Conventional Mealy Mouths: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 5

http://i.imgur.com/hrP5EXg.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1aFhK41.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/i4Qtg5u.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rJHrz2p.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/GP4Hr0K.jpg

relive the hits:

Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

terrifying mouths

if you look really closely, there's a secret hidden in one of them

which holds the secret to liberal victories in down ticket races?

Oh come on!

Also Trumps' scalp flashing on screen for a second as the thread loads (for me). Cue next thread's 2nd post being a close up of his word hole...

xp

― Evan, Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:35 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

cruz mouth pic doesn't really look like him. found a higher-res shot, maybe a mod can swap it in.

https://zuts.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/mouth-of-sauron.jpg

this is stuff that's really easy for me to say in the abstract - go left, be bold, don't look back - but not so easy for me to impose on people living in pennyslvania.

DC, this is the same stuff that I worry about. I like Fetterman - I like the way he speaks, I think he connects to his audience, I think his heart is in the right place, I think he's right on most of his policy prescriptions, I think he comes off well (i also think but am not sure that he will be a better fit for black voters bc of his political background than bernie has been). But PA is a pretty conservative state. on one hand maybe that means that a bernie/fetterman outside the mainstream type could get crossover vote from independents + maybe PA republicans (though doubtful imo) but it also means that most PA Dems are also pretty moderate. now luckily i think McGinty is not a bad choice and if she beats Fetterman in the primary I'll feel sad but not heartbroken (sestak otoh is a total disaster). but i think fetterman's campaign, with real attention + enthusiasm (which i think he can generate but it requires voters/supporters are also enthusiastic about a non-POTUS race) + most importantly money could do more things. i wish bernie would work more closely with him - maybe you're right that it'll turn out his a porn fiend or whatever (i don't think he is) but surely the democratic party figures out a way to endorse/support candidates at a huge rate and generally do okay. so what's he waiting for? bc if he waits for after the PA primary it'll be too late - McGinty has been endorsed by Obama and is getting all that DNC cash. there won't be an opportunity after the primary to decide campaigning for fetterman is a good idea. so it needs to happen now.

lol, sorry evan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM-XhQeFzW4

cruz's tongue looks like an infant's hand

looks like i was wrong and bernie is campaigning for him :p

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t31.0-8/p720x720/12967426_1701766740091278_1484359542403773817_o.jpg

would be cool if another, radically different candidate reached out of cruz's face and ripped his skin off to reveal him/herself, like pras in the "ghetto supastar" video.

that would be cool

Cruzmouth reminds me of the Devo album.
http://imgur.com/faoPw75

http://i.imgur.com/faoPw75.jpg

Trump's mouth looks like someone is pointing a leaf blower at it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/etienne_saint/PR.jpg

Pierce:

HRC is proving to be, at best, a slightly less uninspiring candidate than she was in 2008. And the campaign's latest line of attack—that Bernie Sanders is not a real Democrat—is an amateur-night concoction that beggars belief. Is there a single progressive Democratic policy initiative that would cross the desk of President Sanders that he would refuse to sign, whereas President HRC would? (And, yes, I include gun safety laws in this.) As far as helping with down-ticket Democratic races goes, the record of both Clintons on this is spotty at best. (For that matter, so is the record of the current president, a fellow of considerable charisma, which means that the Democratic Party has a systemic problem in getting people to turn out in local elections, particularly in the off-years, that no president can solve. This is one of the many reasons why Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to go.) The Sanders campaign, and liberal voters in general, seem to be getting on the candidate's last nerve, and I'm not sure I understand why.

HRC is the 2016 choice of the Democratic Party establishment.

That's been clear for about five years now.

She seems caught between embracing that identity and trying to break off enough of the Sanders electorate to put a populist sheen on a powerful, but very conventional, campaign. That's a task for a more nimble politician than HRC even has been. She'd be better off just letting the machine run of itself and explaining to Sanders voters that she shares their concerns and that those concerns will be a priority in an HRC administration. "I can get things done" assumes facts not in evidence, especially given the nature of congressional Republicans these days....

