards and is already as low as it's going to go, but I suspect (based on '08) that the convention will solidify support for Clinton even more.
posted by en forme de poire at 1:31 PM on June 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
And I mean, we haven't even hit the convention yet - maybe that 8% is composed of just die-hards and is already as low as it's going to go, but I suspect (based on '08) that the convention will solidify support for Clinton even more.
posted by en forme de poire at 1:31 PM on June 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
And I mean, we haven't even hit the convention yet - maybe that 8% is composed of just die-hards and is already as low as it's going to go, but I suspect (based on '08) that the convention will solidify support for Clinton even more.
The '08 GOP convention was such a shitshow. Aside from the Palin glare overshadowing everything, the execution and staging was dour and amateurish. I remember they had a huge video backdrop that kept going to greenscreen, displaying the wrong images, and made McCain look about 4 feet tall standing in front of it. And in '12 there was Clint Eastwood and the Chair. Which was both the hightlight and lowlight of the entire affair. I imagine this years GOP will make the previous two conventions look like high art.
On the Dem side '08 was amazing. The Dems came out of that one looking like a shiny well-oiled machine ready to conquer the future. The theme in 2012 seemed to be "let's get this over with" and also Bill Clinton gave a 7 hour speech. I really don't know how they plan on containing him this time around. Maybe tranquilizer darts??
posted by billyfleetwood at 3:07 PM on June 26, 2016 [12 favorites]
The '08 GOP convention was such a shitshow. Aside from the Palin glare overshadowing everything, the execution and staging was dour and amateurish. I remember they had a huge video backdrop that kept going to greenscreen, displaying the wrong images, and made McCain look about 4 feet tall standing in front of it. And in '12 there was Clint Eastwood and the Chair. Which was both the hightlight and lowlight of the entire affair. I imagine this years GOP will make the previous two conventions look like high art.
On the Dem side '08 was amazing. The Dems came out of that one looking like a shiny well-oiled machine ready to conquer the future. The theme in 2012 seemed to be "let's get this over with" and also Bill Clinton gave a 7 hour speech. I really don't know how they plan on containing him this time around. Maybe tranquilizer darts??
posted by billyfleetwood at 3:07 PM on June 26, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'm of no mind to "point and laugh" at Brooks or Will or any other former political foe slowly waking up to the danger Trump poses. These days, I'm interested in finding ways to lay old conflicts and suspicions down. Part of how the US arrived at this dangerous place is the insane polarization of opinion and all the enmity that comes with that. Conservatives have been the Decepticons in my head canon for years, which is a fucked up way for me to think about fellow Americans. Now that Unicron looms, my former suspicion and resentment feels really small and petty.
If guys like Brooks and will are down to help stop Trump, then welcome the fuck aboard, boys! When this is over, let's hope there's so much purple on us all that it's hard to remember who started out as red or blue.
posted by EatTheWeek at 3:33 PM on June 26, 2016 [16 favorites]
If guys like Brooks and will are down to help stop Trump, then welcome the fuck aboard, boys! When this is over, let's hope there's so much purple on us all that it's hard to remember who started out as red or blue.
posted by EatTheWeek at 3:33 PM on June 26, 2016 [16 favorites]
Do you remember the guy who live tweeted during the Trump rally in Greensboro, NC? I Told the Truth About a Donald Trump Rally. Then the Trolls Threatened My Life.
By Saturday, the new cause online was a concentrated effort to try and cost me my job at Georgia Southern. The trolls planned a deluge of calls and emails to my college’s dean and Georgia’s Board of Regents. Though they were obviously unaware of the protections of academic freedom, and that a few complaints couldn’t strip me of my professorship, they said to “make things up” because “there are no rules with the left.”posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:02 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trailing not far behind were the white supremacists.
The first death threat came on Sunday from a Twitter user named “Warrior Queen,” whose handle is @SupaGoy88 and avatar is a meme of a small girl sporting a goat’s head. “National Socialist,” the bio read. “One more cuck for the tree,” this person tweeted, [snip]Over the next hour there were two more, including an assessment from “Marijan,” a “European culture & heritage enthusiast” who had added me to his list “Traitorous whites (purge).” He wrote that I was “a real oven-worthy faggot.”
Noted in the Brexit thread, but probably belongs here more: Jill Stein's Brexit post has been silently (and substantially) changed.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 4:11 PM on June 26, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 4:11 PM on June 26, 2016 [10 favorites]
Well, Will may not wish to associate with Trump, but he just showed that he is on the same side with him on one issue: Brexit. (yes, I'm also posting this link in the Brexit thread)
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:26 PM on June 26, 2016
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:26 PM on June 26, 2016
Jill Stein has always been at war with Eurasia, I guess?
posted by Justinian at 4:27 PM on June 26, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:27 PM on June 26, 2016 [18 favorites]
Stein silently changing that post is very unsettling.
posted by defenestration at 4:31 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by defenestration at 4:31 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
... added me to his list “Traitorous whites (purge).” He wrote that I was “a real oven-worthy faggot.”
I've become an openly “Traitorous white" for a while now but I feel relatively safe because I don't wallow in the Twitter sewers where the human sewage thrive. And if I'm "oven-worthy" (hey, my father was a 2nd generation German-American who fought in WWII in the Pacific because the Marines didn't want him facing his own people), I suspect Global Warming is going to burn me up before Trump's famous construction companies can build their ovens. The one thing that most reduces my fear of Trump and his followers is his and their incompetence. (The comparison to Star Wars' Stormtroopers who can't shoot straight is SO apt)
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:40 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've become an openly “Traitorous white" for a while now but I feel relatively safe because I don't wallow in the Twitter sewers where the human sewage thrive. And if I'm "oven-worthy" (hey, my father was a 2nd generation German-American who fought in WWII in the Pacific because the Marines didn't want him facing his own people), I suspect Global Warming is going to burn me up before Trump's famous construction companies can build their ovens. The one thing that most reduces my fear of Trump and his followers is his and their incompetence. (The comparison to Star Wars' Stormtroopers who can't shoot straight is SO apt)
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:40 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Neo-nazis and anti-racism protesters clash in Sacramento. Seven injured, two critically.
I want to get off Mr. Trump's Wild Ride.
posted by stolyarova at 4:46 PM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
I want to get off Mr. Trump's Wild Ride.
posted by stolyarova at 4:46 PM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
If you haven't read it, the original live tweet of the trump rally in Greensboro on the 14th is pretty terrifying.
posted by octothorpe at 4:49 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 4:49 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
and also Bill Clinton gave a 7 hour speech. I really don't know how they plan on containing him this time around.
Not sure what you heard but to my ears that Clinton speech in 2012 was amazing. Knocked my socks clean off.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:57 PM on June 26, 2016 [8 favorites]
Not sure what you heard but to my ears that Clinton speech in 2012 was amazing. Knocked my socks clean off.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:57 PM on June 26, 2016 [8 favorites]
Mickey Mouse would be an improvement over the purported nominee— former state senator and New Hampshire Republican Party chairman Gordon Humphrey, a delegate, being interviewed a couple of days ago about anti-Trump efforts.
posted by XMLicious at 4:58 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, living in NC as I do I was thinking I might give this year's State Fair a miss as it is held in late October and it always has a fair amount of political merchandise being given out/sold. It's the time of year when rural NC rubs elbows with urban NC and I'm guessing the vibe might be a bit tense this year.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:59 PM on June 26, 2016
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:59 PM on June 26, 2016
I feel like one of the minimal qualifications for being a political pundit (along with things like "should be able to speak/write in sentences" and "sometimes refers to facts") should be the ability to realize when a candidate for public office is unqualified, amoral, moronic, and a threat to the continued survival of the country, and then not support them.
While I am pleased that George Will is now 1 for 2, I'd like to get that up to 2 out of 3 before I start taking him seriously as a pundit or human.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 4:59 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
While I am pleased that George Will is now 1 for 2, I'd like to get that up to 2 out of 3 before I start taking him seriously as a pundit or human.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 4:59 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Will and Brooks aren't members of the Republican tribe. They are members of the political elite pundit class that got rich off of selling some post ww2 Norman Rockwell illusion of a nonpartisan past.
Oh, nuts to this no-true-Republican nonsense. George Will and David Brooks have always called themselves Republicans, and have argued as Republicans. If the Ds get a big tent, so do the Rs.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:59 PM on June 26, 2016 [15 favorites]
Oh, nuts to this no-true-Republican nonsense. George Will and David Brooks have always called themselves Republicans, and have argued as Republicans. If the Ds get a big tent, so do the Rs.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:59 PM on June 26, 2016 [15 favorites]
Stein silently changing that post is very unsettling.
Is it surprising? I haven't really paid much attention to the Greens since they thought Cynthia McKiney was a strong choice. Is Stein known to be especially sane/ethical?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:35 PM on June 26, 2016
Is it surprising? I haven't really paid much attention to the Greens since they thought Cynthia McKiney was a strong choice. Is Stein known to be especially sane/ethical?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:35 PM on June 26, 2016
Hillary Clinton marched (4 blocks) in New York's Pride parade today.
Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he is determined to press on and reiterated his vow to take his campaign to the convention.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:35 PM on June 26, 2016 [8 favorites]
Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that he is determined to press on and reiterated his vow to take his campaign to the convention.
“We lost some very important fights. We’re going to take that fight to Orlando, where the entire committee meets in two weeks,” he said. “And if we don’t succeed there, then we’ll certainly take it to the floor of the Democratic convention.”Donald Trump has not contacted Newt Gingrich yet about the possibility of being Trump's running mate.
When asked what that means for his prospects, considering the Republican National Convention is only three weeks away in Cleveland, Gingrich answered that Trump is "probably going to start thinking about it two days before Cleveland … I think Donald Trump does not want to make a decision until the convention. I think that he is a very decisive person.""Probably going to start thinking about two days before." That's what we need in a president-- someone who makes decisions on a whim. It may be Newt, it may be someone else depending on how Trump's coffee was that morning and what tweets catch his eye.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:35 PM on June 26, 2016 [8 favorites]
Not sure what you heard but to my ears that Clinton speech in 2012 was amazing. Knocked my socks clean off.
Oh, I agree it was a masterpiece of a speech. But the fact remains... you let The Big Dog off the leash, he's gonna roam around a bit. That speech in '12 was for Obama, who I'm not sure Bill even likes very much. I'm guessing we're in for a doozy this time around.
I doubt we're gonna get Michelle Obama this time around. She absolutely killed it at the last convention.
posted by billyfleetwood at 5:40 PM on June 26, 2016
Oh, I agree it was a masterpiece of a speech. But the fact remains... you let The Big Dog off the leash, he's gonna roam around a bit. That speech in '12 was for Obama, who I'm not sure Bill even likes very much. I'm guessing we're in for a doozy this time around.
I doubt we're gonna get Michelle Obama this time around. She absolutely killed it at the last convention.
posted by billyfleetwood at 5:40 PM on June 26, 2016
I guess I should clarify my stance in regards to Will and Brooks, they disavow the unsavory aspects of the Republican agenda because it undermines their attempts to give the Republicans legitimacy but they cheerlead endless as long as it's done under the guise of compassionate conservatism.
Both are insulated from the Republican base by virtue of their privilege and they don't seem to be aware of all the other tribal markers.
Basically they are like the Klingons sent to meet the Federation in TOS, surgically altered to appear more like people from the Federation when the actual Klingons are much more warlike and prone towards knives and leather.
posted by vuron at 5:41 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Both are insulated from the Republican base by virtue of their privilege and they don't seem to be aware of all the other tribal markers.
Basically they are like the Klingons sent to meet the Federation in TOS, surgically altered to appear more like people from the Federation when the actual Klingons are much more warlike and prone towards knives and leather.
posted by vuron at 5:41 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Guardian journalists denied entry into Donald Trump UK event
Officials said the Guardian did not have credentials to enter golf resort in Scotland, a day after Trump called reporter for news outlet a ‘nasty, nasty guy’
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:42 PM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
Officials said the Guardian did not have credentials to enter golf resort in Scotland, a day after Trump called reporter for news outlet a ‘nasty, nasty guy’
After a series of phone calls, they said the carpark for the press was full and so too was the marquee reserved for media covering Trump’s visit. The decision had come from the highest authority, they said.So now The Guardian can join The Washington Post, Politico, Univision, the Huffington Post, the Daily Beast and the Des Moines Register in the Banned Club.
David Martosko, US political editor of DailyMail.com, tweeted: “Security at Trump’s golf course in Aberdeen has pencilled in at top of press list ‘No Guardian or Buzzfeed’.”
Another journalist, photographer Matt Lloyd, tweeted from the resort: “[A]h ha, I guessed it driving passed you two. Lots of space in the car park and marquee, plenty of spare pastries too.”
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:42 PM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
“Mickey Mouse would be an improvement over the purported nominee” — former state senator and New Hampshire Republican Party chairman Gordon Humphrey, a delegate, being interviewed a couple of days ago about anti-Trump efforts.
That interview is pretty interesting, but it seems shockingly insulting of the base’s preference. It really comes across as “You voters chose, but screw all y’all.” On the one hand: yes! Stop this buffoon! People are idiots. On the other: if you give people a choice, you can’t just steal it from them. That got us the Humphrey/McGovern riots, and rightly so.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:42 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
That interview is pretty interesting, but it seems shockingly insulting of the base’s preference. It really comes across as “You voters chose, but screw all y’all.” On the one hand: yes! Stop this buffoon! People are idiots. On the other: if you give people a choice, you can’t just steal it from them. That got us the Humphrey/McGovern riots, and rightly so.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:42 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sanders seems focused on maintaining his campaign until he retires any campaign debt remaining.
I can't see how he's actually pushing towards anything achievable. It seems increasingly it was a vanity run of sorts rather a definitive push towards creating a broad progressive coalition. I would sign on for the later but I am not about to waste resources on the former. Even his half-hearted attempts at supporting down ballot candidates has seemed perfunctory at best. But I guess it's a noble move to support a Representative that isn't seriously challenged for re-election and who is distinctly less than positive on pro-reproductive right positions.
posted by vuron at 5:47 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't see how he's actually pushing towards anything achievable. It seems increasingly it was a vanity run of sorts rather a definitive push towards creating a broad progressive coalition. I would sign on for the later but I am not about to waste resources on the former. Even his half-hearted attempts at supporting down ballot candidates has seemed perfunctory at best. But I guess it's a noble move to support a Representative that isn't seriously challenged for re-election and who is distinctly less than positive on pro-reproductive right positions.
posted by vuron at 5:47 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the other: if you give people a choice, you can’t just steal it from them.
Yet look at Brexit. The people were given a choice and now many are regretting that choice and saying they didn't realize how bad things could get. There are 3 million signatures on the petition to have another vote and many people are suggesting that the best thing to do would be just to ignore the referendum and pretend it never happened.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:48 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yet look at Brexit. The people were given a choice and now many are regretting that choice and saying they didn't realize how bad things could get. There are 3 million signatures on the petition to have another vote and many people are suggesting that the best thing to do would be just to ignore the referendum and pretend it never happened.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:48 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the other: if you give people a choice, you can’t just steal it from them.
Yet look at Brexit. The people were given a choice and now many are regretting that choice and saying they didn't realize how bad things could get. There are 3 million signatures on the petition to have another vote and many people are suggesting that the best thing to do would be just to ignore the referendum and pretend it never happened.
O, I entirely agree: people can be very dumb; I’m not sure what I’d think if the D superdelegates were keeping democracy safe from Trump right now. However, in this case I do feel like primary voters can reasonably claim that they were sold a bill of goods if their votes suddenly don’t matter on the first ballot: you’re ostensibly electing the reperesentatives as proxies, after all, and if you’re not willing to be a proxy then stand aside. Maybe superdelegates provide that critical fig-leaf of “the party, not the actual delegate, is over-ruling you.”
Also, unlike Brexit, Trump has a solid plurality of the votes right now. As corb has noted in her dispatches, the remains of #NeverTrump might long-shot in Cruz, but who really knows what’ll happen? This isn’t a fifty-fifty split: Trump has the delegates, and no one else is close. Maybe Cruz could have been, but we don’t get to find out. People hate the decision, but it was decisively made.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:03 PM on June 26, 2016
Yet look at Brexit. The people were given a choice and now many are regretting that choice and saying they didn't realize how bad things could get. There are 3 million signatures on the petition to have another vote and many people are suggesting that the best thing to do would be just to ignore the referendum and pretend it never happened.
O, I entirely agree: people can be very dumb; I’m not sure what I’d think if the D superdelegates were keeping democracy safe from Trump right now. However, in this case I do feel like primary voters can reasonably claim that they were sold a bill of goods if their votes suddenly don’t matter on the first ballot: you’re ostensibly electing the reperesentatives as proxies, after all, and if you’re not willing to be a proxy then stand aside. Maybe superdelegates provide that critical fig-leaf of “the party, not the actual delegate, is over-ruling you.”
Also, unlike Brexit, Trump has a solid plurality of the votes right now. As corb has noted in her dispatches, the remains of #NeverTrump might long-shot in Cruz, but who really knows what’ll happen? This isn’t a fifty-fifty split: Trump has the delegates, and no one else is close. Maybe Cruz could have been, but we don’t get to find out. People hate the decision, but it was decisively made.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:03 PM on June 26, 2016
I know he keeps his politicking at a minimum, but it would be really great for Jimmy Carter to make an appearance at the Democratic convention. It would speak volumes to see three former presidents come out to support Hillary Clinton, considering how both Bushes, Romney, Dole and most of the Republican Party leadership will all be in hiding when it's time Trump to get voted in as their nominee. Was Carter at the 2008 or 2012 conventions?
posted by peeedro at 6:06 PM on June 26, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by peeedro at 6:06 PM on June 26, 2016 [12 favorites]
Considering that Apple has backed out of any support for a Trumpist GOP convention, this Joy of Tech comic analogy (referring to another Apple controversy) is LOL-worthy. (Is that Floppy Christie in the background?)
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:06 PM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:06 PM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
This isn’t a fifty-fifty split: Trump has the delegates, and no one else is close.
It needs to be pointed out (again) that Trump has 60+% of the delegates having gotten 44% of the actual votes. Only slightly more of his party's voters than Bernie Sanders got of his party's (which may be part of the reason for Bernie's delusional behavior). Yes, he got more votes than any Republican candidate ever, but that was out of a record 30 million votes - no previous GOP primary campaign ever had more than 20 million. Yes, he beat 16 other candidates, none of whom had 1/10th his name recognition, except Jeb! who was running AWAY from his family name - and you can thank NBC for most of his recognition AND his fake image as a 'businessman'.
I don't see the GOP losing that much by dumping Trump and picking ANYBODY else; with months for the smoke to clear, Generic Republican would have a better chance of taking advantage of Clinton's negatives and having coat-tales that could keep Congress Red. But if 'NeverTrumps' are bolting the party, they're in no position to deny him anything. And the ex-Republicans might end up having almost enough trouble crawling back to the party as the UK will have getting back into the EU.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:33 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
It needs to be pointed out (again) that Trump has 60+% of the delegates having gotten 44% of the actual votes. Only slightly more of his party's voters than Bernie Sanders got of his party's (which may be part of the reason for Bernie's delusional behavior). Yes, he got more votes than any Republican candidate ever, but that was out of a record 30 million votes - no previous GOP primary campaign ever had more than 20 million. Yes, he beat 16 other candidates, none of whom had 1/10th his name recognition, except Jeb! who was running AWAY from his family name - and you can thank NBC for most of his recognition AND his fake image as a 'businessman'.
I don't see the GOP losing that much by dumping Trump and picking ANYBODY else; with months for the smoke to clear, Generic Republican would have a better chance of taking advantage of Clinton's negatives and having coat-tales that could keep Congress Red. But if 'NeverTrumps' are bolting the party, they're in no position to deny him anything. And the ex-Republicans might end up having almost enough trouble crawling back to the party as the UK will have getting back into the EU.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:33 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Apple may have backed out of the convention, but Tim Cook is hosting a fundraiser for Paul Ryan, because money still is more important than anything else.
posted by zachlipton at 6:35 PM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 6:35 PM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
oneswellfoop: that could keep Congress Red
The colours of American politics still weird me out so much. I read this and automatically thought, "What? Congress is filled with Communists?"
posted by clawsoon at 6:53 PM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
The colours of American politics still weird me out so much. I read this and automatically thought, "What? Congress is filled with Communists?"
posted by clawsoon at 6:53 PM on June 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
...but... but... the Wapo just told us Tech billionaires like Democrats more than Republicans.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:54 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:54 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
The colours of American politics still weird me out so much.
I believe that was the result of one of The Media's last great liberal decisions... in the 1990s, to color the electoral map Red for Republican, Blue for Democrat, which all 3 then-existing TV networks did at the same time raising howls or pain on the R side. The good old days.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:57 PM on June 26, 2016
I believe that was the result of one of The Media's last great liberal decisions... in the 1990s, to color the electoral map Red for Republican, Blue for Democrat, which all 3 then-existing TV networks did at the same time raising howls or pain on the R side. The good old days.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:57 PM on June 26, 2016
I do get some evil joy out of the party of Reagan being known as the red side.
posted by octothorpe at 7:22 PM on June 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 7:22 PM on June 26, 2016 [4 favorites]
This isn’t a fifty-fifty split: Trump has the delegates, and no one else is close.
It needs to be pointed out (again) that Trump has 60+% of the delegates having gotten 44% of the actual votes.
Fine - but no other candidate came close to 44% of the votes, so Trump still has an entirely legitimate claim to being the most popular nominee, and his backers to the legitimate claim that, if the delegates revolt, they were robbed.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:25 PM on June 26, 2016
It needs to be pointed out (again) that Trump has 60+% of the delegates having gotten 44% of the actual votes.
Fine - but no other candidate came close to 44% of the votes, so Trump still has an entirely legitimate claim to being the most popular nominee, and his backers to the legitimate claim that, if the delegates revolt, they were robbed.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:25 PM on June 26, 2016
Billionaires can afford to play both sides in fact many basically feel like playing both sides is the cost of doing business. That way either party winning still gets them the access they need to contracts and other business favors.
There might be a historical preference for free market alternatives pushed by the Republicans but the reality is that even the Republicans seem to have lost faith in the free market to a degree or maybe it's just that free market principles are abandoned at the convenience of individual Republicans in favor or crony capitalism. It seems like the Republican party has become dominated by social conservatives, militaristic nationalists, and cronies that expect to get paid in government contracts for any donations.