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a43697/ted-cruz-bernie-sanders-win-wisconsin/

the campaign's latest line of attack—that Bernie Sanders is not a real Democrat—is an amateur-night concoction that beggars belief. Is there a single progressive Democratic policy initiative that would cross the desk of President Sanders that he would refuse to sign, whereas President HRC would? (And, yes, I include gun safety laws in this.)

this is the point i've made about 10x in these threads

She'd be better off just letting the machine run of itself and explaining to Sanders voters that she shares their concerns and that those concerns will be a priority in an HRC administration

I think this is pretty much what she's been doing. That line about wondering if Bernie's a Democrat seems to be more like a tossed-off aside rather than a talking point, but naturally that became the lead, because the media is desperate for some kind of conflict.

This bit is otm:

As far as helping with down-ticket Democratic races goes, the record of both Clintons on this is spotty at best. (For that matter, so is the record of the current president, a fellow of considerable charisma, which means that the Democratic Party has a systemic problem in getting people to turn out in local elections, particularly in the off-years, that no president can solve. This is one of the many reasons why Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to go.)

I think Obama was willing to campaign in down-ticket races in the midterms but candidates were often not sure how much they wanted to embrace him. Cf that Hacker op-ed posted above about how Republican state and congressional success has been mainly based on running against Obama in off-cycle years. I don't know that this problem can be laid at the feet of Wasserman Schultz.

seeing rumors that HRC is implicated in Panama Papers?

i feel like that's gotta just be wishful thinking

i feel like that's gotta just be wishful thinking

i read that a lot of americans don't need to go to panama due to lax restrictions in delware and wyoming and places like that

*through panama

Yeah the u.s. is better for that shir than panama

Shit

i read that a lot of americans don't need to go to panama due to lax restrictions in delware and wyoming and places like that

The Cuffing of the President 2016

i know it's probably pointless to ask, but where are the hillary/panama papers rumors coming from?

Daily Kos, so ymmv

I wasn't gonna click the link, was just curious if it was actually being reported

was Joe Biden the Noriega of Delaware?

anyone have the story on this?
https://twitter.com/HalpernAlex/status/717743018627870723

Süddeutsche Zeitung and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) are analysing the data

not sure who else has access to it right now

http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/56febff0a1bb8d3c3495adf4/

it's 2.6tb though

if it's true i want to say that he can run for as long he wants but for all our sakes bernie should make sure to mention "it's important to vote down ticket" to his supporters xp

Sanders fundraising email quoting CNN blab from last night:

"The Clinton campaign has been watching these Wisconsin results come in, and the delegate race of course is tight there, but the reality is they're running out of patience. So they're going to begin deploying a new strategy, it’s going to be called disqualify him, defeat him and then they can unify the party later."

the daily kos thing just says that 1) she helped to push through the Panama-United States Trade Promotion Agreement, which apparently made money laundering easier (i don't know anything about this, so just leaving it there), 2) Deutsche Bank is heavily involved in the panama papers stuff, and 3) hillary clinton made $485,000 makes speeches to Deutsche Bank.

don't really see that going anywhere

they're trying a new strategy called defeat him? holy shit i think they probably should've been on that strategy from the get-go xp

apparently the 15% figure came from benchmark politics: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/5/1511160/-Exit-Poll-15-of-WI-Bernie-voters-didn-t-vote-for-Kloppenburg

"disqualify him" seems the hot-button phrase

youre going to remain dickish i see

disqualify him apparently means make a case to the voters that he isn't a viable candidate. HORROR.

New York (CNN)Hillary Clinton's campaign is taking new steps to try and disqualify Bernie Sanders in the eyes of Democratic voters, hoping to extinguish the argument that he is an electable alternative for the party's presidential nomination.

rmde @ that shit

I'm not asking Bernie to "fund" other candidates (as Morbz said) but there's so many other things that have real tangible results that he could be doing that, for some reason I can't really determine, he is not

xp

ya time warner (cnn owned) is a top 10 contributor of the hillary campaign

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

so propaganda machine has been in full effect even before any leaks

An image taken from the benchmark twitter account:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfYfYGkWwAAjS19.jpg:large

Karl thank u for factchecking

just for the record, and no excusing these people for being lazy/assholes, but if sanders's voters had voted for the dem judge at the same rate clinton's had, she still would have lost

When Wisconsin Democrats gathered for their annual “Founder’s Day” dinner Saturday night, Clinton made a pitch for herself. But she took time to declare, “There is no place on any Supreme Court or any court in this country, no place at all for Rebecca Bradley’s decades-long track record of dangerous rhetoric against women, survivors of sexual assault and the LGBT community.”

“No to discrimination, no to hate speech and no to Bradley,” Clinton told the enthusiastic crowd.

The next night, at a rally in Madison, Bernie Sanders told thousands of cheering supporters, “I hope that a large voter turnout on Tuesday will help elect JoAnne Kloppenburg to the Supreme Court.”

Karl thank u for factchecking

oh, np. i'm surprised there aren't more rumors! it's funny, because i've seen several people reference a tweet by Süddeutsche Zeitung that said "Just wait for what is coming next" regarding potential American names, and speculating that prominent U.S. politicians will be implicated. but it turns out that there's a bit more to that:

In response to speculation about the dearth of American names, Stefan Plöchinger, an editor at Süddeutsche Zeitung, said in a tweet on Monday, “Just wait for what is coming next.” After other reporters picked up on this message, Plöchinger clarified that he wasn’t referring specifically to the United States. “No, it just means: relax,” he said. “What’s in the files will be published without fear or favor.”

lol
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/panama-papers-why-arent-there-more-american-names

https://twitter.com/nancycordes/status/717824134655377408

Asked @BernieSanders abt calls for him to apologize to Sandy Hook victims. He said maybe @HillaryClinton shld apologize to Iraq War victims.

heyo

reading dem primary twitter threads is a fun way to pass the time sometimes. there are all kinds of people in this crazy world of ours

The next night, at a rally in Madison, Bernie Sanders told thousands of cheering supporters, “I hope that a large voter turnout on Tuesday will help elect JoAnne Kloppenburg to the Supreme Court.”

Odd this does seem like an endorsement.

I asked @BernieSanders if his plans to break up big banks lack details. "That’s not true...we are very clear about what we want to do" (1/3)
(2/3)"...which is what Sec Clinton does not want to do. Maybe that has something to do w/the fact that she's gotten $15m fm a WS super pac"
(3/3) "They must be broken up...There are a number of ways to do that. I have excellent legislation that can do that."

i mean, this is getting into parody territory right?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jenlewis/this-is-what-donald-trump-would-look-like-without-his-fake-t

Asked @BernieSanders abt calls for him to apologize to Sandy Hook victims.

this is just gross. ugh.

I hear Trump in the background reading Dr. Seuss-like poems--about Lyin' Ted, I think. Politicians always come across really well when they do this sort of thing.

Asked @BernieSanders abt calls for him to apologize to Sandy Hook victims. He said maybe @HillaryClinton shld apologize to Iraq War victims.

― goole, Wednesday, April 6, 2016 9:58 PM (Yesterday)

bernie's answer strikes me as an entirely fair response to a really gross question

he should've given the Sam Kinison Answer. "MOVE AWAAAAAY from the WATERRRR!!!!"

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialJoanBaez/posts/10154052092404417

Bernie just locked up that all-important Joan Baez endorsement!

thank heavens rubio's out, just figured out his name is an anagram for "Birac Uboma"!

lol remember in 2008 and 2012 when people would type the words Barrack HUSSEIN Obama capitalized like so

I guess the media attempts to gin up some controversy between Sander and Clinton are bearing fruit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/07/sanderss-incorrect-claim-that-clinton-called-him-not-qualified-for-the-presidency/

Apologies if someone has posted this already.

When I compare the decisions Bill Clinton made to the decisions Barack Obama made in near-identical circumstances, it’s not a close call. Barack Obama did not bring in Dick Morris to advise him. Obama never signed anything as odious as the Welfare Reform Bill turned out to be. Obama did not give free rein to Wall Street to deregulate financial banking and the packaging of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives.

Barack Obama also didn’t cheat on his wife with a White House intern, lie about it under oath, and force his political allies to rally to his defense. He didn’t fund the DNC with Chinese money or otherwise violate the spirit or the letter of campaign finance law.

Some of these decisions and failings were particular to Bill Clinton and don’t necessarily reflect on his wife. Others were defensive postures that made some sense at the time but don’t really apply to the current political climate. What’s clear in retrospect is that Bill Clinton acted one way when he had congressional majorities and another way when he did not. Liberals liked the Clinton with congressional majorities a lot better than they liked the Clinton who was fighting Gingrich and Dole and Starr. The important point for today is that context matters a lot, and so does character.