By the same token the Democrats are clearly well within the classical liberal economic ideology. Yes there are desires to redistribute wealth in the form of progressive taxes and social programs but increasingly there is a realization that taxes and social programs aren't inherently bad from the perspective of businessmen.
posted by vuron at 7:56 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
There might be a historical preference for free market alternatives pushed by the Republicans but the reality is that even the Republicans seem to have lost faith in the free market to a degree or maybe it's just that free market principles are abandoned at the convenience of individual Republicans in favor or crony capitalism. It seems like the Republican party has become dominated by social conservatives, militaristic nationalists, and cronies that expect to get paid in government contracts for any donations.
By the same token the Democrats are clearly well within the classical liberal economic ideology. Yes there are desires to redistribute wealth in the form of progressive taxes and social programs but increasingly there is a realization that taxes and social programs aren't inherently bad from the perspective of businessmen.
posted by vuron at 7:56 PM on June 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Joy of Tech! I deliberately avoided a party downstairs to log into IRC to party with Nitrozac on the evening of Dec 31, 1999. I had a deliriously good time pretending to be a fictional dot-com bazillionaire. I don't know if she was on at the time, but watching people attempt to call me out was fantastic.
I had no idea she was still doing this, or was as incredibly entertaining as she was at her late-90's zenith, now I have 16 years of ossum to catch up on, as that comic onefellswoop linked is legit making America great again.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:02 PM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
I had no idea she was still doing this, or was as incredibly entertaining as she was at her late-90's zenith, now I have 16 years of ossum to catch up on, as that comic onefellswoop linked is legit making America great again.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:02 PM on June 26, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've never been very much of a Joy of Tech fan, but Floppy Disk Chris Christie is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
posted by mmoncur at 8:24 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 8:24 PM on June 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Republican states being "red states" only dates to the 2000 election. Before that, there wasn't a standard color scheme for electoral maps. But we all spent so much time staring at electoral maps in 2000, the networks standardized on a color scheme to reduce confusion. It's juat a historical accident that it happened to be red for the Republicans and blue for Democrats that more TV networks were using that year, such that the other networks fell in line. And since we all stared at those maps so much, that color scheme stuck in our heads, and the networks stuck with it in 2004 and thereafter. Wikipedia has a nice write up of the history.
Red is the more attention-grabbing color, and it's the color of blood. So using it for the party that wants more dramatic and potentially revolutionary change makes a kind of aesthetic sense. During the 20th century that was the left. But in some ways I think it is now the so-called "conservatives" in the US who want the more dramatic of change. Rather than consolidating the gains civilization made in the 20th century, "conservatives" like those in the Kansas government want to take us all the way back to a 19th century vision of good government. That might have been a "conservative" position in, say, the 1930s, but now that it is 2016 and we are all used to living in a world with progressice income taxes and a social safety net and with powerful regulatory bodies protecting the environment , the labor market, and our food and drug supply... the Republican "that government is best which governs least" vision is actually the more radical (and potentially bloody change, I think. So there's a kind of poetic justice in the fact that Republican states are "red states" these days, to me...
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:37 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Red is the more attention-grabbing color, and it's the color of blood. So using it for the party that wants more dramatic and potentially revolutionary change makes a kind of aesthetic sense. During the 20th century that was the left. But in some ways I think it is now the so-called "conservatives" in the US who want the more dramatic of change. Rather than consolidating the gains civilization made in the 20th century, "conservatives" like those in the Kansas government want to take us all the way back to a 19th century vision of good government. That might have been a "conservative" position in, say, the 1930s, but now that it is 2016 and we are all used to living in a world with progressice income taxes and a social safety net and with powerful regulatory bodies protecting the environment , the labor market, and our food and drug supply... the Republican "that government is best which governs least" vision is actually the more radical (and potentially bloody change, I think. So there's a kind of poetic justice in the fact that Republican states are "red states" these days, to me...
posted by OnceUponATime at 3:37 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
What six Bernie die-hards think about Sanders, Clinton and Trump, in their own words.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:51 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:51 AM on June 27, 2016
The DNC needs to crash — it cannot be saved. Vote Green!Dear the Left: please, please, please ask yourself why everything that comes out of your mouth sounds like an Ayn Rand quote, and then ask yourself if you really want to commit yourself to the Left equivalent of Atlas Shrugged.
posted by rorgy at 7:01 AM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
Trump Fans Really Want a Less-Diverse America
You can get a full sense of the comparative views of Trump supporters by reading the entire report, but just listing some of their perceptions in a row will give a good sense of how strongly these folks resent cultural change:posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:01 AM on June 27, 2016 [38 favorites]
• 77 percent say it bothers them to come into contact with people who speak little or no English.
• 81 percent say discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against minorities.
• 77 percent say discrimination against Christians in the U.S. is a major problem.
• 83 percent say the American way of life needs to be protected against foreign influences.
• 83 percent say the values of Islam are at odds with America's values and way of life.
• 80 percent say immigrants constitute a burden on American society.
• 68 percent say the country has changed mostly for the worse since the 1950s.
And here's the scariest one:
• 72 percent say we need a leader who is willing to break some rules to set things right.
What six Bernie die-hards think about Sanders, Clinton and Trump, in their own words.
Those people appear to exist in the liminal space between deeply stupid and utterly deluded.
posted by dersins at 7:06 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
Those people appear to exist in the liminal space between deeply stupid and utterly deluded.
posted by dersins at 7:06 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
SCOTUSBlog reporting that the TX anti-choice laws were struck down.
!
posted by zombieflanders at 7:07 AM on June 27, 2016 [18 favorites]
!
posted by zombieflanders at 7:07 AM on June 27, 2016 [18 favorites]
72 percent say we need a leader who is willing to break some rules to set things right.
ACTUAL FASCISTS.
posted by dis_integration at 7:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [22 favorites]
ACTUAL FASCISTS.
posted by dis_integration at 7:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [22 favorites]
It's disappointing to read the responses of the six interviewed in the article linked by Rm 317, especially their support of Jill Stein after Stein's support of Brexit and then her sneaky denial of that support noted up thread.
posted by haiku warrior at 7:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by haiku warrior at 7:10 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
The Notorious RBG lays the smackdown: "It is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women."
posted by zombieflanders at 7:14 AM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 7:14 AM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
> 72 percent say we need a leader who is willing to break some rules to set things right.
Please let all of this be a last gasp rather than a first breath.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:20 AM on June 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
Please let all of this be a last gasp rather than a first breath.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:20 AM on June 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
The SCOTUS decision is truly awesome news (!!!), but this ~3000 comment thread on the election probably isn't the best place to discuss and/or celebrate it.
posted by Roommate at 7:20 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Roommate at 7:20 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Eh, I think it's a fine place to announce the news, given that SCOTUS' composition is one of the defining issues of the campaign. But I'll try to keep it minimal until it gets its own thread.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:22 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 7:22 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
From the Clinton rally: Warren calls Trump "a small insecure money-grubber who fights for nobody but himself ... nasty man ... thin-skinned bully" — crowd goes wild
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:46 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:46 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
"83 percent say the values of Islam are at odds with America's values and way of life."
Well, in a limited sense I'd agree there. But Christianity is also at odds with America's values and way of life.
The First Amendment is anathema to the rules as written for all of the Abrahamic religions. They each specify an insular, rigidly controlled, society with absolutely no freedom of religion and a very clearly and powerful established religion.
That said, I think that **AS PRACTICED** by American Muslims, Islam is generally not a problem. Same way that as practiced by American Christians, Christianity is generally not a problem.
The Card Cheat Please let all of this be a last gasp rather than a first breath.
Wishful thinking. This is just the beginning of the right wing populist/Fascist movement. The American right has never been far from Fascist anyway, and their discomfort a recent social justice wins coupled with the actual economic pain we're experiencing is going to strengthen that tendency towards authoritarianism.
If the Democrats can't actually start implementing real fixes for the economic problems the probem is going to get vastly worse, and there doesn't seem to be any will on the part of the Democrats to even acknowledge the problem exists. We get minor tinkering around the edges at most, and often even that is opposed.
Worse we'll have to do it against the will of the right wingers who most desperately need those fixes and will be some of the major beneficiaries. See some Republicans here on MeFi who have a strong faith in the very economic beliefs are exactly what is causing the rise of Trump and the general lunge towards authoritarianism in America. They don't like the outcome, but seem unwilling to admit that the economic faith they have subscribed to is contributing to it.
America desperately needs wealth redistribution. We've seen a massive program of redistributing wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich since late 1970's and it needs to be undone or the economic pain that's causing is going to launch an American Fascist movement.
But even the well meaning people on the right won't face that, and the Democrats lack the will to even talk about the problem.
I'm certain that if the Democrats would start talking economy seriously they'd get a shit ton more votes. But they' also piss off the plutocrats who fund a lot of them, and also a lot of them are part of that plutocrat class and seem unable to see past their own short term self interest.
I am convinced that Trump is just the beginning, that soon there will be a smart Trump coming along and things will get very much worse. That thought scares the shit out of me.
posted by sotonohito at 7:52 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well, in a limited sense I'd agree there. But Christianity is also at odds with America's values and way of life.
The First Amendment is anathema to the rules as written for all of the Abrahamic religions. They each specify an insular, rigidly controlled, society with absolutely no freedom of religion and a very clearly and powerful established religion.
That said, I think that **AS PRACTICED** by American Muslims, Islam is generally not a problem. Same way that as practiced by American Christians, Christianity is generally not a problem.
The Card Cheat Please let all of this be a last gasp rather than a first breath.
Wishful thinking. This is just the beginning of the right wing populist/Fascist movement. The American right has never been far from Fascist anyway, and their discomfort a recent social justice wins coupled with the actual economic pain we're experiencing is going to strengthen that tendency towards authoritarianism.
If the Democrats can't actually start implementing real fixes for the economic problems the probem is going to get vastly worse, and there doesn't seem to be any will on the part of the Democrats to even acknowledge the problem exists. We get minor tinkering around the edges at most, and often even that is opposed.
Worse we'll have to do it against the will of the right wingers who most desperately need those fixes and will be some of the major beneficiaries. See some Republicans here on MeFi who have a strong faith in the very economic beliefs are exactly what is causing the rise of Trump and the general lunge towards authoritarianism in America. They don't like the outcome, but seem unwilling to admit that the economic faith they have subscribed to is contributing to it.
America desperately needs wealth redistribution. We've seen a massive program of redistributing wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich since late 1970's and it needs to be undone or the economic pain that's causing is going to launch an American Fascist movement.
But even the well meaning people on the right won't face that, and the Democrats lack the will to even talk about the problem.
I'm certain that if the Democrats would start talking economy seriously they'd get a shit ton more votes. But they' also piss off the plutocrats who fund a lot of them, and also a lot of them are part of that plutocrat class and seem unable to see past their own short term self interest.
I am convinced that Trump is just the beginning, that soon there will be a smart Trump coming along and things will get very much worse. That thought scares the shit out of me.
posted by sotonohito at 7:52 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
> Wishful thinking. This is just the beginning of the right wing populist/Fascist movement.
Yeah, not so deep down I believe this to be true. Things are going to get varying degrees of worse for the majority of the population for a variety of reasons (climate change, automation, increasing inequality, you name it), and when they do there will be a search for scapegoats and politicians waiting to exploit these fissures.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:56 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yeah, not so deep down I believe this to be true. Things are going to get varying degrees of worse for the majority of the population for a variety of reasons (climate change, automation, increasing inequality, you name it), and when they do there will be a search for scapegoats and politicians waiting to exploit these fissures.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:56 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
Promises and Price Tags: A Fiscal Guide to the 2016 Election
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:56 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:56 AM on June 27, 2016
I know the Bernie or Bust people need to spin Clinton's nomination as a coronation so that nothing disrupts their belief bubble, but goddamn, the intellectual dishonesty is obnoxious.
posted by palomar at 8:05 AM on June 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by palomar at 8:05 AM on June 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
The only positive I can see coming from it is a progressive backlash that brings a Democratic president and Congress in 2020 for the next census and redistricting.From the people still supporting Sanders article.
It wouldn't be productive, but reading that I really wanted to grab the guy saying it, shake him, and ask him to point to one single instance of that happening in history. Just one.
I remember the hard core Nader supporters saying that exact same thing in 2000, that yeah a Bush win was bad but come 2004 there'd be a huge liberal backlash and then we'd **REALLY** win.
Didn't happen then, won't happen now, has never in all recorded history happened, and yet there's still this fringe of burn it all down types.
I mean I get it on a certain level. I actually agree with them that the Democratic party is failing, badly, to deal with a genuine existential threat. But how the fuck do we get from "the Republicans are batshit insane and actively working for Fascism, and the Democrats kinda suck" to "therefore let's destroy the Democratic party and hope that somehow by magic and pixie dust a totally new and really progressive party appears!"
Reform from within is slow and frustrating and a task I'm manifestly not personally cut out to do. But I do think it's the only way forward and I'm fully on side with the people who are doing it. I try to vote strategically to support those efforts, and part of that means voting for the Democratic candidate even if I don't like them much.
And, I actually do like Clinton a lot. She's great on most social issues.
I do have a lot of sympathy for the woman who said that due to Clinton's hawkish aspect she couldn't support Clinton. I think she's wrong, but I can sympathize with her a lot more than I can with the burn it all down crowd that made up most of the other responses.
I doubt many people on the Democratic side are really happy with this endless war that she's so fond of, and for a person who fled from a war ravaged nation I can reallly see how that'd be a big problem.
But, again, the alternative to voting for Clinton is making it one vote easier for Trump to win, and Trump wants to engage in atomic war, torture that makes waterboarding look nice, and kill indiscriminately.
Clinton is too hawkish, Trump is a bloodthirsty maniac.
So yeah, sympathy for people who have reservations about voting Clinton due to her hawkishness, but not too much sympathy because the only alternative is a Republican. And there's nothing Republicans like better than finding a random country and bombing the shit out of it.
posted by sotonohito at 8:09 AM on June 27, 2016 [17 favorites]
They each specify an insular, rigidly controlled, society with absolutely no freedom of religion
Umm, no. Islamic governments have offered varying degrees of freedom of religion over the centuries and continue to do so today. Even a cursory survey of existing governments in the Muslim world would show you this. How insular and/or rigid they are has varied tremendously as well. Also, there are many Muslims who will tell you that the constitution of the US is more in line with Islamic principles than any governing document currently in force anywhere in the world. Please don't make broad generalizations with regard to vast and heterogeneous belief systems/philosophies without bothering to refer to any facts.
posted by bardophile at 8:29 AM on June 27, 2016 [21 favorites]
Umm, no. Islamic governments have offered varying degrees of freedom of religion over the centuries and continue to do so today. Even a cursory survey of existing governments in the Muslim world would show you this. How insular and/or rigid they are has varied tremendously as well. Also, there are many Muslims who will tell you that the constitution of the US is more in line with Islamic principles than any governing document currently in force anywhere in the world. Please don't make broad generalizations with regard to vast and heterogeneous belief systems/philosophies without bothering to refer to any facts.
posted by bardophile at 8:29 AM on June 27, 2016 [21 favorites]
I respect the rights of people to agitate for change from outside of an established party as I think their viewpoints should be made public for discourse.
That being said once you get into an actual election under a First Past the Post system it's absolutely critical to hit the majority (or at least plurality if there is a strong enough 3rd party). There really is no room for a protest vote. Voting in our current system is based upon preference not ranking your preferences so there is no opportunity to vote "Green with Hillary second and Trump 10th" Every vote for a third party candidate that is intended as a protest does basically nothing and increases the chance of something very awful happening.
Unfortunately most civics course don't seem to focus on these issues. Arguably an election process could be done in a 2 step process as the vast number of candidates would get winnowed to two in the initial phase of voting followed by a head to head runoff between the last two candidates standing but I'm not sure how such a system could be instituted or even if it would pass constitutional review.
posted by vuron at 8:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
That being said once you get into an actual election under a First Past the Post system it's absolutely critical to hit the majority (or at least plurality if there is a strong enough 3rd party). There really is no room for a protest vote. Voting in our current system is based upon preference not ranking your preferences so there is no opportunity to vote "Green with Hillary second and Trump 10th" Every vote for a third party candidate that is intended as a protest does basically nothing and increases the chance of something very awful happening.
Unfortunately most civics course don't seem to focus on these issues. Arguably an election process could be done in a 2 step process as the vast number of candidates would get winnowed to two in the initial phase of voting followed by a head to head runoff between the last two candidates standing but I'm not sure how such a system could be instituted or even if it would pass constitutional review.
posted by vuron at 8:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
RE: that Mic article. Where does all the Sanders —> Stein support come from? Based on sites like isidewith, I know they share significant portions of their platform—though you could say the same about Sanders and Clinton—but every single one of them claiming they will probably vote for Stein is an interesting thing. Especially considering you didn't hear much about her at all this election cycle, prior the Sanders campaign fizzling out. You'd almost assume Sanders has endorsed someone... and that someone is Stein.
posted by defenestration at 8:46 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by defenestration at 8:46 AM on June 27, 2016
Also, reading that—if those people are in anyway representative—it's not really Bernie-or-Bust is it? It's #NeverClinton.
posted by defenestration at 8:48 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 8:48 AM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
...The only thing that got me through the next three grief-stricken hours was gazing at my reproduction of an oil painting of Donald wearing a natty white tennis sweater. I was especially captivated by his hands. And, yes, I’ve heard all the coarse insults regarding Donald’s short fingers, which shows just how little people understand about women. My most erotic fantasies always involve what I like to call Donald’s “skin mittens.” I shut my eyes and feel Donald caressing me with those plump, pink love paddles. I’ve read that he’s actually had the remnants of his love nubbins sanded down to increase his appeal to female voters, and to court the powerful spatula lobby. Mission accomplished, sir!Mr. Everything
posted by y2karl at 8:48 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
They each specify an insular, rigidly controlled, society with absolutely no freedom of religion
Umm, no.
Not only is this not true of Islam as a whole, it's also untrue of Judaism (my birth-religion) and most variants of Christianity.
I think it's important to keep a healthy perspective on what social/spiritual/cultural purposes religion genuinely serves, for the same reason people in this thread are asking that we try not to shit on people who don't see the world the way we do. Failure to understand a culture leads to bigotry and intolerance, and while I'd never ask people who's still dealing with the repercussions of religious bigotry to turn the other cheek (fuck that noise), anti-theism has already shown a tendency to cross over into shitty Islamophobia, and I'd rather we not go further in that direction. (Not sure if we're about to see a wave of Christian-hating, but Trump fans sure are eager to go after Jews, aren't they? Hating on religion doesn't end religious bigotry—often it just provides a nice comfy umbrella under which the most virulent bigots can hide, and persuade would-be moderates to gather round.)
posted by rorgy at 8:56 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
Umm, no.
Not only is this not true of Islam as a whole, it's also untrue of Judaism (my birth-religion) and most variants of Christianity.
I think it's important to keep a healthy perspective on what social/spiritual/cultural purposes religion genuinely serves, for the same reason people in this thread are asking that we try not to shit on people who don't see the world the way we do. Failure to understand a culture leads to bigotry and intolerance, and while I'd never ask people who's still dealing with the repercussions of religious bigotry to turn the other cheek (fuck that noise), anti-theism has already shown a tendency to cross over into shitty Islamophobia, and I'd rather we not go further in that direction. (Not sure if we're about to see a wave of Christian-hating, but Trump fans sure are eager to go after Jews, aren't they? Hating on religion doesn't end religious bigotry—often it just provides a nice comfy umbrella under which the most virulent bigots can hide, and persuade would-be moderates to gather round.)
posted by rorgy at 8:56 AM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]
Yeah, but Brooks and Will have fans and followers. If we point and laugh at Brooks and Will, then fewer of their followers will want to make the same move. When someone is getting laughed at, people usually aren't eager to be associated with them.
Well the thing is - that's fine. Because for all his oh-I-am-so-reasonable act, when the rubber hits the road Will will pull the R lever and tell other people to as well, I will guarantee it.
After David Frum's very public drubbing out and oh the party left me I didn't leave the party, he wrote an oped for the very next election talking about how he'd still be voting R because they were the party with the best prospects for blah blah blah whatever. That's not "no true republican" talk on our part, that's his very own actions and words demonstrating that this is just part of his brand management. Will is just joining this cadre of folks who have discovered they can criticize the party and get attention, then turn around and still support it at the only time those bozos might get bounced and get more attention.
So if our pointing and laughing at that baloney makes people want less to be associated with him and Will when they inevitably re-play their well this stuff is yucky and not okay but I'm still going to support it garbage then GOOD.
posted by phearlez at 9:07 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well the thing is - that's fine. Because for all his oh-I-am-so-reasonable act, when the rubber hits the road Will will pull the R lever and tell other people to as well, I will guarantee it.
After David Frum's very public drubbing out and oh the party left me I didn't leave the party, he wrote an oped for the very next election talking about how he'd still be voting R because they were the party with the best prospects for blah blah blah whatever. That's not "no true republican" talk on our part, that's his very own actions and words demonstrating that this is just part of his brand management. Will is just joining this cadre of folks who have discovered they can criticize the party and get attention, then turn around and still support it at the only time those bozos might get bounced and get more attention.
So if our pointing and laughing at that baloney makes people want less to be associated with him and Will when they inevitably re-play their well this stuff is yucky and not okay but I'm still going to support it garbage then GOOD.
posted by phearlez at 9:07 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
Arguably an election process could be done in a 2 step process as the vast number of candidates would get winnowed to two in the initial phase of voting followed by a head to head runoff between the last two candidates standing
We do this. We call them "primary elections" and "general elections."
(But I am starting to really wish the primaries were set up differently, maybe ranked voting or something. That could be done without any constitutional changes...)
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
We do this. We call them "primary elections" and "general elections."
(But I am starting to really wish the primaries were set up differently, maybe ranked voting or something. That could be done without any constitutional changes...)
posted by OnceUponATime at 9:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
I doubt we're gonna get Michelle Obama this time around. She absolutely killed it at the last convention.
I am hoping she does speak at the convention, along with Elizabeth Warren, and all the other dynamic leaders of the party. Also um...that guy. Uh, Bertie? Bennie? Anyway, he can speak too. I'm really looking forward to the party.
posted by happyroach at 9:14 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am hoping she does speak at the convention, along with Elizabeth Warren, and all the other dynamic leaders of the party. Also um...that guy. Uh, Bertie? Bennie? Anyway, he can speak too. I'm really looking forward to the party.
posted by happyroach at 9:14 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honestly not really looking forward to having Bernie drone on with iteration 1,000,000 of his millionaires and billionaires stump speech. Bill Clinton can deliver some interminable speeches but he's still a very talented orator (probably only matched by Obama in term of current orators) so even if I get bored with my short attention span I can still appreciate the wit and charm and rhetorical flourishes.