Clinton did not come into office looking to sell out the New Deal. He enacted Family Leave and tried to give everyone health care. Insofar as he punched some hippies to get elected, that coalition needed a bit of a reality check. They have the numbers to win a presidential election today, but they did not have the numbers in 1992 or 1996. By 2008, the same demographics that were so weak in 1988 were strong enough that Michael Dukakis might have won. Today, I’m pretty sure Dukakis’s coalition has grown big enough that he would win.

x-post: Yeah, someone took the bait:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/07/sanders-rips-clinton-as-not-qualified-and-the-dem-race-goes-nuclear/

What on earth is he doing at the moment?

Well, it's pretty obvious that Sanders needs controversy a lot more than Clinton does right now, since if the status quo continues she'll win handily.

nicey nice tone is what the cabal wants

“She has been saying lately that she thinks I am quote-unquote not qualified to be president.

“Let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton, I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is through her Super PAC taking tens of millions of dollars in special-interest money. I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

“I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you are qualified if you’ve supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs.”

i understand what he's saying, but he couldn't set it up any better for clinton's counter-response: "Senator Sanders says I'm not qualified *her audience boos at Sanders* He must not have heard about... *lists dozens of things she's done in the government*"

he's basically setting her up to talk about her accomplishments for the next few days

... but everyone who is impressed with the length of her resume is voting for her already.

it reminds me of some of the audience questions during the debates that were from obvious supporters of a particular candidate. "Senator Cruz, some critics say that you're not respected enough by the establishment to get things done in washington. yet so many people in this country are disappointed with the establishment and looking for something more in a leader. how would you respond to that?"

bums me out that the dem contest is going here

xpost yeah i suppose, but i'm just saying as far as attacks go, it's one of the easiest to respond to. if she chooses to respond to it, it probably won't win her many new supporters, but it's certainly not going to hurt her

She has been saying lately that she thinks I am quote-unquote not qualified to be president

plus, on top of that, she did not say that she thinks he's *makes quote signs* quote-unquote "not qualified" *makes more quote signs* to be president

obv it's hail mary time

Basically at this point I've gone from "I will happily vote for whichever Democrat wins" to "they both still represent my interests so I will vote for either of them but I will be very irritated about it"

bums me out that the dem contest is going here

― marcos, Thursday, April 7, 2016 9:46 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's a bummer, but isn't 'here' exactly where Hillz dragged it the last time she ran?

But if he becomes too controversial, how does he think the superdelegates would react? He needs to win them over afterwards, and... How? He could perhaps have a claim through a positive campaign on changes, but if he wins with a couple of delegates? Well "Silly stuff in Nevada, the fact that he won more caucuses than primaries, oh, he ran too negative a campaign which Clinton wouldn't do, and she was spending a lot of her time campaigning for down-ticket." A bunch of excuses will come from the superdelegates for not switching.

superdelegates will vote for whomever has the most pledged delegates so i don't think he really needs to worry about alienating them

I doubt that's true.

i don't see much "bummer" about where it's "gone." Sanders' campaign is meaningless if he's more/less interchangeable with Clinton.

bums me out that the dem contest is going here

― marcos, Thursday, April 7, 2016 9:46 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's a bummer, but isn't 'here' exactly where Hillz dragged it the last time she ran?

― My Whole Existence Is Flan (Old Lunch), Thursday, April 7, 2016 10:56 AM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

THANK you

Sanders is devolving into a small child: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/07/sanders-clinton-continue-fierce-feud-over-qualifications/?tid=sm_tw

“She has attacked me for being unqualified, and if I am going to attacked for being unqualified, I will respond in kind,” Sanders told reporters. "I'm not going to get lied about."

He added: “If Secretary Clinton thinks that I just come from the small state of Vermont, that we’re not used to this, well we’ll get used to it fast. I’m not going to get beaten up, I’m not going to get lied about. We will fight back.”

[...]

“Let me clear: This is not the type of politics I want to get in,” Sander said,. But, he added: “I’m not going to get beaten up. … She has attacked me for being unqualified, and if I am going to attacked for being unqualified, I am going to respond in kind.”