Sanders on the other hand, ugh. He really needs to be the Madison to someone else's Jefferson.
posted by vuron at 9:29 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sanders on the other hand, ugh. He really needs to be the Madison to someone else's Jefferson.
posted by vuron at 9:29 AM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
I kinda don't even want to ask, but: so what's this #TrumpGirlsBreakTheInternet shitshow?
posted by box at 9:30 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by box at 9:30 AM on June 27, 2016
Sanders seems focused on maintaining his campaign until he retires any campaign debt remaining. I can't see how he's actually pushing towards anything achievable. It seems increasingly it was a vanity run of sorts rather a definitive push towards creating a broad progressive coalition.Ironically, the one thing he has achieved for sure is to dramatically increase his public speaking fee, whenever he leaves Congress. if he doesn't run again in 2018 (or loses his relection bid), he'll be one of the highest paid speakers in the U.S.
posted by msalt at 9:32 AM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
I doubt we're gonna get Michelle Obama this time around. She absolutely killed it at the last convention.
I am hoping she does speak at the convention, along with Elizabeth Warren, and all the other dynamic leaders of the party. Also um...that guy. Uh, Bertie? Bennie? Anyway, he can speak too. I'm really looking forward to the party.
As much as I think Bernie speaking could be a very good thing, there's a part of me that wants all the prime time spots (or hell, just all of them) to be women but not have the campaign or DNC mention that and then when the media ask them about it, they act all surprised like "oh, really, we didn't notice" like people always do when you point out all-white or all-men panels.
(This would, of course, be a PR disaster that the Clinton campaign would wisely avoid, but it still amuses me, which is why I'm a voter and not a campaign manager.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:33 AM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
I am hoping she does speak at the convention, along with Elizabeth Warren, and all the other dynamic leaders of the party. Also um...that guy. Uh, Bertie? Bennie? Anyway, he can speak too. I'm really looking forward to the party.
As much as I think Bernie speaking could be a very good thing, there's a part of me that wants all the prime time spots (or hell, just all of them) to be women but not have the campaign or DNC mention that and then when the media ask them about it, they act all surprised like "oh, really, we didn't notice" like people always do when you point out all-white or all-men panels.
(This would, of course, be a PR disaster that the Clinton campaign would wisely avoid, but it still amuses me, which is why I'm a voter and not a campaign manager.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:33 AM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
come 2004 there'd be a huge liberal backlash and then we'd **REALLY** win.
Wellllllll, it's not crazy to say that this is what happened in 2008 and how we ended up with not only an Obama presidency but a new wave of left/progressive social awareness. Especially in terms of feminism and racial politics.
However, yeah, guys, we have presidential elections every four years. We don't need a revolution. Just vote for the liberal this time. Why wait 4 or 8 years?
And of course, certainly the idea that a Republican winning the presidency will usher in a full on leftist revolution a la October 1917 is just silly on the face of it. Before you even get to the fact that none of Bernie's platform is "revolutionary" at all, it's all liberal reforms that need to be legislated into place under the system we currently have. Political revolutions don't result in free college tuition.
posted by Sara C. at 9:41 AM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
Wellllllll, it's not crazy to say that this is what happened in 2008 and how we ended up with not only an Obama presidency but a new wave of left/progressive social awareness. Especially in terms of feminism and racial politics.
However, yeah, guys, we have presidential elections every four years. We don't need a revolution. Just vote for the liberal this time. Why wait 4 or 8 years?
And of course, certainly the idea that a Republican winning the presidency will usher in a full on leftist revolution a la October 1917 is just silly on the face of it. Before you even get to the fact that none of Bernie's platform is "revolutionary" at all, it's all liberal reforms that need to be legislated into place under the system we currently have. Political revolutions don't result in free college tuition.
posted by Sara C. at 9:41 AM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
I kinda don't even want to ask, but: so what's this #TrumpGirlsBreakTheInternet shitshow?
It's a bunch of hired models being used to prove that smart, attractive women are eager to vote for Trump.
posted by palomar at 10:03 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's a bunch of hired models being used to prove that smart, attractive women are eager to vote for Trump.
posted by palomar at 10:03 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am starting to really wish the primaries were set up differently, maybe ranked voting or something. That could be done without any constitutional changes...
I'm being half-disingenuous, half what-if when I say this: what if we organized the primaries March Madness-style? Bracket viable candidates out, divide them into branches based on political theory, and let them build momentum as they crush their foes in waves of populist glory?
If the election season's going to be a year long, we should at least introduce more action points along the way, keep it interesting. I'm sure the betting markets would appreciate the change.
posted by rorgy at 10:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm being half-disingenuous, half what-if when I say this: what if we organized the primaries March Madness-style? Bracket viable candidates out, divide them into branches based on political theory, and let them build momentum as they crush their foes in waves of populist glory?
If the election season's going to be a year long, we should at least introduce more action points along the way, keep it interesting. I'm sure the betting markets would appreciate the change.
posted by rorgy at 10:08 AM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
• 77 percent say it bothers them to come into contact with people who speak little or no English.
• 81 percent say discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against minorities.
• 77 percent say discrimination against Christians in the U.S. is a major problem.
• 83 percent say the American way of life needs to be protected against foreign influences.
• 83 percent say the values of Islam are at odds with America's values and way of life.
• 80 percent say immigrants constitute a burden on American society.
• 68 percent say the country has changed mostly for the worse since the 1950s.
And here's the scariest one:
• 72 percent say we need a leader who is willing to break some rules to set things right.
This is just the Fox News point-of-view
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 10:17 AM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Exit Polls, and Why the Primary Was Not Stolen From Bernie Sanders
posted by Twain Device at 10:31 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Twain Device at 10:31 AM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama both made very different, but equally brilliant speeches at the convention in 2012. I'm really curious to see this year's roster.
posted by bardophile at 11:22 AM on June 27, 2016
posted by bardophile at 11:22 AM on June 27, 2016
After releasing fundraising reports that were anemic at best, Donald Trump’s campaign announced in one single email blast he had raised at least $3.3 million. If that figure seems impossible, that’s because it is.
posted by octothorpe at 11:28 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 11:28 AM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
• 72 percent say we need a leader who is willing to break some rules to set things right.
This is why Fox News viewers are so supportive of Obama's executive actions and never fault him for executive overreach.
posted by Justinian at 12:14 PM on June 27, 2016 [21 favorites]
This is why Fox News viewers are so supportive of Obama's executive actions and never fault him for executive overreach.
posted by Justinian at 12:14 PM on June 27, 2016 [21 favorites]
Buzzfeed and president Obama remind us to register to vote. I'm so going to miss this guy.
posted by octothorpe at 12:18 PM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 12:18 PM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
Buzzfeed, please hire President Obama to make YouTube videos for you forever, okay thanks.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:21 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:21 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
does that mean he has to do the thing where he tries on the halter tops from Uniqlo to prove they're not really one-size-fits-all...?
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:23 PM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 12:23 PM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
“Trump and the Racial Politics of the South,” Kevin O'Leary, The American Prospect, 27 June 2016
posted by ob1quixote at 12:38 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ob1quixote at 12:38 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pretty solid and devastating ad out from Priorities USA regarding Trump's targeting the disabled for ridicule.
I don't want a president that makes fun of me, I want a president that inspires me and that's not Donald Trump.
Further evidence that the best arguments against Trump are his inability to be anything other than an asshole.
posted by vuron at 1:08 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
I don't want a president that makes fun of me, I want a president that inspires me and that's not Donald Trump.
Further evidence that the best arguments against Trump are his inability to be anything other than an asshole.
posted by vuron at 1:08 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
I don't want a president that makes fun of me, I want a president that inspires me and that's not Donald Trump.
The realization that half or more of the party that nominated him definitely wants a president that makes fun of Dante and people going through similar struggles is incredibly depressing.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:25 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
The realization that half or more of the party that nominated him definitely wants a president that makes fun of Dante and people going through similar struggles is incredibly depressing.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:25 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
“Trump and the Racial Politics of the South,” Kevin O'Leary, The American Prospect, 27 June 2016
Hang on, is that article saying that the history of American conservatism is basically just siccing poor whites on poor minorities and immigrants
this changes everything
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:43 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Hang on, is that article saying that the history of American conservatism is basically just siccing poor whites on poor minorities and immigrants
this changes everything
posted by tivalasvegas at 1:43 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
From ob1quixote's link:
AS RECENTLY AS THE TURN of the current century, scholars were celebrating the success of the Second Reconstruction, which emerged from the coalition of Democratic presidents (Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson) working with civil-rights leaders and activists. In his seminal history The Two Reconstructions, written in 2004, Swarthmore political scientist Richard Valelly argued it was a triumph across both the courts and parties (specifically the Democratic Party) that allowed the Second Reconstruction to become institutionalized and durable.
This shows yet again that the way to achieve lasting social change isn't to allow Republicans to win elections in hopes that people will become disillusioned and fight harder for pure leftist ideals. The Civil Rights Movement was victorious (to the extent that it was) by working WITH liberal establishment figures who agreed with their goals.
posted by Sara C. at 1:43 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
AS RECENTLY AS THE TURN of the current century, scholars were celebrating the success of the Second Reconstruction, which emerged from the coalition of Democratic presidents (Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson) working with civil-rights leaders and activists. In his seminal history The Two Reconstructions, written in 2004, Swarthmore political scientist Richard Valelly argued it was a triumph across both the courts and parties (specifically the Democratic Party) that allowed the Second Reconstruction to become institutionalized and durable.
This shows yet again that the way to achieve lasting social change isn't to allow Republicans to win elections in hopes that people will become disillusioned and fight harder for pure leftist ideals. The Civil Rights Movement was victorious (to the extent that it was) by working WITH liberal establishment figures who agreed with their goals.
posted by Sara C. at 1:43 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Is anyone else concerned that a Female/Female ticket may be unelectable in 2016? I have to admit the thought has crossed my mind.
I don't have much respect for The Daily Beast, but there may be something to the idea that women are more liable to be pessimistic about how far we've come vis a vis glass ceilings than men are.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/27/women-worry-that-america-can-t-a-clinton-warren-ticket.html
None of which has any bearing on my thinking about who Clinton should pick (I'd rather have Warren in the senate or in a cabinet position with more power than VP, and a demographically/ geographically strategic person for VP).
But I do wonder if I'm alone in thinking Warren would be a daring VP pick.
Especially after listening to Malcolm Gladwell's podcast on female tokens, and the experiences of Julia Gillard as Australia's first female prime minister in 2010.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:55 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't have much respect for The Daily Beast, but there may be something to the idea that women are more liable to be pessimistic about how far we've come vis a vis glass ceilings than men are.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/27/women-worry-that-america-can-t-a-clinton-warren-ticket.html
None of which has any bearing on my thinking about who Clinton should pick (I'd rather have Warren in the senate or in a cabinet position with more power than VP, and a demographically/ geographically strategic person for VP).
But I do wonder if I'm alone in thinking Warren would be a daring VP pick.
Especially after listening to Malcolm Gladwell's podcast on female tokens, and the experiences of Julia Gillard as Australia's first female prime minister in 2010.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 1:55 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think that the Clinton campaign is a good judge of whether an all-female ticket is electable. I have full trust that they're not going to drop the ball in a cute vanity campaign/publicity stunt. If they choose Warren it will be after doing every possible type of research and looking at every permutation of poll numbers.
All of the above said, I think Warren is campaigning with Clinton now partially as a proxy for Bernie Sanders, and partially because duh. I would hope that basically ALL popular Democratic elected officials would endorse and campaign with Clinton against Trump.
posted by Sara C. at 2:01 PM on June 27, 2016 [14 favorites]
All of the above said, I think Warren is campaigning with Clinton now partially as a proxy for Bernie Sanders, and partially because duh. I would hope that basically ALL popular Democratic elected officials would endorse and campaign with Clinton against Trump.
posted by Sara C. at 2:01 PM on June 27, 2016 [14 favorites]
Given the lockstep way Republicans vote these days, and given how iffy it was getting any Democrat replacing a sitting Senator in a special election, I'd really rather Clinton not pick any Senator as her VP.
I'm glad Warren is campaigning with Clinton, she's a great speaker and fantastic at attacking the bad guys. But I'd rather have her safely in the Senate.
posted by sotonohito at 2:41 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'm glad Warren is campaigning with Clinton, she's a great speaker and fantastic at attacking the bad guys. But I'd rather have her safely in the Senate.
posted by sotonohito at 2:41 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
Politico: Hardly anybody wants to speak at Trump's convention
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:41 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
A slot at the Republican National Convention used to be a career-maker — a chance to make your name on the big stage and to catch the eye of the Republican donors and activists who make or break campaigns.Leads you to wonder, after Trump which direction is the Grand Old Party going to go? Are they going to try again with Latino candidates? Are they going to try with someone with Trump's populist appeal but with more solid governing experience? This will be interesting because I don't think Cruz is going to get more electable and I think Rubio is always going to be "Little Marco" without a backbone to his name. Paul Ryan? Romney? Jeb! again? None of these guys have charisma or a wide enough appeal to reach out to Tea Party members and evangelicals, as well as Wall Street.
In the year of Trump: Not so much.
With the convention less than a month away, POLITICO contacted more than 50 prominent governors, senators and House members to gauge their interest in speaking. Only a few said they were open to it, and everyone else said they weren’t planning on it, didn’t want to or weren’t going to Cleveland at all — or simply didn’t respond.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:41 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Well I know I'll be inclined to watch it because I watch conventions, but damn it if it will feature way too much of the likes of Palin and Gringrich to be even bearable.
posted by readery at 2:50 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by readery at 2:50 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Leads you to wonder, after Trump which direction is the Grand Old Party going to go?
A good question.
Most of their elder statesmen have aged out of contention. The rest seem tainted in one way or another.
George Schultz is 95, but does have a tiger on his tuckus
Sam Nunn is 77.
Brent Scowcroft is 91.
Pete Wilson is 82.
Colin Powell is 79.
Jim Baker is 86.
William Perry is 88.
Donald Rumsfeld is 83.
Dick Lugar is 83
and
Condoleeza Rice is only 61, but she doesn't seem interested.
posted by zarq at 2:57 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
A good question.
Most of their elder statesmen have aged out of contention. The rest seem tainted in one way or another.
George Schultz is 95, but does have a tiger on his tuckus
Sam Nunn is 77.
Brent Scowcroft is 91.
Pete Wilson is 82.
Colin Powell is 79.
Jim Baker is 86.
William Perry is 88.
Donald Rumsfeld is 83.
Dick Lugar is 83
and
Condoleeza Rice is only 61, but she doesn't seem interested.
posted by zarq at 2:57 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
To keep 'on message' Donald will probably fill up the speaking spots with former Apprentice winners... and Trump University graduates... and his kids.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:58 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:58 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Today Donald Trump called Elizabeth Warren a racist. His logic is very....Trumpian.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:02 PM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
Donald Trump told NBC News that Sen. Elizabeth Warren is “racist” and “a total fraud” after attacking him during a Hillary Clinton rally in Ohio on Monday.Yesterday at Politicon Sarah Palin took credit for the rise of Trump.
“She made up her heritage, which I think is racist. I think she’s a racist, actually because what she did was very racist,” Trump said in a phone interview.
Trump added in his NBC interview, “[W]e call her Pocahontas for a reason.” I’m still not entirely sure what that means. Does Trump think Pocahontas falsely claimed Native American heritage? Is he somehow suggesting Pocahontas was a racist? Trying to translate his rhetoric from Trump to English can get a little tricky.
As one of Donald Trump’s earlier supporters, Palin told Carville about the excited “whispers” she would hear from people early in the billionaire’s primary campaign that gradually got louder until he secured the nomination. One moment, she said people “don’t give a flying flip” about endorsements from “has been” politicians like her, but the next she appeared to take credit for his success with her brand of ultra-conservative voters.Delusional as usual. By the way readery, her speech at Politicon according to The Daily Beast: " used a teleprompter to deliver what could be described as a listless speech titled “Your Garden Variety Everyday Pissed Off American.” In what was billed as an hour-long event, Palin spoke for barely 20 minutes and took no questions from the audience before she was ushered off the stage."
“Maybe my endorsement was able to kick off—logistically, I’m speaking, about the timing of everything—kick off and make an empowering movement for other conservatives, other proud clingers to their guns or God and our Constitution, the Tea Partiers, to empower them, allow them to go ahead and support the guy!” Palin said, adding that her endorsement was what really got the “ball rolling” for Trump.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:02 PM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
I did not know that in the Art of The Deal Trump claimed his grandfather came from Sweden.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:19 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump wrote about his father and grandfather in The Art of the Deal, which Trump falsely claimed was the best-selling business book of all time.Apparently Trump talked up his Swedish ancestors so much that (according to Trump) "I was getting so many letters from Sweden: Would I come over and speak to Parliament? Would I come meet with the president?” He does live in an alternative universe.
“His story is classic Horatio Alger. Fred Trump was born in New Jersey in 1905. His father, who came here from Sweden as a child, owned a moderately successful restaurant, but he was also a hard liver and a hard drinker, and he died when my father was eleven years old,” Trump wrote.
According to census records obtained by BuzzFeed News, Trump’s grandfather and great-grandfather were actually born in Germany.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:19 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
#1 Rule of Thumb: if Trump said it, it's a lie. Why are we JUST NOW getting around to fact-checking his first book? If journalists had done their jobs back then, he never would've had a second book (at least not from a major publisher).
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:23 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:23 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think people have known about the fake-Swedish backstory for a while. It's just never seemed all that important, because he wasn't previously calling other people racist for having said incorrect things about their heritage.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:29 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:29 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think Palin may have a point about her clearing the way for Trump. Maybe it wasn't her endorsement that did it, but I think her normalizing the proudly, loudly backwards elements of her party might be connected.
posted by EatTheWeek at 3:30 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by EatTheWeek at 3:30 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Donald Trump Even Lies About Being Swedish (He’s Actually German)
posted by kirkaracha at 3:36 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by kirkaracha at 3:36 PM on June 27, 2016
I'm pretty certain that Sam Nunn is a Democrat.
posted by humanfont at 3:38 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 3:38 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
So I love that because Warren thought that she had Cherokee ancestry (which may actually be true), conservatives calls her Pocahontas who was from an Algonquian tribe and not Cherokee. It's like Pocahontas was just the only female native American name they could think of.
posted by octothorpe at 3:40 PM on June 27, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 3:40 PM on June 27, 2016 [21 favorites]
I think Palin may have a point about her clearing the way for Trump. Maybe it wasn't her endorsement that did it, but I think her normalizing the proudly, loudly backwards elements of her party might be connected.
Or just normalizing being gleefully stupid.
posted by dersins at 4:00 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Or just normalizing being gleefully stupid.
posted by dersins at 4:00 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
I really like this strategy from The Weekly Sift:
This point is in danger of being lost in the 2016 campaign, as a large segment of the dissatisfied public thinks of change in terms of changing the president. Donald Trump gets credit for being the candidate who would “shake things up”, while Hillary Clinton is said to represent “more of the same” and “Obama’s third term”.posted by OnceUponATime at 4:00 PM on June 27, 2016 [32 favorites]
But on issue after issue — climate change, healthcare, voting rights, guns, rebuilding infrastructure, immigration reform, and on and on — Obama has been the one pushing for change and being frustrated by a Congress that does nothing. The way to get change isn’t to replace Obama with somebody very different, it’s to get a president who will keep pushing the way Obama has, and elect a more cooperative Congress. [6]
[...]
Harry Truman faced an even worse version of this situation in 1948. In essence, he was running for FDR’s 5th term. And yet, he did not run as the more-of-the-same candidate. Instead, he ran the give-’em-Hell campaign against the do-nothing Republican Congress. He didn’t just hold on to the presidency, but Democrats regained control of Congress as well.
That should be the blueprint for 2016: Don’t just run against Trump, run against the do-nothing Republican Congress. Make the public realize where the real obstacle to change is. Anybody who wants to shake things up needs to shake up Congress.
Just one further thought about that Weekly Sift article -- he says Obama has only had to veto eight bills in the last year and a half despite Republican majorities in both houses, and burns Paul Ryan for writing white papers instead of laws.
I had been thinking the Republicans had revolutionary ambitions of their own -- to do to the whole country what they've done to Kansas, basically. But it seems like they don't. Because otherwise, yeah, they'd be passing things and forcing Obama to veto.
But maybe some do, and they can't agree within the party about what those ambitions are. Is that failure to pass bills another sign that their coalition is fracturing?
If they dump the Palin/Trump fans and go after, eg, those tech billionaires and wannabe tech billionaires that are currently supporting Democrats... What happens to all those Palin/Trump fans? If they aren't represented in either political party, do they sink into irrelevance... or do they form "militias"? (shudder...)
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:17 PM on June 27, 2016
I had been thinking the Republicans had revolutionary ambitions of their own -- to do to the whole country what they've done to Kansas, basically. But it seems like they don't. Because otherwise, yeah, they'd be passing things and forcing Obama to veto.
But maybe some do, and they can't agree within the party about what those ambitions are. Is that failure to pass bills another sign that their coalition is fracturing?
If they dump the Palin/Trump fans and go after, eg, those tech billionaires and wannabe tech billionaires that are currently supporting Democrats... What happens to all those Palin/Trump fans? If they aren't represented in either political party, do they sink into irrelevance... or do they form "militias"? (shudder...)
posted by OnceUponATime at 4:17 PM on June 27, 2016
Sam Nunn is a Democrat. Or at least he was when he was a Senator.
posted by haiku warrior at 4:25 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by haiku warrior at 4:25 PM on June 27, 2016
• 72 percent say we need a leader who is willing to break some rules to set things right.
This is why Fox News viewers are so supportive of Obama's executive actions and never fault him for executive overreach.
Huh, I wonder what it is about Obama that causes the Fox demographic to exclude him
weird!
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:41 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is why Fox News viewers are so supportive of Obama's executive actions and never fault him for executive overreach.
Huh, I wonder what it is about Obama that causes the Fox demographic to exclude him
weird!
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:41 PM on June 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
That's easy, Ray Walston:
81 percent say discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against minorities.
Clearly, they must believe that Obama is being excluded because he's half white.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:49 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
81 percent say discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against minorities.
Clearly, they must believe that Obama is being excluded because he's half white.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:49 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
This is why Fox News viewers are so supportive of Obama's executive actions and never fault him for executive overreach.
I think we can expect a sudden change in their opinion of executive actions if Trump wins.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:50 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think we can expect a sudden change in their opinion of executive actions if Trump wins.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:50 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Would Trump build the Wall and make Mexico pay for it via executive actions?
Maybe he can give everyone Unicorns via executive actions right? I mean apparently he's fucking magic.
But on the other hand Trump is white so he'd probably be on the receiving end of lots of discrimination. Maybe the Democrats will depict him in indigenous German garb.
posted by vuron at 5:28 PM on June 27, 2016
Maybe he can give everyone Unicorns via executive actions right? I mean apparently he's fucking magic.
But on the other hand Trump is white so he'd probably be on the receiving end of lots of discrimination. Maybe the Democrats will depict him in indigenous German garb.
posted by vuron at 5:28 PM on June 27, 2016
The two racists I have had conversations with over the years re Obama both bring up repeatedly that although he is half white he never mentions it, proving he is racist against whites. I figure it must be some right wing talking point because neither of these people know each other.
I always asked them would it help if he or others like him yelled that they were half white to cabs that wouldn't pick them up, etc.
posted by readery at 5:29 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
I always asked them would it help if he or others like him yelled that they were half white to cabs that wouldn't pick them up, etc.
posted by readery at 5:29 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
No kidding, I think lederhosen would look flattering on Trump. I don't know the name of the hat one wears with lederhosen, but that would also be a good look for him.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:32 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:32 PM on June 27, 2016
It is true that lederhosen would be precisely as flattering on Trump as they are on anybody else.
posted by dersins at 5:43 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by dersins at 5:43 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Pretty sure Ray Smuckles wears a tyrolean hat when he goes to hell
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:54 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 5:54 PM on June 27, 2016
April Ryan was on MSNBC last hour saying she got a call from a senior congressional leader who had spoken with Warren and the person said Warren thinks Hillary has chosen her as VP. I mean it's in the sister-in-law's baby cousin Tracy level of rumors, but it'll be interesting to see what happens next. Could just be misdirection. I thought for sure if Secretary Clinton was going to unveil her choice (if it was Warren), it would have been at that event this morning.
posted by cashman at 5:55 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by cashman at 5:55 PM on June 27, 2016
I get all the reservations about Warren as Clinton Veep but they like, look really good together? I don't know, I think the VP thing might be happening.
posted by zutalors! at 6:08 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 6:08 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Trial balloons in the press are pretty much to be expected. You do a soft opening and look for particularly positive or particularly negative responses about the rumor and then you can backtrack as necessary.
While there are concerns about whether the US electorate is "ready" for a dual female ticket (and based upon how misogynist the underlying culture is there might be some validity to the concerns) I think that the relatively positive response I've seen thus far and the very skiled way in which Warren seems able to get Trump willing to absolutely lose his shit makes me think that while there are some potential negative (mainly related to the Senate seat) there is a lot of really strong reasons for going against the conventional wisdom and just going full on woman power.
posted by vuron at 6:16 PM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
While there are concerns about whether the US electorate is "ready" for a dual female ticket (and based upon how misogynist the underlying culture is there might be some validity to the concerns) I think that the relatively positive response I've seen thus far and the very skiled way in which Warren seems able to get Trump willing to absolutely lose his shit makes me think that while there are some potential negative (mainly related to the Senate seat) there is a lot of really strong reasons for going against the conventional wisdom and just going full on woman power.
posted by vuron at 6:16 PM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
I, for one, am so ready for a Clinton/Warren ticket and didn't really realize that until right now.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:34 PM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:34 PM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]
#ReadyforThem
posted by zutalors! at 6:37 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 6:37 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
I, for one, am so ready for a Clinton/Warren ticket and didn't really realize that until right now.
I didn't realize it until I daydreamed it about it for the length of an entire red light and found myself coming out of that excellent haze with a smile on my face as I imagined Donald Trump's frothing, fruitless rage at being faced with two hyper-competent women as opponents.
posted by yasaman at 6:41 PM on June 27, 2016 [16 favorites]
I didn't realize it until I daydreamed it about it for the length of an entire red light and found myself coming out of that excellent haze with a smile on my face as I imagined Donald Trump's frothing, fruitless rage at being faced with two hyper-competent women as opponents.
posted by yasaman at 6:41 PM on June 27, 2016 [16 favorites]
Yeah, and I get that people would hate to lose her in the legislature, but part of the VP job is traditionally to be the "attack dog" bruiser, and Warren is already killing it on that front. And if it sets Warren up for her own presidential campaign in eight-years-may-it-please-God, I'm all for that.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:47 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 6:47 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of course there will be a whole host of pundits on Fox and talk radio talking about how now White Men are discriminated against.
You know because ending 43 Presidents in a row and 47 VPs in a row is somehow indicative that the white male is dying out or something.
posted by vuron at 6:49 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
You know because ending 43 Presidents in a row and 47 VPs in a row is somehow indicative that the white male is dying out or something.
posted by vuron at 6:49 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean I didn't want it either until I saw Warren come out this hard not just against Trump but for Clinton. She's turned all her charmingly off kilter firepower toward really supporting Clinton, not just driving against Trump, and in my mind she's stolen the spotlight from Sanders completely. It looks like a great fit and I'm now hoping it will happen.
posted by zutalors! at 6:52 PM on June 27, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 6:52 PM on June 27, 2016 [11 favorites]
ok not to jinx anything but I legit got a little chill from this picture.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:57 PM on June 27, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 6:57 PM on June 27, 2016 [12 favorites]
I'm in.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:07 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:07 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah I'm totally in.
My daughter is only 6 now so probably doesn't know the historical opportunity available but the idea of having her grow up with 2 women in the top offices of the land should be a role model that tells her to never give up despite all the barriers.
posted by vuron at 7:11 PM on June 27, 2016
My daughter is only 6 now so probably doesn't know the historical opportunity available but the idea of having her grow up with 2 women in the top offices of the land should be a role model that tells her to never give up despite all the barriers.
posted by vuron at 7:11 PM on June 27, 2016
If Wall Street does pull their donations over Candidate Elizabeth Warren, that's a slamdunk of fundraising appeal to that ticket's backers and a way to tamp down a nice chunk of the $hillary grumbling. Trump hates when women are smarter and faster than him worse than he hates paying contractors and anything that complicates maintaining the Neu Trump Pivot Containment Field is all to the good.
It would suck losing her in the Senate, true. But her voice would have four years minimum of the national bully pulpit, which ain't nothing. I keep hearing that VP is a vanity office from which one can't wield much influence or power, which I think would be news to Dick Cheney.
posted by EatTheWeek at 7:12 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
It would suck losing her in the Senate, true. But her voice would have four years minimum of the national bully pulpit, which ain't nothing. I keep hearing that VP is a vanity office from which one can't wield much influence or power, which I think would be news to Dick Cheney.
posted by EatTheWeek at 7:12 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
White nationalist group says it will be at Republican convention
A group of white nationalists and skinheads who held a rally in Sacramento over the weekend where at least five people were stabbed plans to show up at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland next month to “make sure that the Donald Trump supporters are defended.”posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:19 PM on June 27, 2016
Well the parallels between Trump and the Brownshirts couldn't become more obvious now. I mean things are already coming pre Godwined at this point.
posted by vuron at 7:38 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by vuron at 7:38 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
ok not to jinx anything but I legit got a little chill from this picture.
GET HYPE
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:46 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
GET HYPE
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:46 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
GET HYPE
And the thread has now come full circle.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:49 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
And the thread has now come full circle.
posted by saturday_morning at 7:49 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
SHUT IT DOWN!
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:00 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by downtohisturtles at 8:00 PM on June 27, 2016
My heart wants in, but my head says stay out. I still don't think the upside of having Warren on the ticket is worth the downside of losing her in the Senate. It's not just about the D/R balance, but also about how great she is on regulatory issues, which are vital these days. I want her in the Senate using her strong leadership skills to keep Democrats from drifting toward the center as is their wont. I want her pushing for stronger regulation of the financial services industry.
Elizabeth Warrens don't come along very often in our political system, and given that she's gotten involved in politics relatively late in life, I want that talent put to good use, not squandered on the Vice Presidency for the cheap thrill of having two strong women knock the shit out of Trump in an election.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:05 PM on June 27, 2016 [17 favorites]
Elizabeth Warrens don't come along very often in our political system, and given that she's gotten involved in politics relatively late in life, I want that talent put to good use, not squandered on the Vice Presidency for the cheap thrill of having two strong women knock the shit out of Trump in an election.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:05 PM on June 27, 2016 [17 favorites]
Elizabeths Warren
posted by saturday_morning at 8:07 PM on June 27, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by saturday_morning at 8:07 PM on June 27, 2016 [22 favorites]
Is there anyone on the D side in MA who would be a strong candidate for Warren's Senate seat in a special election? And would Scott Brown re-carpetbag his way back in?
posted by saturday_morning at 8:11 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by saturday_morning at 8:11 PM on June 27, 2016
tonycpsu: "My heart wants in, but my head says stay out."
Same here. In my imagination, it'd be like Leslie Knope teamed up with a grown-up Hermione Granger (book-smart but also down to get her hands dirty in a fight). But, I still think she'd be stronger in the Senate. Treasury Secretary might be not bad, though.
One other thing that Warren fans should keep in mind about an executive appointment: the VP as well as the cabinet secretaries are all subordinate to the president. If there's a dispute, the president rules. If you can imagine a situation where Clinton and Warren disagree, would you want Warren to be in situation where she would have to defer to Clinton? One thing that senators have is a measure of independence which is kind of valuable on its own.
Of course, if Warren accepts a VP slot, I'll trust that she's sharp enough to have worked out all the angles and has figured that this is her best move. She's relatively new to politics but she hasn't appeared to be naive about it.
posted by mhum at 8:18 PM on June 27, 2016 [12 favorites]
Same here. In my imagination, it'd be like Leslie Knope teamed up with a grown-up Hermione Granger (book-smart but also down to get her hands dirty in a fight). But, I still think she'd be stronger in the Senate. Treasury Secretary might be not bad, though.
One other thing that Warren fans should keep in mind about an executive appointment: the VP as well as the cabinet secretaries are all subordinate to the president. If there's a dispute, the president rules. If you can imagine a situation where Clinton and Warren disagree, would you want Warren to be in situation where she would have to defer to Clinton? One thing that senators have is a measure of independence which is kind of valuable on its own.
Of course, if Warren accepts a VP slot, I'll trust that she's sharp enough to have worked out all the angles and has figured that this is her best move. She's relatively new to politics but she hasn't appeared to be naive about it.
posted by mhum at 8:18 PM on June 27, 2016 [12 favorites]
Is there anyone on the D side in MA who would be a strong candidate for Warren's Senate seat in a special election?
Oh yeah, Seth Moulton. He's still a bit green but he's smart, super courageous, and all-around pretty great. I think he has a stellar political future. 'Course, then, we'd have to replace him. But we could.
posted by Miko at 8:34 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh yeah, Seth Moulton. He's still a bit green but he's smart, super courageous, and all-around pretty great. I think he has a stellar political future. 'Course, then, we'd have to replace him. But we could.
posted by Miko at 8:34 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump campaign: 'Nothing wrong' with banning Muslims from entering US
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:35 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
National co-chair calls Republican frontrunner’s proposal a ‘reasonable precaution’ allowing the US to ‘take a break and make sure everything is cool’Wow this is scary. Not to re-re-re-Godwinise things, but if I were a Muslim in the USA I'd be preparing for the possibility of an exit, just in case. You know, passports up to date, dual nationality if possible, offshore accounts, strengthening ties with family abroad. Because this is pretty much what was going on in Europe in the 1920s, although it has obviously been overshadowed by the 1930s and 1940s.
[...]
Clovis also told the Guardian that his plan would allow for other countries to reciprocate. He noted that the US would have to cooperate with countries like “Britain, Germany, France and Denmark” to do this and said: “If we’re putting a hiatus on people of certain religious affiliation to enter the country, we should expect some reciprocal desires as well.”
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:35 PM on June 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Reciprocal desires?" What does that even mean? Like if the US bans Muslims from entering we should expect other countries to not allow Americans to enter? This is a rhetorical question, but why would any sane person think that that sounded like a good idea?
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:41 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:41 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
> Like if the US bans Muslims from entering we should expect other countries to not allow Americans to enter?
No, no, no, if America bans their Muslims from entering (Christians ok, atheists a solid no, and the rest can burn in hell), they get to ban dark skinned Americans from entering. Quid pro quo, Clarice.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:55 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
No, no, no, if America bans their Muslims from entering (Christians ok, atheists a solid no, and the rest can burn in hell), they get to ban dark skinned Americans from entering. Quid pro quo, Clarice.
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:55 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Reciprocal desires?" What does that even mean?
It's just 1/desires. DUH.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:55 PM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
It's just 1/desires. DUH.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:55 PM on June 27, 2016 [9 favorites]
His statement isn't entirely coherent, but I think he means that a Trump-led US wouldn't object if other countries (“Britain, Germany, France and Denmark”) banned travel by American Muslims. It's a nod and a wink to sectarian discrimination abroad, even when directed against US citizens.
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:08 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:08 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]
Ah, in that case, fuck Trump and his stupid flattering lederhosen.
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:17 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:17 PM on June 27, 2016
Article in the Politico that talks about the populist and nativist rejection of neoliberalism without admitting it's a thing that exists.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:19 PM on June 27, 2016
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:19 PM on June 27, 2016
Article in the Politico that talks about the populist and nativist rejection of neoliberalism without admitting it's a thing that exists.
The article seems to concede that both a defined economic system and a backlash against it both exist in the title (“Why the New Nationalists Are Taking Over: Our post-Cold War system might be a triumph for peace and security, but it’s built on unsustainable economic ideas.”) Do you mean that the article doesn’t use the word “neoliberalism”?
posted by Going To Maine at 9:35 PM on June 27, 2016
The article seems to concede that both a defined economic system and a backlash against it both exist in the title (“Why the New Nationalists Are Taking Over: Our post-Cold War system might be a triumph for peace and security, but it’s built on unsustainable economic ideas.”) Do you mean that the article doesn’t use the word “neoliberalism”?
posted by Going To Maine at 9:35 PM on June 27, 2016
"Why won't Politico use the phrase 'radical economic neoliberalism?'"
posted by tonycpsu at 10:34 PM on June 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:34 PM on June 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm worried there's enough latent misogyny, even among Democrats, that a 2-woman ticket is risky. But on the other hand we have half of the Republican party trying to defeat Trump, and Trump himself seemingly trying to defeat Trump, so maybe we can take that chance.
posted by mmoncur at 10:35 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mmoncur at 10:35 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
And if it sets Warren up for her own presidential campaign in eight-years-may-it-please-God, I'm all for that.
No matter who wins in 2016, Clinton or Trump, they will be our last baby boomer president. Ever.
Somebody made a comment about Tim Kaine (as VP) winning the old white guy vote; but guess what, he's ten years younger than Clinton and nine years younger than Warren. He's in the Younger Boomer/Gen X demographic that will define our politics for another decade or two. This is the Obama demographic; this is the future.
posted by peeedro at 11:09 PM on June 27, 2016
No matter who wins in 2016, Clinton or Trump, they will be our last baby boomer president. Ever.
Somebody made a comment about Tim Kaine (as VP) winning the old white guy vote; but guess what, he's ten years younger than Clinton and nine years younger than Warren. He's in the Younger Boomer/Gen X demographic that will define our politics for another decade or two. This is the Obama demographic; this is the future.
posted by peeedro at 11:09 PM on June 27, 2016
I guess 75 would be pretty old for the presidency, but I definitely wouldn't assume that 2016 will be our last boomer president -- the youngest boomers are only like 52 now. I also don't really see how an individual candidate's demographic label is even worth caring about, particularly since it's not really a sharp demarcation line and it doesn't seem to predict the demography of their supporters (Sanders's base was enriched for millenials, for instance).
posted by en forme de poire at 12:32 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 12:32 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do you mean that the article doesn’t use the word “neoliberalism”?
Not the word itself, but the sense that what is being rejected is a specific policy of international economic integration, and not just international integration itself. It's a false dichotomy. I don't think there's only one way to have a globalized society.
It's like if you wrote an article about the collapse of the Soviet Union and your point was "Looks like people don't support egalitarianism!"
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:35 AM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
Not the word itself, but the sense that what is being rejected is a specific policy of international economic integration, and not just international integration itself. It's a false dichotomy. I don't think there's only one way to have a globalized society.
It's like if you wrote an article about the collapse of the Soviet Union and your point was "Looks like people don't support egalitarianism!"
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 12:35 AM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
I guess 75 would be pretty old for the presidency, but I definitely wouldn't assume that 2016 will be our last boomer president -- the youngest boomers are only like 52 now.
That's me! I turn 52 next week and am still considered a boomer even though I'm 16 years younger than Hillary. I'm not exactly presidential material but I could easily be young enough to run for the next two decades.
posted by octothorpe at 3:50 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's me! I turn 52 next week and am still considered a boomer even though I'm 16 years younger than Hillary. I'm not exactly presidential material but I could easily be young enough to run for the next two decades.
posted by octothorpe at 3:50 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hey don't look now because maybe jinxing but sterling might not be the only thing plunging this week
pleasepleaseplease
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:10 AM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
pleasepleaseplease
posted by tivalasvegas at 4:10 AM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Tivalasvegas, that graph is fascinating. If you look back a few years you see that the parties' popularity basically reflects each other: when one is high the other is low, so the graph looks a bit like a series of diamonds. This is what you would expect. But from around 2012, that breaks down - there doesn't seem to be any correlation between them. The negative correlation only reappears at the very recent end of the graph, and I guess it's because Trump is so bad that he's forcing fence-sitters to move to Hillary. His signal is so strong that it's pushing through the noise.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:22 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:22 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
New Republic: Conservatives Have Groomed the Perfect Suckers for Trump’s Epic Scam
The first line of the article: In 2000, Donald Trump boldly told Fortune magazine, “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”
On the lighter side, I really enjoyed this short story in the New York Times this morning. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie imagines the world of Trump's family as seen through Melania's eyes.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:58 AM on June 28, 2016 [21 favorites]
The first line of the article: In 2000, Donald Trump boldly told Fortune magazine, “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”
Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee, used mailing lists built up in their presidential campaigns to sell dubious products afterward. In Cain’s case, anyone who gave money to his campaign would get ads, after the campaign ended, promising a “breakthrough” remedy for erectile dysfunction, “one of more than 50 similar pitches for miracle cures and easy-money tricks that Cain has passed along to his e-mail followers.” Gingrich and Huckabee, ostensibly more “serious” and established politicians, did much the same:The whole article is great and well worth your time to read, plus it introduced me to the term "scampaign."
Newt Gingrich now pings the e-mail subscribers to his Gingrich Productions with messages from an investment firm formed by a conspiracy theorist successfully sued for fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mike Huckabee uses his own production company’s list to blast out links to heart-disease fixes and can’t-miss annuities.
These scams, risible as they seem, bring in serious money.
On the lighter side, I really enjoyed this short story in the New York Times this morning. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie imagines the world of Trump's family as seen through Melania's eyes.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:58 AM on June 28, 2016 [21 favorites]
Kaine doesn't enthuse me at all, but I don't hate him and I doubt many do. He's kind of bland, a bit too far to the right on some topics (abortion, for example), but nothing really awful.
I personally like Charles Pierce's description: "If you believe in First, Do No Harm, then the incredibly boring Tim Kaine would have to be the choice. If he has any skeletons in his closet, they're likely wearing old comfy cardigans and Hush Puppies."
posted by zombieflanders at 5:06 AM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
I personally like Charles Pierce's description: "If you believe in First, Do No Harm, then the incredibly boring Tim Kaine would have to be the choice. If he has any skeletons in his closet, they're likely wearing old comfy cardigans and Hush Puppies."
posted by zombieflanders at 5:06 AM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
BTW, has anyone noticed that some sites have started adding Arizona to their list of swing states? PPP has Trump up by only 4 there, with McCain's approval 25 points underwater and ahead of his Democratic challengers by only 2 (well within the MOE).
posted by zombieflanders at 5:13 AM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 5:13 AM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
On the lighter side, I really enjoyed this short story in the New York Times this morning.
I was absolutely riveted, what a great read!
"Ivanka whom Donald showed off like a glowing modern toy that he did not know how to operate."
"He was not eager to please her, she realized, he was keen to be pleased by her pleasure."
posted by like_neon at 5:22 AM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
I was absolutely riveted, what a great read!
"Ivanka whom Donald showed off like a glowing modern toy that he did not know how to operate."
"He was not eager to please her, she realized, he was keen to be pleased by her pleasure."
posted by like_neon at 5:22 AM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
Haha Ivanka as some Clinton plant egging her father on, sabotaging his campaign, all the while parental affection (maybe lust based upon some video clips I've seen) blinding the Donald to the snake in his midst. Genius.
Ivanka announced as Clinton Treasury Secretary when?
posted by vuron at 6:11 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ivanka announced as Clinton Treasury Secretary when?
posted by vuron at 6:11 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
BTW, has anyone noticed that some sites have started adding Arizona to their list of swing states? PPP has Trump up by only 4 there, with McCain's approval 25 points underwater and ahead of his Democratic challengers by only 2 (well within the MOE).
I live in Arizona, so you bet your bippy I've noticed. It's delightful, and I hope Ann Kirkpatrick stomps McCain's pathetic, pasty ass.
posted by Superplin at 6:19 AM on June 28, 2016 [10 favorites]
I live in Arizona, so you bet your bippy I've noticed. It's delightful, and I hope Ann Kirkpatrick stomps McCain's pathetic, pasty ass.
posted by Superplin at 6:19 AM on June 28, 2016 [10 favorites]
BTW, has anyone noticed that some sites have started adding Arizona to their list of swing states?
I read somewhere it's because the snowbirds are all out of town this time of year - things will swing back the R's way in the polls when they flock home again in September. Even so, it marks a weakening of the R position even in solid red states.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:23 AM on June 28, 2016
I read somewhere it's because the snowbirds are all out of town this time of year - things will swing back the R's way in the polls when they flock home again in September. Even so, it marks a weakening of the R position even in solid red states.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:23 AM on June 28, 2016
McCain is definitely vulnerable.
I feel like Arizona as a whole is still liable to vote for Trump because the black hole of conservatism that is the Phoenix suburbs. However Arizona possibly falling means that the desert southwest has over the last 20 or so years turned from a solid red to an ocean of blue.
New Mexico has already moved from red to purple and now solidly blue.
Colorado and Nevada aren't that far behind although Colorado might take some time depending on how much boomer migration from California and Texas comes to dominate politics.