Nah, 2008 was way, way worse. This is like a picnic lunch.

(Thankfully, Mark Penn is nowhere to be found in this campaign.) xp

bums me out that the dem contest is going here

― marcos, Thursday, April 7, 2016 9:46 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's a bummer, but isn't 'here' exactly where Hillz dragged it the last time she ran?

― My Whole Existence Is Flan (Old Lunch), Thursday, April 7, 2016 10:56 AM (19 minutes ago)

more or less. while i think sanders' comments on whether HRC is "qualified" are kind of dumb, he's not really saying anything that he hasn't said before, and they're not personal attacks, just the usual stuff about donations and bad votes. 2008 clinton otoh was calling into question obama's viability by bringing up things about his upbringing and his church pastor

stifle Fred

@ggreenwald
Oh my, Mr. Sanders, I do declare: your tone is now so very gauche. #DemPunditColumn: from those red-baiting him & blaming him for Sandy Hook

His refusal to play that role meekly & gratefully is rude. I hope the civility lectures from Dem pundits fix him.

How are those quotes "devolving into a small child"? clickbait post headline

xposts

'Well, she started it!"

I was relatively agnostic about Clinton until her behavior during her '08 run, which was frankly appalling. So, yeah, really thrilled to see her strapping in to the Spitemobile once again.

you're right Frederik, Bernie Sanders should leave baseless allegations against his character and ability unchallenged

lol at this being "going negative," and counting as some kind of major shocking letdown by sanders. he's been loose with their "disqualify" language and i agree that was sloppy but, come on, have you seen an election before? you'd think he'd was doing a trump "make fun of your spouse's appearance" thing, or dropping a willie horton ad, or at the very least the more typical thing in our elections, the reason why people get so burned out on "negative campaigns" which is to say, like, running an ad like "Hillary Clinton (full color photo of Hillary in the Senate) SAYS she's for American families... (sinister music, picture fades to black and white and slow-mo as big red text flashes on the screen) but she voted AGAINST the American Family Act" (that this ad doesn't mention was primarily a pork barrel project for South Dakota and in fact was intended to eliminate tax breaks for families and instead subsidize gypsum mining companies). "Hillary Clinton: against American families, against American values - - - against America." etc.

i mean if anybody's done that kinda thing - - - and in general i would say the Dem race has been honestly as mild as i can remember on this front - - - it's been Clinton, when she was going after Sanders's "voting against the auto bailout" (that is, when it was bundled with the blanket bank bailout). i realize we've talked about that particular issue and we can disagree on sanders's voting choice, but the point is that it was misrepresented and clinton kinda clearly gave up that line after sanders patiently explained himself and then won michigan resoundingly. but like that's really been it? everything else, yeah, they've said things about what they don't like about the other person, and what they disagree with, but probably a lot less than they could say, and they're generally in the category of reasonable things you might bring up as a reason to vote for you instead of the other person. it's "negative" in that it's not an ad strictly about how great a candidate YOU are but i don't personally find it to be offensive or damaging to the public conversation or w/e.

Not that invested in who's got the high ground, but a) yes, 2008 was worse, and b) this time I'm much more surprised--I thought the Democratic side would get less contentious past a certain point, not more.

this "qualified" argument is so dumb. the entire election is about which candidate you think is more qualified - that's the subtext of EVERYTHING. why do either campaigns think making the subtext the text will be compelling to people? "oh, i've been following this election closely but i never stopped to think about who is more qualified. now that i've considered it i am changing my mind."

like "hillary is not qualified because she voted for the iraq war" is not a different argument from "hillary's vote for the iraq war indicates poor judgement." these are synonymous.

Nah, 2008 was way, way worse. This is like a picnic lunch.

(Thankfully, Mark Penn is nowhere to be found in this campaign.) xp

― Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Thursday, April 7, 2016 11:18 AM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yea i agree 2008 was worse

This isn't even as negative as a Canadian election campaign tbh. This Dem race could be the least negative US election I can remember.

so don't care about this manufactured kerfuffle

"Hilldog bullied me out of my Ecto Cooler"

we're surprised that a rancorous candidate in 2008 has reverted to form and that the race is finally getting contentious?

surprised by some of the responses

also: 2008 was nastier because two white people are running in 2016.

I think neither Clinton or Sanders has much to gain by going negative. Sanders because he's running as an unconventional politician, and Clinton because she'd prefer to cruise serenely to the general.

I watched rachel maddow for the first time in a while last night. Was she always so weird? She worked herself into a pique about Ted Cruz winning a senatorial seat in a midterm when barely anyone voted, the was all aghast at Bernie's "hill's unqualified" statement. There wasn't really a sense of perspective; everything was un be liev able

the whole thing is dumb. the only reason qualificationgate is being pushed as a thing is bc the bernie campaign is trying to make up ground in the upcoming big states and without forcing controversy (like the dumb argument over what date they should debate) it's unclear how he's going to move the numbers. maybe hillary feels the same way but she's up in these states so her interest is to not have the race change dramatically.

and i mean in this thread as well plenty of you are bernie supporters making a big deal out of nothing for presumably the same reason. just chill.

At the very least this NY primary HAS to be Sanders' last stand as a credible threat, right? Hopefully he'll stop before he damages the credibility of progressivism further.

Also, fuck Jeff Weaver.

He has not "damage the credibility of progressivism" jesus

He's not a perfect candidate but the left wing of the democratic party was entitled to put up a challenge to hillary.

Also, Alfred, sexism is a thing as well.

Hopefully he'll stop before he damages the credibility of progressivism further.

hahaahahahahaha

what a disaster for progressivism

the first tightly contested primary in history, and here we are to witness it

Also, Alfred, sexism is a thing as well.

― Frederik B, Thursday, April 7, 2016 12:27 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh man pwned

I'm disappointed in myself that it boils down to this but I think the main reason I am not as gung-ho for Sanders as many of my friends aside from irrational lingering concerns that he has not adjusted his platform enough to remove the spectre of colorblindness from it (or, more accurately, that his defensive position is a colorblind one that reinforces a status quo where any gains made from his policies will be disproportionally granted to white people over everyone else in the country) is that he seems really old and frail to me. It is completely ageist and I don't know what to do about it beyond telling myself "stop thinking that" but it's difficult for me to look at him and not think that this campaign is killing him, to the point where he might rival WHH's short tenure should he win the election.

Also, Alfred, sexism is a thing as well.

― Frederik B, Thursday, April 7, 2016

oh shit yeah let me retract that statement: 2016 is worse

hes not all that much older than hillary, maybe six years or so

Yes, and the overall impression I get is that she's much healthier than he is, which could be a gigantic pile of bullshit for all I actually know.

Some of that might be due to the fact that, as a woman, she is pressured to put more effort into her appearance. I think bernie could stand to stand up straight and wear better fitting clothes tbh.. Maybe his people think that would hurt his authenticity

Basically at this point I've gone from "I will happily vote for whichever Democrat wins" to "they both still represent my interests so I will vote for either of them but I will be very irritated about it"

― more or less 40% of the country, Thursday, April 7, 2016

not being snarky at you dan, that just so completely sums up the end of any presidential politics conversation i've had in person with almost anyone for the past year

DJP, this isn't related to the ageism, but I just wanted to say by way of general appreciation that I have really valued your posts on Sanders throughout the election cycle; I've brought them up a few times in IRL conversation to try and help sort out some mixed feelings, to try and confront blanket statements about his performance with African-Americans, etc.

(actually that's not quite right - your posts have participated in forcing me to confront some of my own assumptions, not just provided illustrations for concerns i was having already!)

Jeff Weavers plan is built on disrupting the race, causing everyone to panic, forget the factual math, and abandon Clinton. There's no way in hell it works without sexism.

Fuck that dude, and shame on Sanders for tripling down on his male privilege.

fred, please go away

It's kind of magical how any qualms I have about Sanders that come from a conservative "devil you know" place of interacting with American politics as an African-American melt like wax before a blowtorch almost every time Frederik posts.

omg fred has cracked the race wide open, my mind is just blown, how could i not have seen it

Putting Fred aside it does seem to me like sexism does play a role in a lot of the disgust I see directed at Hillary. Not in some kind of overt bigoted way but in terms of how we view women who are ambitious and ask for our votes and money. That it's somehow cruder and more vulgar coming from a woman which magnifies otherwise legitimate critiques. I don't know that this is true 100% but it does occur to me as an explanation for why the rhetoric is so over the top when it comes to her but not to male politicians with the exact same politics. Also I'm sure it doesn't help that she's bad at connecting to large audiences (though I keep hearing that she's extremely personable in person).