Deseret... I mean Utah of course will remain loyal Republicans but interesting enough the Mormon loathing of Trump might cause a mass split in the conservatives between Trump and Johnson and the SLC liberals (yes apparently there are some) might be able to sneak Clinton in for the win. Seems very far fetched but I'd love to see the look on the faces of Orrin Hatch and that incredible asshole Mike Lee if Hillary was announced as the winner of Utah.
I pretty much expect Lee to explode in apopleptic rage at that point. Not just metaphorically speaking but literally explode.
posted by vuron at 6:49 AM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
I feel like Arizona as a whole is still liable to vote for Trump because the black hole of conservatism that is the Phoenix suburbs. However Arizona possibly falling means that the desert southwest has over the last 20 or so years turned from a solid red to an ocean of blue.
New Mexico has already moved from red to purple and now solidly blue.
Colorado and Nevada aren't that far behind although Colorado might take some time depending on how much boomer migration from California and Texas comes to dominate politics.
Deseret... I mean Utah of course will remain loyal Republicans but interesting enough the Mormon loathing of Trump might cause a mass split in the conservatives between Trump and Johnson and the SLC liberals (yes apparently there are some) might be able to sneak Clinton in for the win. Seems very far fetched but I'd love to see the look on the faces of Orrin Hatch and that incredible asshole Mike Lee if Hillary was announced as the winner of Utah.
I pretty much expect Lee to explode in apopleptic rage at that point. Not just metaphorically speaking but literally explode.
posted by vuron at 6:49 AM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
I personally like Charles Pierce's description: "If you believe in First, Do No Harm, then the incredibly boring Tim Kaine would have to be the choice. If he has any skeletons in his closet, they're likely wearing old comfy cardigans and Hush Puppies."
God damn Charlie Pierce is just the absolute fucking best. Here he is on Elizabeth Warren from the same piece:
God damn Charlie Pierce is just the absolute fucking best. Here he is on Elizabeth Warren from the same piece:
"This is going to cause [Warren] some problems with that part of the party still attached to the golden dream of Bernie Sanders. It already has in some quarters. The lust for the quixotic remains a cardinal sin common to a certain class of Democratic activist. If you handed these people a steak, they'd go on a hunger strike until you gave them sauce."posted by dersins at 6:56 AM on June 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
If you handed these people a steak, they'd go on a hunger strike until you gave them sauce.
A poorly chosen metaphor, considering the significant overlap between hyper-dogmatic leftist activists and hyper-dogmatic vegetarians/vegans
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:42 AM on June 28, 2016
A poorly chosen metaphor, considering the significant overlap between hyper-dogmatic leftist activists and hyper-dogmatic vegetarians/vegans
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:42 AM on June 28, 2016
If you handed these people a veggie burger, they'd go on a hunger strike until you made it bleed?
posted by stolyarova at 7:49 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stolyarova at 7:49 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
...Given the options of Trump’s belligerent foreign policy, Clinton’s hawkish instincts, and Obama’s wary foreign policy and economic progressivism, the latter is the best progressives can hope for in a Clinton-Trump election. Obama is a natural compromiser, which, given the realities of Congress, made him a more centrist president than many hoped or expected. But he was the most liberal president the country has seen since Jimmy Carter, or perhaps even Lyndon B. Johnson.Hillary’s Unpopularity Is a Good Thing for Progressives
Now Sanders, who it seems will not drop out before the party’s convention in July, has moved the needle further left. Clinton is a triangulator, yes, but triangulating in this new political reality means that she moves left, not right—and Donald Trump’s plummeting numbers means she has the freedom to do so. The very thing that infuriates progressives (and many others) about her—her cold calculation—could be what makes her the kind of candidate even Bernie die-hards, can accept, if not actively support. (This may, in fact, be the real Hillary after all. If you spend your entire career triangulating, at a certain point you may start to believe it. Cynical projects, conducted for long enough, can become existential belief.)
Of course, what Clinton does in the White House is another question altogether. She is perhaps the most constrained candidate in modern political history, but that may bode well for her presidency, should that come to pass. Clinton’s own unpopularity should push her further left in the general election than she would ordinarily be inclined to go, which means that progressives could hold her accountable to the promises that she made. That isn’t much for progressives chafing against Obama’s cautious centrism and inclination for compromise, but it’s certainly the best available option.
posted by y2karl at 7:51 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's awesome when your article mentions in the first paragraph that the media narrative about Clinton is fueled by misogyny and then spends the rest of the article accepting it as true.
I don't believe that Clinton is driven by "cold calculation." I think that she's an effective politician, who makes the same compromises and strategic choices that any successful politician does, and who is facing a media that sees any hint of ambition or strategic thinking in a woman as "cold calculation."
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:58 AM on June 28, 2016 [42 favorites]
I don't believe that Clinton is driven by "cold calculation." I think that she's an effective politician, who makes the same compromises and strategic choices that any successful politician does, and who is facing a media that sees any hint of ambition or strategic thinking in a woman as "cold calculation."
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 7:58 AM on June 28, 2016 [42 favorites]
If only her calculation was warmer.
posted by defenestration at 8:10 AM on June 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 8:10 AM on June 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
Typical sexist narrative construct.
Women in power simply cannot be accepted as equals.
They are either overly emotional and prone to vindictive outbursts or they are emotionless iron bitches reducing into the crystalline math of personal interest and cold calculation.
Women cannot be inspiring, they cannot be complex, they cannot be working for what they authentically think is the best solution, they cannot be willing to compromise to do the most good for the most people.
Everything has to point to the idea that women in power have sacrificed their essential femininity (to be good caregivers I guess or whatever the current patriarchal idea is) for personal ambition.
We don't get similar narratives about male leaders and the sacrifices they no doubt make in order to lead and create the changes they feel are necessary in the world. I guess that would be a boring narrative to hear about a male leader or something because apparently male leadership is rooted in personal convictions and the courage to make you stamp on the world.
It's kind of sad that people that recognize that there is a double standard just continue to reinforce that double standard in their simplistic narratives. Because I guess trying to present political figures as three-dimensional humans is harder than relying in established two dimensional tropes.
posted by vuron at 8:14 AM on June 28, 2016 [20 favorites]
Women in power simply cannot be accepted as equals.
They are either overly emotional and prone to vindictive outbursts or they are emotionless iron bitches reducing into the crystalline math of personal interest and cold calculation.
Women cannot be inspiring, they cannot be complex, they cannot be working for what they authentically think is the best solution, they cannot be willing to compromise to do the most good for the most people.
Everything has to point to the idea that women in power have sacrificed their essential femininity (to be good caregivers I guess or whatever the current patriarchal idea is) for personal ambition.
We don't get similar narratives about male leaders and the sacrifices they no doubt make in order to lead and create the changes they feel are necessary in the world. I guess that would be a boring narrative to hear about a male leader or something because apparently male leadership is rooted in personal convictions and the courage to make you stamp on the world.
It's kind of sad that people that recognize that there is a double standard just continue to reinforce that double standard in their simplistic narratives. Because I guess trying to present political figures as three-dimensional humans is harder than relying in established two dimensional tropes.
posted by vuron at 8:14 AM on June 28, 2016 [20 favorites]
Secret Life of Gravy: "White nationalist group says it will be at Republican convention
posted by octothorpe at 8:24 AM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
A group of white nationalists and skinheads who held a rally in Sacramento over the weekend where at least five people were stabbed plans to show up at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland next month to “make sure that the Donald Trump supporters are defended.”I feel so bad for my neighbor city to the north. I'm sure that they were thrilled when they landed the convention originally; it's a huge amount money and attention for the city but I'm guessing that they're seriously regretting it now.
posted by octothorpe at 8:24 AM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Trump campaign could ask the white supremacists and skinheads to stay away. They could.
posted by yesster at 8:32 AM on June 28, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by yesster at 8:32 AM on June 28, 2016 [18 favorites]
All this talk of skinheads and potential (I would say "almost certain" at this point) violence is harshing my schadenfreude buzz.
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:46 AM on June 28, 2016
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:46 AM on June 28, 2016
"Hey, let's get the Hell's Angels to work security at our music festival! What could possibly go wrong?"
At least Altamont had good music.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:57 AM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
At least Altamont had good music.
posted by Atom Eyes at 8:57 AM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
Well now I have another talking point for the anti-revolt whip who keeps calling me, I suppose. Fuuuuuuuck. This convention is going to be a shitshow and a half.
posted by corb at 9:04 AM on June 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by corb at 9:04 AM on June 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
Honestly Corb I'm not sure that the 2016 RNC convention is actually going to be safe. I'm getting shades of 1968 DNC already.
Seems like a powderkeg just waiting for a spark and you have the arsonist in chief in charge of the whole show.
posted by vuron at 9:11 AM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
Seems like a powderkeg just waiting for a spark and you have the arsonist in chief in charge of the whole show.
posted by vuron at 9:11 AM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
yeah, corb, if you're for sure definitely going, please be very very careful. i do not trust the RNC to protect the people there, you know?
posted by palomar at 9:20 AM on June 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by palomar at 9:20 AM on June 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton
"Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton ..."
"The Democrats on the committee said that the Benghazi effort had dragged on longer than far more important congressional inquiries like the ones into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the response to Hurricane Katrina."
posted by kyrademon at 10:07 AM on June 28, 2016 [28 favorites]
"Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton ..."
"The Democrats on the committee said that the Benghazi effort had dragged on longer than far more important congressional inquiries like the ones into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the response to Hurricane Katrina."
posted by kyrademon at 10:07 AM on June 28, 2016 [28 favorites]
@BernieSanders: They tell us the only thing we can get is incremental change. We tell them: no thanks. We're thinking big and demanding real change.
You can't see me, but I'm rolling my eyes. No thanks to incremental change? So what's the order of the day, then: a plate of nothing with a side of sour grapes?
posted by defenestration at 10:26 AM on June 28, 2016 [38 favorites]
You can't see me, but I'm rolling my eyes. No thanks to incremental change? So what's the order of the day, then: a plate of nothing with a side of sour grapes?
posted by defenestration at 10:26 AM on June 28, 2016 [38 favorites]
@maevemcoyle: Johnson trailing Feingold by 13 in new poll and GOP Senate PAC not spending in WI. Rough day for Johnson in #WISEN
Apparently they're also not putting money in ILSEN for Kirk, either.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:30 AM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
Apparently they're also not putting money in ILSEN for Kirk, either.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:30 AM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
@BernieSanders: They tell us the only thing we can get is incremental change. We tell them: no thanks. We're thinking big and demanding real change.
yougetnothing.gif
posted by Going To Maine at 10:45 AM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
yougetnothing.gif
posted by Going To Maine at 10:45 AM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think it's more "you already got something, now go the fuck away", but I'm not good enough with reaction GIFs to suggest one for that.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:48 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:48 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah, Ron Johnson doesn't like to mention that he's a Senator.
posted by Floydd at 10:49 AM on June 28, 2016
posted by Floydd at 10:49 AM on June 28, 2016
If only we had thought big, we would have been getting real change this whole time. Damn us for not thinking (big) of that ourselves.
posted by defenestration at 10:50 AM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by defenestration at 10:50 AM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Greg Sargent: Bernie Sanders has won some big concessions. But he still won’t endorse Hillary Clinton.
To be clear, Sanders is right that Clinton bears some responsibility for winning over Sanders’s voters, and I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with Sanders pushing for more concessions on the platform. I’ve defended Sanders’s right to do this in the past. As long as Sanders ultimately does do all he can to signal to his supporters that Clinton will move the country in the direction of his vision — albeit not as ambitiously — and to persuade them that the outcome of the primary process was legitimate, and as long as he doesn’t create discord at the convention that harms efforts to defeat Trump, it’s fine for him to try to get as much as he can along the way.posted by zombieflanders at 10:51 AM on June 28, 2016 [10 favorites]
But it’s unclear at this point how much withholding that endorsement will actually do to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. Today Elizabeth Warren gave a rousing speech with Clinton in Ohio in which she attacked Trump in spirited, populist terms before a wildly cheering crowd. Warren is filling the space that Sanders might have inhabited — she is emerging as the leading progressive in the country who is making the case against Trump-onomics, and contrasting it sharply with the Democrats’ — and, yes, Hillary Clinton’s — economic vision. Meanwhile, this week’s Post poll found that only eight percent of Sanders supporters say they’ll back Trump, dramatically down from 20 percent last month — meaning that Sanders’ supporters may be rallying to Clinton even if Sanders himself isn’t. Events are moving on.
I got to vote again today because we had a Congressional primary in New York. And I voted with only one other voted in the precinct, and it was Al Sharpton. Cool morning.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:52 AM on June 28, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:52 AM on June 28, 2016 [13 favorites]
The Democrats on the committee said that the Benghazi effort had dragged on longer than far more important congressional inquiries like the ones into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the response to Hurricane Katrina.
I hate the way modern journalism portrays objective facts as though they were just one side's opinion. As a former editor, let me help the reporter with that sentence:
The Benghazi committee's investigation lasted longer than the congressional inquiries into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the response to Hurricane Katrina. (See, that part is an objective, verifiable fact! You did verify it, didn't you?) Democrats on the committee said that the others were far more important and produced more substantive findings. (There, my friend, is the subjective opinion.)
posted by Gelatin at 11:08 AM on June 28, 2016 [32 favorites]
I hate the way modern journalism portrays objective facts as though they were just one side's opinion. As a former editor, let me help the reporter with that sentence:
The Benghazi committee's investigation lasted longer than the congressional inquiries into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the response to Hurricane Katrina. (See, that part is an objective, verifiable fact! You did verify it, didn't you?) Democrats on the committee said that the others were far more important and produced more substantive findings. (There, my friend, is the subjective opinion.)
posted by Gelatin at 11:08 AM on June 28, 2016 [32 favorites]
Trump fundraising emails going to Members of Parliment in the UK
Trump promised millions to charities. WaPo found less than $10,000 over 7 years
posted by nubs at 11:14 AM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
Trump promised millions to charities. WaPo found less than $10,000 over 7 years
posted by nubs at 11:14 AM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm sort of past caring whether or not Sanders endorses Clinton at this point. He missed his moment to hang onto influence in all the foot-stamping and breath-holding after California. I think Clinton can still win, and win big, without the blessings of St Bernie but it would have been helpful of him to put any effort at all into pulling his more unhinged supporters down to Earth. It wouldn't matter now if they got to go back in time and observe every step of every primary like the Ghosts of Election Monitors Past - Sanders let the suspicion fester for so long that whatever really happened in the primary doesn't matter half as much as what they need to believe happened in the primary. No matter what happens from here on in, there will be such a thing as a Bernie Truther from now on. Heckuva revolution.
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:21 AM on June 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:21 AM on June 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
Maybe the Trump campaign should hire an advance team? Perhaps?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:30 AM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:30 AM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
My Bernie dead-ender friend is now (I think seriously) suggesting that the Republicans on the Benghazi commission are reporting no new evidence against Clinton in order to help her against Trump.
Aaaaaaaaagh.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:34 AM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
Aaaaaaaaagh.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:34 AM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think the chatter about Warren as VP was intended at least initially as a peace offering to the progressive faction of which the BoBs are a very small number. It seems like it was intended to show that yes Clinton is concerned about progressive issues she just disagrees with how to achieve them.
However the current enthusiasm about Warren as VP (regardless about some of the likely negative consequences for Senate control) shows that people were primarily excited about the ideas that Bernie was speaking and less about Bernie as a candidate.
Combined with the rapid solidification of former Bernie supporters around Clinton which is much faster than the PUMAs solidified around Obama (but let's be honest 2008 was much much closer than 2016) there is currently a near complete erosion of Bernie's base of support and his platform for sharing ideas.
Warren as a VP would definitely result in a large consolidation of the Sanders supporters that are still outstanding. Yes some will no doubt stay in the BoB crowd and transition to supporting the Libertarians or the Greens despite how completely bizarre Stein's campaigning has become.
At this point in time where Trump is increasingly showing an inability to pivot to the center, economic conservatives are formulating plots against him openly or outright crossing the aisle, his polling number are plummeting the idea that this will even be a close enough election for the remaining accelerationist BoBs to factor into the result is ludicrous.
Unfortunately the decline of Sanders into old man yelling at sky territory doesn't seem quite as bad to me as it looked a couple of weeks back when he was being petulant for the sake of petulance. With Warren taking an increasingly visible role in the campaign the possible result of Sanders carrying the progressive movement down the drain with him seems to be evaporating.
posted by vuron at 11:35 AM on June 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
However the current enthusiasm about Warren as VP (regardless about some of the likely negative consequences for Senate control) shows that people were primarily excited about the ideas that Bernie was speaking and less about Bernie as a candidate.
Combined with the rapid solidification of former Bernie supporters around Clinton which is much faster than the PUMAs solidified around Obama (but let's be honest 2008 was much much closer than 2016) there is currently a near complete erosion of Bernie's base of support and his platform for sharing ideas.
Warren as a VP would definitely result in a large consolidation of the Sanders supporters that are still outstanding. Yes some will no doubt stay in the BoB crowd and transition to supporting the Libertarians or the Greens despite how completely bizarre Stein's campaigning has become.
At this point in time where Trump is increasingly showing an inability to pivot to the center, economic conservatives are formulating plots against him openly or outright crossing the aisle, his polling number are plummeting the idea that this will even be a close enough election for the remaining accelerationist BoBs to factor into the result is ludicrous.
Unfortunately the decline of Sanders into old man yelling at sky territory doesn't seem quite as bad to me as it looked a couple of weeks back when he was being petulant for the sake of petulance. With Warren taking an increasingly visible role in the campaign the possible result of Sanders carrying the progressive movement down the drain with him seems to be evaporating.
posted by vuron at 11:35 AM on June 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
Maybe the Trump campaign should hire an advance team? Perhaps?
Did...did he just give a speech standing in front of a wall of garbage?
posted by nubs at 11:35 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Did...did he just give a speech standing in front of a wall of garbage?
posted by nubs at 11:35 AM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Looks like recycling to me? To match the recycled talking points?
Garbage would be a better match, of course.
(Now I want to see Trump give a speech while standing in front of a literal dumpster fire.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:38 AM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
Garbage would be a better match, of course.
(Now I want to see Trump give a speech while standing in front of a literal dumpster fire.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:38 AM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
My Bernie dead-ender friend is now (I think seriously) suggesting that the Republicans on the Benghazi commission are reporting no new evidence against Clinton in order to help her against Trump.
I consider this kind of plausible, actually - not so much that they are failing to find evidence that exists, but that they are secretly happy with the null result.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:39 AM on June 28, 2016
I consider this kind of plausible, actually - not so much that they are failing to find evidence that exists, but that they are secretly happy with the null result.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:39 AM on June 28, 2016
people were primarily excited about the ideas that Bernie was speaking and less about Bernie as a candidate.
Bernie to me was always the poor-man's Elizabeth Warren. They speak the same progressive language, but my gut always felt like there wasn't the muscle there with Bernie that there was with Warren. Clinton has shrewdly neutralized Bernie with Warren's full-throated support, in my opinion.
posted by Sreiny at 11:40 AM on June 28, 2016 [10 favorites]
Bernie to me was always the poor-man's Elizabeth Warren. They speak the same progressive language, but my gut always felt like there wasn't the muscle there with Bernie that there was with Warren. Clinton has shrewdly neutralized Bernie with Warren's full-throated support, in my opinion.
posted by Sreiny at 11:40 AM on June 28, 2016 [10 favorites]
Bernie Sanders has won some big concessions. But he still won’t endorse Hillary Clinton.
I didn't care that he wanted to stay in until the convention or that he wanted to influence the platform, I was all for that. But I've had it with his rigid hectoring and lecturing. The way that he talks as though he is the keeper of the one true truth and he has the mission of dragging Clinton and other Democrats kicking and screaming to enlightened policies and some nebulous revolution, well - it's getting pretty tiresome. The tone feels more than a little mansplainery to me - does he have a gracious bone in his body? Now that Elizabeth Warren is promoting Clinton, Bernie is bleeding what leverage he had every day. Face it guy, you lost. People picked her vision over yours by a substantial margin, it's as simple as that.
I loved Sanders for year. I hope to reclaim the respect I had one day, but right now, I'm in channel turning stfu mode when I hear him talk.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:41 AM on June 28, 2016 [22 favorites]
I didn't care that he wanted to stay in until the convention or that he wanted to influence the platform, I was all for that. But I've had it with his rigid hectoring and lecturing. The way that he talks as though he is the keeper of the one true truth and he has the mission of dragging Clinton and other Democrats kicking and screaming to enlightened policies and some nebulous revolution, well - it's getting pretty tiresome. The tone feels more than a little mansplainery to me - does he have a gracious bone in his body? Now that Elizabeth Warren is promoting Clinton, Bernie is bleeding what leverage he had every day. Face it guy, you lost. People picked her vision over yours by a substantial margin, it's as simple as that.
I loved Sanders for year. I hope to reclaim the respect I had one day, but right now, I'm in channel turning stfu mode when I hear him talk.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:41 AM on June 28, 2016 [22 favorites]
It 100% doesn't matter anymore if Sanders endorses her or not.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:42 AM on June 28, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:42 AM on June 28, 2016 [15 favorites]
My Bernie dead-ender friend is now (I think seriously) suggesting that the Republicans on the Benghazi commission are reporting no new evidence against Clinton in order to help her against Trump.
One of mine thinks that Clinton hired Trump years ago to become the Republican nominee for her to run against. Hillary is so all-powerful that she controls the primaries of both parties!
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:55 AM on June 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
One of mine thinks that Clinton hired Trump years ago to become the Republican nominee for her to run against. Hillary is so all-powerful that she controls the primaries of both parties!
posted by EatTheWeek at 11:55 AM on June 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
Haha Ivanka as some Clinton plant egging her father on
When that story hit the press around the time of the NY primary that Ivanka hadn't registered as a Republican in time to vote for her father in the primaries, I knew for sure that she was a Democrat.
Clinton plant, no idea. But if Ivanka actually supports Teh Drumpf, it's out of filial obligation.
posted by Sara C. at 12:01 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
When that story hit the press around the time of the NY primary that Ivanka hadn't registered as a Republican in time to vote for her father in the primaries, I knew for sure that she was a Democrat.
Clinton plant, no idea. But if Ivanka actually supports Teh Drumpf, it's out of filial obligation.
posted by Sara C. at 12:01 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
If Clinton is so powerful why doesn't she just crown herself Queen?
posted by vuron at 12:01 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by vuron at 12:01 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
So yeah, Trump has been soliciting campaign contributions from overseas.
RedState: Why Is The Donald Trump Campaign Committing Campaign Finance Felonies?
Jesus Christ is he seriously trying to figure out how far he can go before someone throws any sort of bound tome at him?
posted by Talez at 12:03 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
RedState: Why Is The Donald Trump Campaign Committing Campaign Finance Felonies?
Jesus Christ is he seriously trying to figure out how far he can go before someone throws any sort of bound tome at him?
posted by Talez at 12:03 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
I honestly don't mind if Ivanka will secretly have to vote for Hillary while pretending to support her father. I understand sometimes we all have to make sacrifices for the sake of family. It's just that this campaign appears to be one long Thanksgiving where you have to smile and keep yourself from getting baited by your racist uncle for her.
Of course there is only so much Thanksgiving day football that you can use to deflect from talking politics.
I can just picture it now, everytime Ivanka has to meet with her father and his "advisors" she has to do the equivalent of making small talk about how awful the Detroit Lions are this year.
"So dad what do you think about Megatron?"
posted by vuron at 12:06 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of course there is only so much Thanksgiving day football that you can use to deflect from talking politics.
I can just picture it now, everytime Ivanka has to meet with her father and his "advisors" she has to do the equivalent of making small talk about how awful the Detroit Lions are this year.
"So dad what do you think about Megatron?"
posted by vuron at 12:06 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Of course openly declaring yourself Queen might start some static with Queen Bey so maybe Hillary should follow Napoleon's lead and go for the Empress title. I mean the US does have overseas colonies.
She might even be able to offer succor to the mother country in it's hour of need.
R I Hillary Clinton sounds kind of fun
posted by vuron at 12:10 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
She might even be able to offer succor to the mother country in it's hour of need.
R I Hillary Clinton sounds kind of fun
posted by vuron at 12:10 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Trump promised millions to charities. WaPo found less than $10,000 over 7 years
If Trump ever does release his tax returns I'd be interested to see if they were transcript versions of the returns, assuring they were as filed with the IRS. He's such a slippery liar I would expect that he'd pass off tax returns that may not be what was actually filed and of course the IRS can't release anything directly.
I'm a CPA; in in the past I've worked for two high profile people who had foundations set up with their name on it, both of whom used the foundations to move money around and manipulate their press and public perception, but neither foundation actually gave away much of anything. Both these folks played the same game Trump does, pound away at building up their image, image being so much more important than reality, especially when the reality is impossible to confirm. I left both jobs with disillusion to spare.
Also in the WaPo article a good portion of what Trump gives to charity was to schools his children attended. A trick that schools often use is as a 501(c)3 (or a related party 501(c)3, where school scholarships are funded from) they will require parents of students to pay a certain amount towards the charitable portion that is considered charitable giving for tax purposes and then receive a preferred tuition rate, the price break may almost equal the charitable donation. The IRS is underfunded and toothless when it comes to investigating these kind of things.It is a scam the giver is receiving services for their donation.
In short the presidential aspiration of Trump have served to bring many scammy things to light that are often overlooked. Thank you Donald. Now just continue to be the kind of asshole that will never be president.
posted by readery at 12:15 PM on June 28, 2016 [16 favorites]
If Trump ever does release his tax returns I'd be interested to see if they were transcript versions of the returns, assuring they were as filed with the IRS. He's such a slippery liar I would expect that he'd pass off tax returns that may not be what was actually filed and of course the IRS can't release anything directly.
I'm a CPA; in in the past I've worked for two high profile people who had foundations set up with their name on it, both of whom used the foundations to move money around and manipulate their press and public perception, but neither foundation actually gave away much of anything. Both these folks played the same game Trump does, pound away at building up their image, image being so much more important than reality, especially when the reality is impossible to confirm. I left both jobs with disillusion to spare.
Also in the WaPo article a good portion of what Trump gives to charity was to schools his children attended. A trick that schools often use is as a 501(c)3 (or a related party 501(c)3, where school scholarships are funded from) they will require parents of students to pay a certain amount towards the charitable portion that is considered charitable giving for tax purposes and then receive a preferred tuition rate, the price break may almost equal the charitable donation. The IRS is underfunded and toothless when it comes to investigating these kind of things.It is a scam the giver is receiving services for their donation.
In short the presidential aspiration of Trump have served to bring many scammy things to light that are often overlooked. Thank you Donald. Now just continue to be the kind of asshole that will never be president.
posted by readery at 12:15 PM on June 28, 2016 [16 favorites]
The Trump campaign is literally what happens when you get that one guy who was always drunk at the fraternity house but still managed to somehow graduate with a marketing degree and then goes to work for his father-in-law's company as some sort of executive without a portfolio absolute control over your campaign.
Basically complete and total anarchy. No lawyers likely reviewing any sort of election law. Old cronies basically calling in favors to get their useless children summer jobs out of trouble.
You know basically the sort of campaign that you might see for someone running for City Council in some podunk town. Not someone running for President. The level of ineptitude is mind boggling.
Nobody could ever write a farce as fantastic as this because nobody would ever believe it, it would be simply too implausible.
posted by vuron at 12:18 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
Basically complete and total anarchy. No lawyers likely reviewing any sort of election law. Old cronies basically calling in favors to get their useless children summer jobs out of trouble.
You know basically the sort of campaign that you might see for someone running for City Council in some podunk town. Not someone running for President. The level of ineptitude is mind boggling.
Nobody could ever write a farce as fantastic as this because nobody would ever believe it, it would be simply too implausible.
posted by vuron at 12:18 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
And yet he'll still likely win almost half of the states and over 40% of voters.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:22 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 12:22 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
@BernieSanders: They tell us the only thing we can get is incremental change. We tell them: no thanks. We're thinking big and demanding real change.
This might be a valid complaint if the country were consistently voting in soaring Democratic majorities, but given the roughly 50/50 partisan divide in American politics, it's both unrealistic and undemocratic, as though the political left can simply disregard the presence of a fairly substantial contingent of voters who strongly oppose those big thoughts. Incremental change is what happens when there are actual policy disagreements between voters in this country. The main obstacle facing that 'real change' is not the group of people who mostly agree with your goals.
posted by palindromic at 12:24 PM on June 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
This might be a valid complaint if the country were consistently voting in soaring Democratic majorities, but given the roughly 50/50 partisan divide in American politics, it's both unrealistic and undemocratic, as though the political left can simply disregard the presence of a fairly substantial contingent of voters who strongly oppose those big thoughts. Incremental change is what happens when there are actual policy disagreements between voters in this country. The main obstacle facing that 'real change' is not the group of people who mostly agree with your goals.
posted by palindromic at 12:24 PM on June 28, 2016 [14 favorites]
palindromic, you're not thinking like somebody who thinks there's a silent majority on his side.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:28 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:28 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
I do not live in a mostly liberal enclave. It would be very difficult for me to maintain that belief.
posted by palindromic at 12:31 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by palindromic at 12:31 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
Donald Trump Says US Robbed By 'Elite' He 'Used to Be' Part Of
While standing in front of an unusual backdrop of what appeared to be stacked bales of crushed aluminum, (mystery solved.)
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:39 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
While standing in front of an unusual backdrop of what appeared to be stacked bales of crushed aluminum, (mystery solved.)
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:39 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Borowitz went in (again) on the presumptive GOP nominee: Trump’s Bid to Become Born-Again Fails as Jesus Turns Down Friend Request
posted by fuse theorem at 12:43 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by fuse theorem at 12:43 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Donald Trump Says US Robbed By 'Elite' He 'Used to Be' Part Of
Used to be? So, what, now he releases the tax returns showing he's actually broke?
posted by Gelatin at 12:46 PM on June 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
Used to be? So, what, now he releases the tax returns showing he's actually broke?
posted by Gelatin at 12:46 PM on June 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
Donald Trump Says US Robbed By 'Elite' He 'Used to Be' Part Of
So, he's saying he's a loser?
posted by another zebra at 12:48 PM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
So, he's saying he's a loser?
posted by another zebra at 12:48 PM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
If there's a revelation of Trump's financial troubles coming, that would be about the smartest way to frame it.
posted by EatTheWeek at 12:48 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by EatTheWeek at 12:48 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Trump coming forward with a narrative about how the New York banking community somehow swindled him out of a fortune might be a fairly compelling narrative.
However it would also undermine his Tough, Successful Businessman persona.
"I am totally stoking the fires of racism and xenophobia because secretly I am really really mad about the elites!"
Got to hand it to him the guy has absolutely no shame.
posted by vuron at 12:50 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
However it would also undermine his Tough, Successful Businessman persona.
"I am totally stoking the fires of racism and xenophobia because secretly I am really really mad about the elites!"
Got to hand it to him the guy has absolutely no shame.
posted by vuron at 12:50 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
While I don't agree with his points and can smell the stench of his bullshit from here, he came across as borderline coherent in the edit of the speech in that article. But it was overshadowed by the optics of his backdrop. They really do not know what they are doing.
posted by defenestration at 12:50 PM on June 28, 2016
posted by defenestration at 12:50 PM on June 28, 2016
zombieflanders, I get what you're saying, but put another way, I think there's actually a realistic hope of Trump getting trounced in the fall. Even 40% of the popular vote is too high, for sure, but that kind of loss would still be a crushing defeat for the terrible ideas (and inflated egos) of his campaign, and I think it may be possible for the D side to not just win but to win by a big, humiliating margin. (This far out obviously it's anyone's game, but check out the projected results if the election were held today... I mean just to be clear, I'm absolutely not saying relax, but I also think this kind of margin isn't just a pipe-dream fantasy.)
posted by en forme de poire at 12:52 PM on June 28, 2016
posted by en forme de poire at 12:52 PM on June 28, 2016
I think there's actually a realistic hope of Trump getting trounced in the fall. Even 40% of the popular vote is too high, for sure, but that kind of loss would still be a crushing defeat for the terrible ideas
I dunno, this sounds like the kind of confidence the Remain folks in the Brexit vote had.
posted by Justinian at 12:53 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
I dunno, this sounds like the kind of confidence the Remain folks in the Brexit vote had.
posted by Justinian at 12:53 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
> Even 40% of the popular vote is too high, for sure.
Every point over 27% is a point of national shame. How? How can a non-crazy person vote for insanity? And yeah, I'm betting it's closer to 50% (47%?) than 40%.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:55 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Every point over 27% is a point of national shame. How? How can a non-crazy person vote for insanity? And yeah, I'm betting it's closer to 50% (47%?) than 40%.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:55 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't know. I read the speech trying to figure out what he was getting at but this is the only part where he alludes to it While standing in front of an unusual backdrop of what appeared to be stacked bales of crushed aluminum, Trump slammed globalization and said that it made "the financial elite" very wealthy, noting that "I used to be one of them. Hate to say it."
The important part is "Hate to say it." He would not hate to say he used to be a Billionaire so I think he just means one of "them" meaning a heartless financier/banker/CEO whereas he, Trump, is the worker's friend. Of course it is a lot of drivel because he is still outsourcing the goods that he sells.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:56 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
The important part is "Hate to say it." He would not hate to say he used to be a Billionaire so I think he just means one of "them" meaning a heartless financier/banker/CEO whereas he, Trump, is the worker's friend. Of course it is a lot of drivel because he is still outsourcing the goods that he sells.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:56 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
I dunno, this sounds like the kind of confidence the Remain folks in the Brexit vote had.
Here's what I actually wrote: "I think there's actually a realistic hope of Trump getting trounced in the fall ... I mean just to be clear, I'm absolutely not saying relax, but I also think this kind of margin isn't just a pipe-dream fantasy." You are reading things into my comment that are not there.
posted by en forme de poire at 1:01 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here's what I actually wrote: "I think there's actually a realistic hope of Trump getting trounced in the fall ... I mean just to be clear, I'm absolutely not saying relax, but I also think this kind of margin isn't just a pipe-dream fantasy." You are reading things into my comment that are not there.
posted by en forme de poire at 1:01 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
this election is a very different situation, with different demographics and players than the Brexit vote. Brexit was literally a choice of two things only, stay or leave . I see some similarities in terms of the motivating topics but I kind of roll my eyes at all these lessons we're supposed to be learning here.
posted by zutalors! at 1:06 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by zutalors! at 1:06 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
...By holding off on a concession and an endorsement, the Vermont senator was keeping this leverage in reserve ahead of the Democratic National Convention. It made sense.Bernie Blew It
Still, it was a risky move. Whatever influence or leverage Sanders had was tied to his voters. As long as they stuck with him—and didn’t move to Clinton—he could make demands and win concessions on items like the Democratic Party’s platform, a key object of his rhetoric over the past month. But if his voters moved without his endorsement, either pushed by fear of Trump or support from other Democrats, then the value of his support would fall accordingly.
Which is what happened. In his nonconcession speech, Sanders told supporters their “major political task” was to “make certain that Donald Trump is defeated and defeated badly.” It turns out that was the message that landed.
posted by y2karl at 1:07 PM on June 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
> I dunno, this sounds like the kind of confidence the Remain folks in the Brexit vote had.
I understand why we're all tempted by this correlation, but as I told my worried brother, there's essentially no similarity between the two situations beyond the vague one of angry populist unrest. To take the most obvious difference, there was no equivalent to Hillary or the Democratic Party in the Brexit vote; it's as if you had an election featuring Trump versus some people going "We really don't care for that fellow very much, you know." I'm not guaranteeing Trump will lose, mind you, but I'd bet a substantial amount of money on it. This is not Brexit nor anything like Brexit.
posted by languagehat at 1:07 PM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
I understand why we're all tempted by this correlation, but as I told my worried brother, there's essentially no similarity between the two situations beyond the vague one of angry populist unrest. To take the most obvious difference, there was no equivalent to Hillary or the Democratic Party in the Brexit vote; it's as if you had an election featuring Trump versus some people going "We really don't care for that fellow very much, you know." I'm not guaranteeing Trump will lose, mind you, but I'd bet a substantial amount of money on it. This is not Brexit nor anything like Brexit.
posted by languagehat at 1:07 PM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
...Or what zutalors! said while I was typing.
posted by languagehat at 1:08 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by languagehat at 1:08 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Every point over 27% is a point of national shame. How? How can a non-crazy person vote for insanity?
I have to tell myself that a lot of those votes are from people who were going to vote for the Republican nominee no matter what. Because I mean, as a fairly committed Democrat, I'd vote for my party's nominee too. The comparison doesn't entirely hold up because there would likely never be a Democratic nominee this openly toxic and dangerous, but if for example Bernie ended up getting the nom because Hillary keeled over, I'd vote for Bernie despite the fact that I have some profound reservations about him and his judgment, and I'd do so even if the Republican nominee wasn't the potentially catastrophic Trump. And that's not me compromising my principles or anything, that's just me making the call that any given Democratic nominee is going to be more in line with my values and desires for the country than any given Republican. I imagine there are a lot of Republicans who feel the same.
Obviously I disagree deeply with the values and desires for the country that lead Republican voters to make that choice, and I think Trump is a uniquely terrible and dangerous candidate. Personally, I think the most moral choice for a Republican to make is to abstain from voting for Trump if they're not going to vote for Hillary or a third party candidate, because he's that potentially disastrous. But I can see how I'd make a similar choice on the other side of the aisle, so I don't entirely despair over every point above the crazification factor.
posted by yasaman at 1:10 PM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
I have to tell myself that a lot of those votes are from people who were going to vote for the Republican nominee no matter what. Because I mean, as a fairly committed Democrat, I'd vote for my party's nominee too. The comparison doesn't entirely hold up because there would likely never be a Democratic nominee this openly toxic and dangerous, but if for example Bernie ended up getting the nom because Hillary keeled over, I'd vote for Bernie despite the fact that I have some profound reservations about him and his judgment, and I'd do so even if the Republican nominee wasn't the potentially catastrophic Trump. And that's not me compromising my principles or anything, that's just me making the call that any given Democratic nominee is going to be more in line with my values and desires for the country than any given Republican. I imagine there are a lot of Republicans who feel the same.
Obviously I disagree deeply with the values and desires for the country that lead Republican voters to make that choice, and I think Trump is a uniquely terrible and dangerous candidate. Personally, I think the most moral choice for a Republican to make is to abstain from voting for Trump if they're not going to vote for Hillary or a third party candidate, because he's that potentially disastrous. But I can see how I'd make a similar choice on the other side of the aisle, so I don't entirely despair over every point above the crazification factor.
posted by yasaman at 1:10 PM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
that kind of loss would still be a crushing defeat for the terrible ideas (and inflated egos) of his campaign, and I think it may be possible for the D side to not just win but to win by a big, humiliating margin
I don't know if it's a realistic hope, but given that the Republican Party saw the demographic writing on the wall at least four years ago, I would hope that a Trump flameout will show Republicans that they can't just keep beating the drum of racism and xenophobia for the benefit of an aging and dwindling white male population, and so will turn away from racist dogwhistles in order to attract a broader coalition.
The Republican Party has been mired in willful ignorance and deceit since far before the administration of Bush the Lesser -- which is why I don't refer to them as the "GOP" -- but this country needs a sane and honest conservative opposition party to function as a check on the possible excesses of the Democratic agenda.
posted by Gelatin at 1:12 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't know if it's a realistic hope, but given that the Republican Party saw the demographic writing on the wall at least four years ago, I would hope that a Trump flameout will show Republicans that they can't just keep beating the drum of racism and xenophobia for the benefit of an aging and dwindling white male population, and so will turn away from racist dogwhistles in order to attract a broader coalition.
The Republican Party has been mired in willful ignorance and deceit since far before the administration of Bush the Lesser -- which is why I don't refer to them as the "GOP" -- but this country needs a sane and honest conservative opposition party to function as a check on the possible excesses of the Democratic agenda.
posted by Gelatin at 1:12 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
> Even 40% of the popular vote is too high, for sure.
Every point over 27% is a point of national shame. How? How can a non-crazy person vote for insanity? And yeah, I'm betting it's closer to 50% (47%?) than 40%.
I’m thinking that this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but on the off-chance it isn’t: the “27% crazy factor” is a tongue-in-cheek interpretation of a poll. It’s not some hard minimum for “crazy”, it’s not even a weird number. It’s -at best- the general idea that a lot of niche rationales and justifications will lead to a portion of the electorate making a choice that doesn’t make sense to the other side. If Trump gets 40% of the national vote, it doesn’t mean that he got a 27% crazy vote and a 13% I-hate-Clinton vote or whatever - it means he got 40% of the vote. Trump has a “floor” of die hard supporters in the same way that Hillary has a floor of die-hard supporters. But what that number is I don’t have much of an idea. (To go back to McGovern and Goldwater, they each got 37%, which at least suggests that you should peg that die hard number at 37%, although those elections were an infinity ago and now who knows?)
But 27% is a random result chosen from an arbitrary crazy election. At least get in a few other crazy elections and slap on some error bars.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:27 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Every point over 27% is a point of national shame. How? How can a non-crazy person vote for insanity? And yeah, I'm betting it's closer to 50% (47%?) than 40%.
I’m thinking that this is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but on the off-chance it isn’t: the “27% crazy factor” is a tongue-in-cheek interpretation of a poll. It’s not some hard minimum for “crazy”, it’s not even a weird number. It’s -at best- the general idea that a lot of niche rationales and justifications will lead to a portion of the electorate making a choice that doesn’t make sense to the other side. If Trump gets 40% of the national vote, it doesn’t mean that he got a 27% crazy vote and a 13% I-hate-Clinton vote or whatever - it means he got 40% of the vote. Trump has a “floor” of die hard supporters in the same way that Hillary has a floor of die-hard supporters. But what that number is I don’t have much of an idea. (To go back to McGovern and Goldwater, they each got 37%, which at least suggests that you should peg that die hard number at 37%, although those elections were an infinity ago and now who knows?)
But 27% is a random result chosen from an arbitrary crazy election. At least get in a few other crazy elections and slap on some error bars.
posted by Going To Maine at 1:27 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't know if it's a realistic hope, but given that the Republican Party saw the demographic writing on the wall at least four years ago, I would hope that a Trump flameout will show Republicans that they can't just keep beating the drum of racism and xenophobia for the benefit of an aging and dwindling white male population, and so will turn away from racist dogwhistles in order to attract a broader coalition.
I'm sure they'll try, but they tried that this year too (at least in the presidential race). The racists and xenophobes insisted on voting for one of their own regardless of what "the party" tried to field. The question is how to convince those voters not to support a racist lunatic for public office, or how to convince the rest of the GOP to scuttle their own party rather than countenance it.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:32 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm sure they'll try, but they tried that this year too (at least in the presidential race). The racists and xenophobes insisted on voting for one of their own regardless of what "the party" tried to field. The question is how to convince those voters not to support a racist lunatic for public office, or how to convince the rest of the GOP to scuttle their own party rather than countenance it.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:32 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think those of us thinking Trump is a Hillary plant are just trying to make some sense out of a reality where someone acts like this.
New thread, anyone? I'd make one myself, but I'm too involved in the anti-Trump efforts. This is starting to break on mobile though.
posted by corb at 1:34 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
New thread, anyone? I'd make one myself, but I'm too involved in the anti-Trump efforts. This is starting to break on mobile though.
posted by corb at 1:34 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
@BernieSanders: They tell us the only thing we can get is incremental change. We tell them: no thanks. We're thinking big and demanding real change.
In addition to what palindromic said, there are a few other big problems with this.
Firstly, the Bernie Sanders campaign absolutely is working towards an incremental change. Every single one of his policy ideas is a liberal reform which would need to be enacted through the system we already have. For example the minimum wage. A minimum wage already exists. Sanders wants it to be higher than it currently is. That's an example of incremental change.
Secondly, while I've seen the tactic of "No thanks, we're thinking big and demanding real change," work in a rhetorical sense before, it only really makes sense from an outside the system perspective. If you're a ragtag band of activists trying to push for some previously unknown radical change in the law (gay marriage, for example), it makes sense to use the rhetoric that incremental moves like civil unions or domestic partnerships aren't good enough, you're going to keep fighting and demanding the thing you actually want instead of the mealy-mouthed compromise you know isn't actually going to work. But because Bernie is an elected official running for President, this doesn't actually make any sense. It would be Bernie's job if elected to be able to collaborate with opponents of various types in order to see his policies come to fruition. If he's not willing to do that with the people on his side of the aisle, what's the point?
posted by Sara C. at 1:39 PM on June 28, 2016 [19 favorites]
In addition to what palindromic said, there are a few other big problems with this.
Firstly, the Bernie Sanders campaign absolutely is working towards an incremental change. Every single one of his policy ideas is a liberal reform which would need to be enacted through the system we already have. For example the minimum wage. A minimum wage already exists. Sanders wants it to be higher than it currently is. That's an example of incremental change.
Secondly, while I've seen the tactic of "No thanks, we're thinking big and demanding real change," work in a rhetorical sense before, it only really makes sense from an outside the system perspective. If you're a ragtag band of activists trying to push for some previously unknown radical change in the law (gay marriage, for example), it makes sense to use the rhetoric that incremental moves like civil unions or domestic partnerships aren't good enough, you're going to keep fighting and demanding the thing you actually want instead of the mealy-mouthed compromise you know isn't actually going to work. But because Bernie is an elected official running for President, this doesn't actually make any sense. It would be Bernie's job if elected to be able to collaborate with opponents of various types in order to see his policies come to fruition. If he's not willing to do that with the people on his side of the aisle, what's the point?
posted by Sara C. at 1:39 PM on June 28, 2016 [19 favorites]
My fundamental critique of the Sanders campaign all along has been that he kept calling for a "revolution" when his agenda looked a lot more like "how about we get us some socially liberal government programs that are fairly common in many European countries and maybe we'll try some tougher bank regulation while we're at it." That's not a revolution at all.
Calls for revolution may get the base riled up, but they also scare off everybody else, and you can't call for a revolution and convince people that you're plans are sound (and they weren't so sound either, see the pharmaceutical spending screwup), concrete, and easily executable at the same time.
posted by zachlipton at 1:47 PM on June 28, 2016 [16 favorites]
Calls for revolution may get the base riled up, but they also scare off everybody else, and you can't call for a revolution and convince people that you're plans are sound (and they weren't so sound either, see the pharmaceutical spending screwup), concrete, and easily executable at the same time.
posted by zachlipton at 1:47 PM on June 28, 2016 [16 favorites]
Just received this Sanders fundraising plea:
Before our nearly 1,900 delegates can vote at the Democratic convention next month, we need to actually get them to Philadelphia.
Here's the thing: our delegates are not wealthy campaign contributors. They're not party insiders or establishment elites. They're working folks, and it's not easy for many of them to fly to Philly and stay in hotels for a week.
We really need to have all of our delegates at the Democratic convention because we expect there could be critical votes for the party platform and electoral process. We'd hate to fall short on these votes because some of our delegates couldn't afford to go to the convention.
That's why I'm asking you directly:
Make a contribution to our campaign before Thursday's midnight FEC deadline to help our delegates come to the Democratic convention so we can have our entire political revolution represented next month in Philadelphia.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:57 PM on June 28, 2016
Before our nearly 1,900 delegates can vote at the Democratic convention next month, we need to actually get them to Philadelphia.
Here's the thing: our delegates are not wealthy campaign contributors. They're not party insiders or establishment elites. They're working folks, and it's not easy for many of them to fly to Philly and stay in hotels for a week.
We really need to have all of our delegates at the Democratic convention because we expect there could be critical votes for the party platform and electoral process. We'd hate to fall short on these votes because some of our delegates couldn't afford to go to the convention.
That's why I'm asking you directly:
Make a contribution to our campaign before Thursday's midnight FEC deadline to help our delegates come to the Democratic convention so we can have our entire political revolution represented next month in Philadelphia.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:57 PM on June 28, 2016
Guess the DNC didn't want to pay Sanders's campaign debts.
posted by stolyarova at 2:00 PM on June 28, 2016
posted by stolyarova at 2:00 PM on June 28, 2016
When the revolution doesn't come, it'll be because we didn't clap loud enough.
posted by box at 2:03 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 2:03 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
When the revolution doesn't come, it'll be because we didn't clap loud enough.
And you've killed Tinkerbell, too. Great.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:06 PM on June 28, 2016 [15 favorites]
Are they claiming that they are going to fund their delegates? I know at least two Sanders delegates who are running gofundme campaigns in order to meet costs.
posted by bardophile at 2:10 PM on June 28, 2016
posted by bardophile at 2:10 PM on June 28, 2016
Wow, corb.
Washington Post: #NeverTrump peaking at the right time
... they could pull off a revolt, although it is certainly an uphill fight.
... First, they should openly support a “conscience” clause provision and/or requirement that Trump release his tax returns, pony up enough money to ensure a well-funded campaign and immediately separate himself from his business ventures.
... Second, those who would in the event of a revolt agree to be considered for the nomination should say so.
It's by the usually-but-not-always-wrong Jennifer Rubin, but what do I know.
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:10 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Washington Post: #NeverTrump peaking at the right time
... they could pull off a revolt, although it is certainly an uphill fight.
... First, they should openly support a “conscience” clause provision and/or requirement that Trump release his tax returns, pony up enough money to ensure a well-funded campaign and immediately separate himself from his business ventures.
... Second, those who would in the event of a revolt agree to be considered for the nomination should say so.
It's by the usually-but-not-always-wrong Jennifer Rubin, but what do I know.
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:10 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
One of mine thinks that Clinton hired Trump years ago to become the Republican nominee for her to run against. Hillary is so all-powerful that she controls the primaries of both parties!
You think that's a good trick, just wait til she gets them all into the Great Sept of Baelor!
posted by nubs at 2:19 PM on June 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
You think that's a good trick, just wait til she gets them all into the Great Sept of Baelor!
posted by nubs at 2:19 PM on June 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
Here's the thing: our delegates are not wealthy campaign contributors. They're not party insiders or establishment elites. They're working folks, and it's not easy for many of them to fly to Philly and stay in hotels for a week.
You know, because Sanders' delegates are "working folk" and Clinton's delegates are going to try to fit the convention in between bouts of rolling around in piles of fracking money and lighting cigars with $100 bills.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:20 PM on June 28, 2016 [19 favorites]
You know, because Sanders' delegates are "working folk" and Clinton's delegates are going to try to fit the convention in between bouts of rolling around in piles of fracking money and lighting cigars with $100 bills.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:20 PM on June 28, 2016 [19 favorites]
I would hope that a Trump flameout will show Republicans that they can't just keep beating the drum of racism and xenophobia for the benefit of an aging and dwindling white male population, and so will turn away from racist dogwhistles in order to attract a broader coalition.
I know you kinda mentioned it before this, but after the Romney loss they had this big plan to do exactly that. Which obviously went nowhere.
If Trump loses, I'm sure there will be another such document/soulsearching/whatever. But I have no confidence it will be any different this time around. They need to actually change the minds of a significant number of their base on these issues, not just change the messaging. Thats a long process that will probably result in the downfall of whatever politicians take the lead (since the Trump voters will not be happy with that).
posted by thefoxgod at 2:23 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know you kinda mentioned it before this, but after the Romney loss they had this big plan to do exactly that. Which obviously went nowhere.
If Trump loses, I'm sure there will be another such document/soulsearching/whatever. But I have no confidence it will be any different this time around. They need to actually change the minds of a significant number of their base on these issues, not just change the messaging. Thats a long process that will probably result in the downfall of whatever politicians take the lead (since the Trump voters will not be happy with that).
posted by thefoxgod at 2:23 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie Sanders: Democrats Need to Wake Up
I'm kind of surprised that Sanders, who I kind of agree during the primary wasn't given enough mainstream media coverage, is given a space by the NYT to write something and he just repeats his stump speech. And he doesn't mention Clinton once either and just sticks with the generic "Democratic President".
posted by FJT at 2:30 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm kind of surprised that Sanders, who I kind of agree during the primary wasn't given enough mainstream media coverage, is given a space by the NYT to write something and he just repeats his stump speech. And he doesn't mention Clinton once either and just sticks with the generic "Democratic President".
posted by FJT at 2:30 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm sure this is bourgie of me, and yes, of course, I would love it if we could remove barriers to actually poor people participating meaningfully in politics, but with the possible exception of delegates from Alaska and Hawaii, is attending a political convention as a delegate really that insanely expensive?
People fly to a city and stay in a hotel for a week all the time, and they call it a vacation.
I have a friend who was a delegate to the 2012 DNC. He's from Louisiana and it was held in North Carolina, which I'm sure made things less impossible than it might be for some people. This guy is not wealthy and is basically just like any of us. I'm sure he had to take vacation days from work, and yeah, a week at the Raleigh Sheraton or whatever will probably set you back. But it doesn't seem any less accessible to people like us than a week at Disney World or Las Vegas or something.
posted by Sara C. at 2:34 PM on June 28, 2016
People fly to a city and stay in a hotel for a week all the time, and they call it a vacation.
I have a friend who was a delegate to the 2012 DNC. He's from Louisiana and it was held in North Carolina, which I'm sure made things less impossible than it might be for some people. This guy is not wealthy and is basically just like any of us. I'm sure he had to take vacation days from work, and yeah, a week at the Raleigh Sheraton or whatever will probably set you back. But it doesn't seem any less accessible to people like us than a week at Disney World or Las Vegas or something.
posted by Sara C. at 2:34 PM on June 28, 2016
You know, because Sanders' delegates are "working folk" and Clinton's delegates are going to try to fit the convention in between bouts of rolling around in piles of fracking money and lighting cigars with $100 bills.I mean, on the one hand, screw them and their annoying, false narratives. But on the other hand, it sounds like a lot of Sanders delegates didn't realize that delegates typically pay their own way, and that would be a bit of a shock if you didn't realize you were committing to pay for it. I have some sympathy.
I wonder if they're tapping into the Philadelphia Sanders supporter network to find places for people to crash.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:35 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
People fly to a city and stay in a hotel for a week all the time, and they call it a vacation.I mean, yeah, people do that, but a lot of people either can't afford to take vacations or can't afford to take the kind of vacations where you fly and stay in hotels. And Sanders supporters, a lot of whom are pretty young, are probably disproportionately in that demographic.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:39 PM on June 28, 2016 [10 favorites]
Do most people have hundreds of dollars for airfare, hundreds of dollars for a week in a hotel, and the ability to take a week off from work?
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:43 PM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:43 PM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
Yes, as I said, I do think it's important to get rid of the barriers that prevent people who are actually poor from participating in politics (I'd wonder whether this is actually the best approach to that goal, though?).
But this is sort of like going to Comic-Con or something. It's a thing people do. You don't have to be a millionaire. It's not Bohemian Grove.
Not to mention that it's a ceremonial thing. It doesn't actually matter if the guy who waves a sign from Arizona is rich or poor or anywhere in between. It only nominally has to actually *be* a resident of Arizona. It's all just political theater.
posted by Sara C. at 2:45 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
But this is sort of like going to Comic-Con or something. It's a thing people do. You don't have to be a millionaire. It's not Bohemian Grove.
Not to mention that it's a ceremonial thing. It doesn't actually matter if the guy who waves a sign from Arizona is rich or poor or anywhere in between. It only nominally has to actually *be* a resident of Arizona. It's all just political theater.
posted by Sara C. at 2:45 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, on the one hand, screw them and their annoying, false narratives. But on the other hand, it sounds like a lot of Sanders delegates didn't realize that delegates typically pay their own way, and that would be a bit of a shock if you didn't realize you were committing to pay for it. I have some sympathy.
Oh sure, I have nothing but sympathy for the actual delegates. There have been many years in my life where it would have been absolutely impossible for me to find the money and vacation time to go to another city for a week. I can see how finding out you've committed to do that for a cause you believe in would be devastating.
I'm just annoyed that the Sanders campaign continues to fight against Democrats instead of Republicans, and does it (unfairly) on ad hominem grounds, rather than grounds of policy.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:46 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
Oh sure, I have nothing but sympathy for the actual delegates. There have been many years in my life where it would have been absolutely impossible for me to find the money and vacation time to go to another city for a week. I can see how finding out you've committed to do that for a cause you believe in would be devastating.
I'm just annoyed that the Sanders campaign continues to fight against Democrats instead of Republicans, and does it (unfairly) on ad hominem grounds, rather than grounds of policy.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 2:46 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's time to move on. At this point Sanders is the guy in the beret insisting there are no American tanks at the Baghdad airport, while tanks drive by in the distance behind him.
posted by Justinian at 2:48 PM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 2:48 PM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, as a person who works a shittier job than most mefites and lives in an expensive city across the country from Philadelphia, if it was my priority to become a delegate, yeah, I could swing it. I'd probably stay with a friend or in a hostel or something, but sure. I could have saved up to do it if it was important to me.
posted by Sara C. at 2:48 PM on June 28, 2016
posted by Sara C. at 2:48 PM on June 28, 2016
is attending a political convention as a delegate really that insanely expensive?
I'll take this one. Yes, and here's why:
First, registration fee to attend. For me it was 900$
Second, because the event is a Designated National Security Event, the Secret Service is making delegates stay in their delegation hotels only. We were required to sign up for a minimum five night stay. For us, 279$ a night plus hotel taxes, so somewhere north of $1500.
Third, plane tickets go up with demand. Unless I want to sleep in the street Saturday, which I am considering, my tickets WIlLL cost north of 800$.
So before we consider the cost of five days and nights of eating out, I'm looking at $3,100.
Vacations you can plan for. I had two months to raise and save at least 3 grand.
posted by corb at 2:52 PM on June 28, 2016 [28 favorites]
I'll take this one. Yes, and here's why:
First, registration fee to attend. For me it was 900$
Second, because the event is a Designated National Security Event, the Secret Service is making delegates stay in their delegation hotels only. We were required to sign up for a minimum five night stay. For us, 279$ a night plus hotel taxes, so somewhere north of $1500.
Third, plane tickets go up with demand. Unless I want to sleep in the street Saturday, which I am considering, my tickets WIlLL cost north of 800$.
So before we consider the cost of five days and nights of eating out, I'm looking at $3,100.
Vacations you can plan for. I had two months to raise and save at least 3 grand.
posted by corb at 2:52 PM on June 28, 2016 [28 favorites]
I think cjelli said what I'm trying to get at a lot more eloquently than I did.
Also, whoa, yeah, to me charging actual money to attend a political convention is WAY more problematic than expecting delegates to pay their own travel expenses.
This should just be like jury duty, where delegates are randomly selected from the pool of registered voters/party members and the government gives you some kind of stipend and requires your work to give you time off for this important civic duty.
Well either that or some kind of huge skype session
posted by Sara C. at 2:54 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also, whoa, yeah, to me charging actual money to attend a political convention is WAY more problematic than expecting delegates to pay their own travel expenses.
This should just be like jury duty, where delegates are randomly selected from the pool of registered voters/party members and the government gives you some kind of stipend and requires your work to give you time off for this important civic duty.
Well either that or some kind of huge skype session
posted by Sara C. at 2:54 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
And I could give zero fucks about Destination Republican Party. I'm there to fight the fascists, and didn't know I'd be needed until a few months ago.
posted by corb at 2:57 PM on June 28, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by corb at 2:57 PM on June 28, 2016 [15 favorites]
The question remains, is the Sanders campaign actually paying those costs for anyone? Since that doesn't seem like a normal thing for campaigns to do? If so, how are they deciding who qualifies for help with travel expenses? That seems like the hardest part of deciding to cover those costs.
I also wonder... is that the best use of the campaign's money? If some fraction of his delegates don't show, big deal. Doesn't change the outcome, the platform, or his speaking schedule. Maybe if he's still raising funds those should go toward issues ads or down ticket races instead?
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:59 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
I also wonder... is that the best use of the campaign's money? If some fraction of his delegates don't show, big deal. Doesn't change the outcome, the platform, or his speaking schedule. Maybe if he's still raising funds those should go toward issues ads or down ticket races instead?
posted by OnceUponATime at 2:59 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
The cost of attending the national convention is one of those things that is easily understood well in advance so it's kind of late to be all "omg, some of our delegates won't be able to attend because it's $$$!" It is an utterly predictable cost and if it was important and something his campaign wanted to move the lever on (i.e. getting more diverse participation at the national convention), then his campaign organizations in various states should have been planning that all along and asking delegates if they were going to need financial help to attend, etc. To bring it up now and especially in these terms -- implying Clinton delegates are overwhelmingly wealthy etc -- just sounds like he is using it to continue the narrative of Clinton and supporters as fat cat supporters of the status quo as opposed to him and his poor and "real" Americans. In short, I don't buy that he cares about diverse participation at the national convention so much as criticizing the establishment.
posted by R343L at 3:13 PM on June 28, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by R343L at 3:13 PM on June 28, 2016 [16 favorites]
is attending a political convention as a delegate really that insanely expensive?
You hear the same question from people who scoff at the idea that voter ID laws can actually disenfranchise poor people. Not that missing out on a political convention is in any way comparable to losing one's ability to vote, but just as a point of information: for many, many people, the answer to the question "Is _______ really all that expensive?" will always be a definitive Yes.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:25 PM on June 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
You hear the same question from people who scoff at the idea that voter ID laws can actually disenfranchise poor people. Not that missing out on a political convention is in any way comparable to losing one's ability to vote, but just as a point of information: for many, many people, the answer to the question "Is _______ really all that expensive?" will always be a definitive Yes.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:25 PM on June 28, 2016 [11 favorites]
Sanders and Clinton delegates are struggling to afford attending the Democratic convention - answers several questions raised
posted by madamjujujive at 3:32 PM on June 28, 2016
posted by madamjujujive at 3:32 PM on June 28, 2016
Comparing this to voter ID laws is kind of a red herring though, since:
1. Both Clinton and Sanders need to send delegates -- who aside from superdelegates are ordinary people across the board -- to the convention. The Republican candidates do, as well.
2. We seem to have managed to do this umpteen other times since the early 1970s without this being a problem.
3. Ordinary people do actually do this. In my understanding, from year to year most of the delegates are not rich people. (My friend who was a delegate in 2012 rents an apartment in a small southern college town, to give you an idea of the type of people who usually go.)
4. The Sanders campaign knew that their delegates would have to get to the convention somehow at the beginning of the entire process, and if they didn't, whoa are they dumb.
5. Delegates are political theatre, to an extent, and it isn't actually that important that people at all socio-economic levels are able to participate in this.
6. If for some reason it is important that the poorest of the poor get a seat at this particular table (and ideally I think that it is), it should be across the board, not just for Sanders supporters, and also probably we should come up with a better system than guilting people into supporting with subtle digs at your party's nominee.
posted by Sara C. at 3:33 PM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
1. Both Clinton and Sanders need to send delegates -- who aside from superdelegates are ordinary people across the board -- to the convention. The Republican candidates do, as well.
2. We seem to have managed to do this umpteen other times since the early 1970s without this being a problem.
3. Ordinary people do actually do this. In my understanding, from year to year most of the delegates are not rich people. (My friend who was a delegate in 2012 rents an apartment in a small southern college town, to give you an idea of the type of people who usually go.)
4. The Sanders campaign knew that their delegates would have to get to the convention somehow at the beginning of the entire process, and if they didn't, whoa are they dumb.
5. Delegates are political theatre, to an extent, and it isn't actually that important that people at all socio-economic levels are able to participate in this.
6. If for some reason it is important that the poorest of the poor get a seat at this particular table (and ideally I think that it is), it should be across the board, not just for Sanders supporters, and also probably we should come up with a better system than guilting people into supporting with subtle digs at your party's nominee.
posted by Sara C. at 3:33 PM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
There are reasons beyond economic that may prevent participation, too. Being a caretaker or single parent who can't get away. Just being a parent at all. Someone who has little or no paid vacation time.
posted by madamjujujive at 3:41 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by madamjujujive at 3:41 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Beyond the issue of the cost of being a delegate at the convention, and whether Sanders should raise funds for that or how it would even work, one thing that bothers me about his campaign is the consistent use of innuendo. Whether it's referring to Goldman Sachs speeches but not being able to answer what evidence he has of corruption and wrongdoing when Clinton questioned him directly, or stuff like this:
"Here's the thing: our delegates are not wealthy campaign contributors. They're not party insiders or establishment elites. They're working folks..."
...the use of innuendo is grating.
UNLIKE SOME OTHER CAMPAIGNS our delegates are not wealthy campaign contributors, etc.
Where is the directness I've heard so much about? I cannot help but thing of this, but hey I'm pretty much always thinking about Arrested Development.
posted by defenestration at 3:47 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
"Here's the thing: our delegates are not wealthy campaign contributors. They're not party insiders or establishment elites. They're working folks..."
...the use of innuendo is grating.
UNLIKE SOME OTHER CAMPAIGNS our delegates are not wealthy campaign contributors, etc.
Where is the directness I've heard so much about? I cannot help but thing of this, but hey I'm pretty much always thinking about Arrested Development.
posted by defenestration at 3:47 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
The thing is, it kind of doesn't matter who goes to the convention, unless you have some sort of epic shit-show like the Republican convention this year, and probably not even then. It's fun to go, and it would be cool if a representative cross-section of people had the opportunity, but nothing really significant gets done at the convention. It's political theater. All you need is to have enthusiastic people in the audience who will cheer at the right times. (And I'm hearing rumors that some Sanders delegates plan to do things like turn their backs in protest when Clinton speaks, which is annoying. Your only job is to go and cheer, guys!) So it sucks that some people are excluded, but it isn't significant in the way that people getting excluded from caucuses is significant. Everything has been decided before they walk through the door.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:05 PM on June 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:05 PM on June 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
From the Bleeding Obvious Dept: Exclusive – Trump supporters more likely to view blacks negatively: Reuters/Ipsos poll
From the "You Get Your News From Where?!" Dept: The Laziest Lie of Donald Trump
From the Eye Rolling is Good Exercise Dept: Is this Donald Trump's Most Outlandish Fundraising Email Yet?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:08 PM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
Supporters of U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump are more likely to describe African Americans as “criminal,” “unintelligent,” “lazy” and “violent” than voters who backed some Republican rivals in the primaries or who support Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll.Trump believes in supporting and protecting all people equally....except for those pesky Muslims, and the rapey Mexicans, and those women who bleed from their everywhere.
[snip]
The poll, conducted between March and June, interviewed 16,000 Americans and included 21 questions on attitudes about race. It sought responses from voters who support Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, and her rival U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. It also surveyed supporters of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Governor John Kasich, the last two Republican candidates to drop out of the race.
“Mr. Trump is an egalitarian who believes in supporting and protecting all people equally,” said Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior policy adviser, when asked about the poll. “This is a stark contrast to Hillary Clinton, whose policies have been a disaster for African-American and Hispanic citizens.”
From the "You Get Your News From Where?!" Dept: The Laziest Lie of Donald Trump
Not only is @RealEricJAllen's profile picture just a Trump banner, but he joined Twitter early in Trump's campaign, tweets an average of over 500 times a month, and every single tweet is either a Trump retweet or explicitly pro-Trump. In fact, it has tweeted the exact phrase Trump is quoting up there several times.
Ya know, it's almost like it's a program written to do this one specific thing. If this guy isn't employed by the Trump campaign, he absolutely should be, because he's putting more effort into this than I am into my day job (which is this one, the one I'm doing right now). And if he is employed by the Trump campaign, then Trump pretended he was a supporter right there on his official Twitter. I don't know which one of those is weirder or more deceitful, because both these options are hellishly stupid. They're so stupid that I feel like I'm missing something just by trying to apply real-world logic to them. Like even trying to debunk Trump's lies in the first place is like pointing out plot-holes in a porno -- all you're doing is announcing to everyone that you're the wrong audience for what's going on.
From the Eye Rolling is Good Exercise Dept: Is this Donald Trump's Most Outlandish Fundraising Email Yet?
The subject heading on the email is eye-popping: "Have you heard about the Hillary indictment?"You all know this is a test run for the post-election Trump Spam, right? It will will be something like "Subject: Make money the tried and true Trump way" and inside will be a choice between the $50.00 for the Trump Top Tips for MAKING YOUR FIRST MILLION or $250. for the Donald Trump SUREFIRE METHOD FOR STARTING A BUSINESS OUT OF YOUR HOME OR GARAGE complete with video and book to help you get started.
But when you click on the email, which on Tuesday afternoon hit the inboxes of people on conservative lists (hours after House Republicans released their Benghazi report), the news is not that the feds have dropped the hammer on the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. Instead, it's Donald Trump, the apparent GOP nominee, begging for campaign cash.
In this email, he calls on voters to indict Clinton:
[O]n November 8th, the American people will finally have the chance to do what the authorities have been too afraid to do over these last 2 decades: INDICT HILLARY CLINTON AND FIND HER GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES.
Trump goes on to ask the recipient to donate five bucks—or 10, or 20, or 50, or more—to "indict."
For what? He doesn't specify. But he suggests there are many options
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:08 PM on June 28, 2016 [5 favorites]
So apparently Trump can't get politicians to agree to speak at the Republican National Convention, so instead he's going with sports figures. So far, he's lined up Mike Ditka, Bobby Knight, some NASCAR guy who I've never heard of, and Mike Tyson.
I don't think this is going to help him very much with women.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:40 PM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
I don't think this is going to help him very much with women.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:40 PM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
Also, Tyson is going to do the thing with the chair.
posted by box at 4:45 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by box at 4:45 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Indeed, I didn't think Tyson could destroy his reputation even more with women but associating himself with Trump...
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:46 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:46 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
> I personally like Charles Pierce's description: "If you believe in First, Do No Harm, then the incredibly boring Tim Kaine would have to be the choice. If he has any skeletons in his closet, they're likely wearing old comfy cardigans and Hush Puppies."
More from Pierce about Warren: A Few More Words About Elizabeth Warren's Impact on Hillary Clinton - This is the way that grown-ups play the game.
More on the platform: Sanders and Clinton teams fight over climate language in Democratic platform
posted by homunculus at 4:47 PM on June 28, 2016
More from Pierce about Warren: A Few More Words About Elizabeth Warren's Impact on Hillary Clinton - This is the way that grown-ups play the game.
More on the platform: Sanders and Clinton teams fight over climate language in Democratic platform
posted by homunculus at 4:47 PM on June 28, 2016
Mike Ditka: racist crank
Bobby Knight: ''I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.''
Mike Tyson: convicted rapist, or as Trump calls it, "tough guy"
Sounds about right.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:08 PM on June 28, 2016
Bobby Knight: ''I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.''
Mike Tyson: convicted rapist, or as Trump calls it, "tough guy"
Sounds about right.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:08 PM on June 28, 2016
Trump’s Muslim ban: From simple clarity to plain confusion
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:11 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
A blanket ban on Muslim immigrants or just better screening? Does his ban on countries with ‘a history of terrorism’ include Israelis? GOP candidate’s immigration proposals keep changingI would never have imagined that a nominally-mainstream public figure in the US would advocate for anything like this. It's unlikely that Trump will be President, or that a program like this could be implemented. The terrible thing is that it's shifting the window of acceptable discourse.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:11 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
Holy shit Ditka, Knight, Tyson?
Was he not able to get the Duck Dynasty cast?
posted by vuron at 5:24 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
Was he not able to get the Duck Dynasty cast?
posted by vuron at 5:24 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
some NASCAR guy who I've never heard of
Brian France is the CEO of NASCAR who inherited the position from his dad-- ya know the hero of working folk. I'm sure NASCAR fans have his poster on their wall, right?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:35 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Brian France is the CEO of NASCAR who inherited the position from his dad-- ya know the hero of working folk. I'm sure NASCAR fans have his poster on their wall, right?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:35 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Also, in terms of the legislature, polling suggests Republicans are poised to take the Senate, but the races in NH, NV, AZ, and OH look close.
posted by en forme de poire at 5:37 PM on June 28, 2016
posted by en forme de poire at 5:37 PM on June 28, 2016
We're months away and there's a danger of complacency. We need to get out the vote and hopefully dominate the results in November.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:54 PM on June 28, 2016
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:54 PM on June 28, 2016
Also, in terms of the legislature, polling suggests Republicans are poised to take the Senate,
Since they currently have the majority, they are poised to "keep" the Senate, not take it. /pedant
Re: Ohio - I've seen lots of anti-Portman ads on TV of late. Seems a bit early
posted by zakur at 5:57 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Since they currently have the majority, they are poised to "keep" the Senate, not take it. /pedant
Re: Ohio - I've seen lots of anti-Portman ads on TV of late. Seems a bit early
posted by zakur at 5:57 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also, Tyson is going to do the thing with the chair.
Chairs have ears?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:11 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
Chairs have ears?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:11 PM on June 28, 2016 [8 favorites]
Yeah, brain fart about take/keep, sorry. It's pretty early of course so there's not a lot of clear polling, and in some states we won't even know the candidates for sure until quite close to the election. But it's probably not too early to think about it given that the overall count is expected to be close. Here are some particularly tight races (via PEC):
posted by en forme de poire at 6:13 PM on June 28, 2016
- NH: Ayotte (R) vs. Hassan (D): Tied
- NV: Heck (R) vs. Cortez Masto (D): Tied
- AZ: McCain, probably (R) vs. Kirkpatrick (D): (+2.0% R [!!])
- OH: Portman (R) vs. Strickland (D): (+1.0% R)
- NC: Burr (R) vs. Ross (D): (+3.0% R)
- FL: Rubio (R) vs. TBD [but the two D primary possibilities poll similarly] (D): Tied
posted by en forme de poire at 6:13 PM on June 28, 2016
I'm not so sure about Rubio. He's pretty unpopular around here now and frankly, I don't see it getting better for him.
posted by hollygoheavy at 6:39 PM on June 28, 2016
posted by hollygoheavy at 6:39 PM on June 28, 2016
Via a kind note from blogging academic David Schraub, it turns out that Richard Posner addressed the issue of discriminatory immigration law last year:
Is an immigration ban on Muslims unconstitutional?
and
But President Trump couldn’t exclude Muslims by himself, could he?
His tl;dr:
Is an immigration ban on Muslims unconstitutional?
and
But President Trump couldn’t exclude Muslims by himself, could he?
His tl;dr:
The bottom line: if you (like me) don’t want Trump to block Muslims from entering the United States, then stop him from getting elected president. Don’t depend on the Constitution, Congress, or the courts.posted by Joe in Australia at 6:43 PM on June 28, 2016 [9 favorites]
Joe, those two articles were written by Eric Posner, not Richard Posner.
posted by ryanrs at 7:20 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ryanrs at 7:20 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Is an immigration ban on Muslims unconstitutional?
But President Trump couldn’t exclude Muslims by himself, could he?
I don't need a law degree to know that what President Trumpcould would do bears only a passing degree of familiarity with whatever the words on the papers say.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:07 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
But President Trump couldn’t exclude Muslims by himself, could he?
I don't need a law degree to know that what President Trump
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:07 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
From the current Brexit thread: Jill Stein would like everyone to clear their cache.
posted by salix at 8:18 PM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by salix at 8:18 PM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]
Honestly I'm starting to feel kind of sad for the Green Party. I think that it could be a useful ally in many ways but the complete ineptitude of Stein on the campaign side of things is embarassing.
I think between Stein and Carson the idea that MDs are qualified to govern is becoming more and more doubtful. You might be a brilliant physician but that doesn't make you a brilliant leader.
posted by vuron at 8:28 PM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think between Stein and Carson the idea that MDs are qualified to govern is becoming more and more doubtful. You might be a brilliant physician but that doesn't make you a brilliant leader.
posted by vuron at 8:28 PM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
If you think physicians are typically brilliant you should make friends with an RN sometime.
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:46 PM on June 28, 2016 [20 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 8:46 PM on June 28, 2016 [20 favorites]
or a physician
posted by dersins at 8:50 PM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by dersins at 8:50 PM on June 28, 2016 [6 favorites]
Next you are going to try to tell me that House and Gray's Anatomy aren't documentaries. I reject your lies, diagnosing what ails a country is no different that diagnosing what ails a patient.
posted by vuron at 9:05 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by vuron at 9:05 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right, and the country should be run like a business, a hospital business. Or something like that.
posted by bongo_x at 9:15 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bongo_x at 9:15 PM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
oh god that would indeed be the darkest timeline
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:18 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:18 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd vote for Hugh Laurie in a heartbeat. Natural born citizen nonsense be damned. But he better get Stephen Fry as his running mate. (Or the other way around. I'm not picky.) Imagine the White House Correspondents Dinner possibilities...
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:25 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by downtohisturtles at 9:25 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Exclusive – Trump supporters more likely to view blacks negatively: Reuters/Ipsos poll
Why aren't they reporting the results for Sanders supporters, who they say they reviewed?
posted by msalt at 10:26 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Why aren't they reporting the results for Sanders supporters, who they say they reviewed?
posted by msalt at 10:26 PM on June 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Not to rain on the innuendo parade but at least in the ANES survey, Sanders supporters were somewhat less likely to endorse negative stereotypes about Black people (at least, the two they tested) than Clinton supporters. I'm guessing they showed the other Republicans to emphasize that it wasn't just a D-R difference but was somewhat specific for Trump.
posted by en forme de poire at 11:04 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 11:04 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
Additionally, as a sanity-check, support for Black Lives Matter was near-identical among Clinton and Sanders supporters, substantially less in Cruz/Kasich supporters (collapsed here), and basically nil in Trump supporters in this Economist/YouGov poll (pdf).
posted by en forme de poire at 11:12 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by en forme de poire at 11:12 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Right, and the country should be run like a business, a hospital business. Or something like that.
America Needs Mouse Bites To Live!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:53 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
America Needs Mouse Bites To Live!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:53 PM on June 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
I wonder if they're tapping into the Philadelphia Sanders supporter network to find places for people to crash.
I don't believe that's an option. Delegates are being told that they are required to stay at the designated hotel, due to security considerations.
posted by bardophile at 12:01 AM on June 29, 2016
I don't believe that's an option. Delegates are being told that they are required to stay at the designated hotel, due to security considerations.
posted by bardophile at 12:01 AM on June 29, 2016
The latest Quinnipiac poll has the race more or less even with Clinton up only 42-40.
Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. I can't take it. 47-40 is so much more dealable.
posted by Justinian at 3:39 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. I can't take it. 47-40 is so much more dealable.
posted by Justinian at 3:39 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Both the NYT and Charlie Pierce seem to think Trump's PA speech might be a bigger deal than you'd think. He's playing a classic far-right game in it, playing working-class anxieties against technocracy and the whole trahison des clercs thing.
Put another way Trump is dangerous because his speeches reflect what Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. described as the classic totalitarian mind in Mother Night:
posted by kewb at 3:46 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
Put another way Trump is dangerous because his speeches reflect what Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. described as the classic totalitarian mind in Mother Night:
[Trump] wasn't completely crazy. The dismaying thing about classic totalitarian mind is that any given gear, though mutilated, will have at its circumference unbroken sequences of teeth that are immaculately maintained, that are exquisitely machined.In the modern media landscape, all you need are those soundbites; the larger whole, where it becomes clear that things are very much Not Right, just isn't visible in the same way.
Hence the cuckoo clock in Hell - keeping perfect time for eight minutes and twenty-three seconds, jumping ahead fourteen minutes, keeping perfect time for six seconds, jumping ahead two seconds, keeping perfect time for two hours and one second, then jumping ahead a year.
The missing teeth, of course, are simple, obvious truths, truths available and comprehensible even to ten-year-olds, in most cases.
The wilful filling off of gear teeth, the wilful doing without certain obvious pieces of information...."
posted by kewb at 3:46 AM on June 29, 2016 [6 favorites]
So dad what do you think about Megatron?"
You're lucky, my dad won't even talk to me about Transformers
I mean, I keep trying, but
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:23 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
You're lucky, my dad won't even talk to me about Transformers
I mean, I keep trying, but
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:23 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Justinian: "The latest Quinnipiac poll has the race more or less even with Clinton up only 42-40.
Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. I can't take it. 47-40 is so much more dealable."
Seriously, don't freak out about one poll. If the aggregate starts looking like that, I'd worry but right now it's just an outlier.
posted by octothorpe at 4:58 AM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. I can't take it. 47-40 is so much more dealable."
Seriously, don't freak out about one poll. If the aggregate starts looking like that, I'd worry but right now it's just an outlier.
posted by octothorpe at 4:58 AM on June 29, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's giving Trump 33% of the Latinx/Hispanic vote. 'Nuff said.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:14 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 5:14 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
Quinnipac in general has a slight Republican lean and it's really unclear what they are doing with their Likely Voter screen.
In 2012 there was a pretty consistent undersampling of younger and minority voter (who traditionally vote Democrat) and it seems likely that pollster will do similar things this year. Granted there are big spikes in voter engagement in Presidential election years so if you use an average voter turnout screen from all elections (Presidential and off year) you are bound to average out those spikes.
Regardless it tends to dramatically overrate Trump's actual support.
Additionally almost all the pollster are going with ridiculously large numbers of Independent voters in their screen (because people self report as that). Independent voters typically aren't actually really that independent so depending on the composition of the independent voters surveyed you can actually get a pretty significant shit towards either candidate.
In short don't really worry about individual polls but focus more on the aggregate numbers and the trend lines. Also focus more on state polling because National head to head polling is not really how Presidents get elected.
When you look at polling of the battleground states Trump is getting crushed.
posted by vuron at 5:52 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
In 2012 there was a pretty consistent undersampling of younger and minority voter (who traditionally vote Democrat) and it seems likely that pollster will do similar things this year. Granted there are big spikes in voter engagement in Presidential election years so if you use an average voter turnout screen from all elections (Presidential and off year) you are bound to average out those spikes.
Regardless it tends to dramatically overrate Trump's actual support.
Additionally almost all the pollster are going with ridiculously large numbers of Independent voters in their screen (because people self report as that). Independent voters typically aren't actually really that independent so depending on the composition of the independent voters surveyed you can actually get a pretty significant shit towards either candidate.
In short don't really worry about individual polls but focus more on the aggregate numbers and the trend lines. Also focus more on state polling because National head to head polling is not really how Presidents get elected.
When you look at polling of the battleground states Trump is getting crushed.
posted by vuron at 5:52 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm disappointed that fivethirtyeight seems to disengaged with the general election so far. Are they waiting until after the conventions to roll out their prediction model? I'm pissed that they wrote a dumb "pivot" article about Trump a few days ago too. I thought that they were better than that.
posted by octothorpe at 6:27 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:27 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nate Silver tweeted last night "Tonight's the night when I stay up all night programming because Maine and Nebraska split their damn vote by congressional district," and then said that it was worth it because one Nebraska district might go Clinton and one Maine district might go Trump, so it sounds like they might be holding off on making predictions because they're tweaking their model.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:31 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:31 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
When you look at polling of the battleground states Trump is getting crushed.
Yeah, this is the most important thing. While denying him the mandate of popular-vote majority would be nice, it's not actually that significant (that even 40% of the population likes him is disturbing, but a few percentage points one way or another don't matter much to that). Nobody cares how much they love him in Alabama or hate him in Massachusetts.
posted by jackbishop at 6:34 AM on June 29, 2016
Yeah, this is the most important thing. While denying him the mandate of popular-vote majority would be nice, it's not actually that significant (that even 40% of the population likes him is disturbing, but a few percentage points one way or another don't matter much to that). Nobody cares how much they love him in Alabama or hate him in Massachusetts.
posted by jackbishop at 6:34 AM on June 29, 2016
So here in my little corner of the world, the news is that the Iowa Supreme Court is going to issue its ruling tomorrow on the constitutionality of our draconian rules preventing felons from voting. Anyone who was ever convicted of a felony is disenfranchised for life in Iowa, unless they apply directly to the governor for a dispensation, which he almost never gives. A lot of people are disenfranchised because of this rule: I've seen estimates ranging from 20,000 to 55,000 potential voters. So keep your fingers crossed, everyone.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:47 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:47 AM on June 29, 2016 [5 favorites]
When you look at polling of the battleground states Trump is getting crushed.
Crushed?
RCP's average today has him behind by 3.4 in Florida, 3 in Ohio, 4 in Virginia, 2.5 in Pennsylvania.
Obviously I'd rather he's down by that much than leading by that much, but -- that's hardly getting crushed.
posted by saturday_morning at 6:48 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
Crushed?
RCP's average today has him behind by 3.4 in Florida, 3 in Ohio, 4 in Virginia, 2.5 in Pennsylvania.
Obviously I'd rather he's down by that much than leading by that much, but -- that's hardly getting crushed.
posted by saturday_morning at 6:48 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
Right, and the country should be run like a business, a hospital business. Or something like that.
Boy, do I have the candidate for you!
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:00 AM on June 29, 2016
Boy, do I have the candidate for you!
posted by hollygoheavy at 7:00 AM on June 29, 2016
A profile of Trump's policy advisor Stephen Miller, The Believer by Julia Ioffe
posted by readery at 7:27 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by readery at 7:27 AM on June 29, 2016 [3 favorites]
There's a new Trumpcast on Stephen Miller, too. Julia Ioffe is a delight to read and listen to.
posted by stolyarova at 7:32 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by stolyarova at 7:32 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Bernie's Anti-Trump Campaign is Basically His Anti-Clinton Campaign with a Sprinkling of Anti-Trump
Bernie Sanders has been telling us for some time that he recognizes how important it is to defeat Donald Trump in the fall. Most observers have taken that to mean that he'll endorse Hillary Clinton and be an enthusiastic Clinton backer once she's officially the nominee.posted by tonycpsu at 7:47 AM on June 29, 2016 [9 favorites]
I've expressed my doubts about that, and now we have a New York Times op-ed from Sanders that reinforces my suspicions
Is it an attack on Trump? Yes, in part -- but mostly it's a continuation of Sanders's attack on the Democratic establishment and, by implication, the Clinton campaign.
[...]
In this op-ed, Sanders never endorses Clinton. He never mentions her by name. He doesn't repeat his promise to vote for her (or to vote for her "in all likelihood") -- he just ungraciously tosses off a reference to "a new Democratic president" in the very last paragraph of an eighteen-paragraph op-ed. And his attack on Trump is subsumed in a finger-wagging warning to the Democrats.
This is still a campaign document -- and please note that the capsule bio that appears with the op-ed, which Sanders probably approved, reads as follows: "Bernie Sanders, a senator from Vermont, is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination." Yes, "is," not "was," or even "has been."
Sanders has said, "I’m going to do everything I can to defeat Donald Trump." His campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, has said that Sanders "will work seven days a week, night and day, to make sure Donald Trump is not president."
But I suspect this is going to be his idea of working seven days a week to defeat Trump: He's going to fold his anti-Trump message into the same message he used to attack Clinton for a year in the primary campaign.
And that's not going to help elect her.
I made you guys a new thread.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:49 AM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:49 AM on June 29, 2016 [19 favorites]
From the Quinnipiac poll (bolding mine):
The poll found a similar gender divide as previous surveys: Clinton wins among women, 50% to 33%, while Trump has the advantage with men, 47% to 34%. -- He is also ahead by the same margin with white voters, while Clinton wins African-American voters, 91% to 1%, and Hispanic voters, 50% to 33%.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:49 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
The poll found a similar gender divide as previous surveys: Clinton wins among women, 50% to 33%, while Trump has the advantage with men, 47% to 34%. -- He is also ahead by the same margin with white voters, while Clinton wins African-American voters, 91% to 1%, and Hispanic voters, 50% to 33%.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:49 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
THANK YOU roomthreeseventen! To the new thread I go.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:49 AM on June 29, 2016
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:49 AM on June 29, 2016
So far, he's lined up Mike Ditka
I never thought I'd figure out why two random people I walked near yesterday were talking about Ditka of all people, but this has to be it.
posted by Green With You at 8:20 AM on June 29, 2016
I never thought I'd figure out why two random people I walked near yesterday were talking about Ditka of all people, but this has to be it.
posted by Green With You at 8:20 AM on June 29, 2016
I had not realized that Ditka was still alive, but I'm also not the target audience. (And he's actually not that old. For some reason I assumed he was ancient.)
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:24 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:24 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
I took my son out to dinner for his birthday to one of those places with multiple TVs at every eye level and Ditka was everywhere mostly due to the death of Buddy Ryan. It's a perfect storm of Ditka. brrr
posted by readery at 8:52 AM on June 29, 2016
posted by readery at 8:52 AM on June 29, 2016
♫ It's raining Mike ♫
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:04 AM on June 29, 2016
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:04 AM on June 29, 2016
A while back, Deadspin collected some Ditka stories.
posted by box at 10:43 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by box at 10:43 AM on June 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
In re Garrison Keillor 2.0:
I for one, will miss him after his last show, which is the weekend after next, I believe...
Which is this weekend. And although I became convinced I was wrong after listening last week to the last live show, I come to find that Garrison Keillor's last Prairie Home Companion was recorded last night at the Hollywood Bowl and airs today. The end of an era ends today.
Oh, where is Buster Friendly technology when we need it ? I will be listening, I will miss him.
Oh, well, onward and upward....
posted by y2karl at 7:21 AM on July 2, 2016
I for one, will miss him after his last show, which is the weekend after next, I believe...
Which is this weekend. And although I became convinced I was wrong after listening last week to the last live show, I come to find that Garrison Keillor's last Prairie Home Companion was recorded last night at the Hollywood Bowl and airs today. The end of an era ends today.
Oh, where is Buster Friendly technology when we need it ? I will be listening, I will miss him.
Oh, well, onward and upward....
posted by y2karl at 7:21 AM on July 2, 2016
the TSA doesn't get to scan everybody or grab their crotches
Or beat them bloody.
posted by homunculus at 11:57 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
Or beat them bloody.
posted by homunculus at 11:57 AM on July 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older “I’m 60 years old and I can’t remember anything... | prices.slippery.traps Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
DEMOCRATGANEBOWL
GET HYPE
posted by prize bull octorok at 1:20 PM on June 13, 2016 [40 favorites]