Yeah I mean of course it's probably amplified by sexism, certain Danes acting like that's a #truthbomb is not super insightful.

sexism for sure plays a very real albeit unquantifiable role in probably everyone's choice to vote against hillary, some clearly more than others. this has nothing to do with sanders, who as far as i can tell has never made a gendered critique of clinton's legitimacy as a candidate. unless you believe that any criticism he makes of clinton, when considered in the context of the partriachical society it was made, is de facto gendered. but that strikes me as a pretty unserious opinion

the rhetoric is so over the top when it comes to her but not to male politicians with the exact same politics

I'm not sure I agree that this is true, although I don't know if you're talking about the mainstream media, the Sanders campaign, Republican campaigns, random people on social media, ...

The more vile overt stuff comes from supporters which on one hand Bernie should not be forced to answer for otoh it's impossible to completely disambiguate a candidate and their campaign from their supporters.

Afaict: #1 seems pretty favourable to her, #2 has been exceptionally if not excessively civil imo, #3 were at least as nasty to Obama and her husband.
xp

She is mockable in many of the same ways that her husband is, on both the aesthetics and odious substance.

As my last two November prez ballots went to Jill Stein and Cynthia McKinney, my conscience is clear.

would love to have a peak in alt universe where warren was the leftist candidate and biden was the party establishment pick and see exactly how many berniebros would be backing warren (my guess is most?) and how many hillary backers would be giving their support to biden (i have no idea on that one?)

watching some recent Hillary ad w Bill - Bubba is starting to rather eerily remind me of Dick Van Dyke

She does carry herself in a particularly robotic, "I'm just saying things I'm advised to with a very fake smile" way. When she forces folksiness and relatability it comes off as really painful for her. And set against the super progressive angle coming from Sanders she looks especially like a "typical politician". Those two things combined inspire the more extreme rhetoric against her despite others I think.

Biden's record prob worse politically than Hillary's; he'd have to answer directly for all the shitty things that happened in the 90s instead of the highly spinnable vagueness of the first lady's status therein

However, you'd "rather have a beer with him" than Hillary

Bill looks and sounds so unwell, so frail--can't imagine him making it too long unless they give him what they give Cheney

Biden would also have to answer for the goddamn Clarence Thomas hearings.

I watched rachel maddow for the first time in a while last night. Was she always so weird? She worked herself into a pique about Ted Cruz winning a senatorial seat in a midterm when barely anyone voted, the was all aghast at Bernie's "hill's unqualified" statement. There wasn't really a sense of perspective; everything was un be liev able

i dunno if she's always been like that, but that's more or less always been my impression of her

above all i find that she treats her audience like eight-year-olds. all the heavy-handed sarcasm underlined eighteen times, the need to make everything seem Like Just An Incredible Development, etc. etc.

i find all the cable news networks completely unwatchable and MSNBC is no exception.

anyway, back to primary stuff i guess.

i also agree thaT DJP's caution w/r/t Sanders has been instructive. i was quite disappointed by his responses in that recent interview and it kind of struck me how little i'd been holding him to the standards i'd like to think i generally hold politicans to, in large part because the /idea/ of a credible progressive/left-wing challenge is so appealing. but sanders certainly has his weaknesses.

quite disappointed by /sanders's/ responses, not DJPs!! :)

memo:

Politicians suck shit.

thanks grandpa!

Morbs, I don't think ilxors are insufficiently cynical about politiicans, unless the only acceptable standard of cynicism is to conclude nothing connected to politics cannot possibly improve a single thing ever, but only make everything progressively worse and worse until we achieve a supernova of misery. Otherwise, I think we understand that politics is at best a corrupted and inefficient tool, but it is sometimes the only tool we have to address some kinds of problems -- and abandoning it completely to the rich and power hungry would be a huge mistake.

it's already been completely abandoned dontchaknow

(Morbz posts that write themselves)

lol I was planning to say something about my reaction to Sanders' NY Daily News interview; my first response was "are you fucking kidding me, dude?" and then I remembered that at a young age I decided to jettison the need to memorize details about things and instead focus my time/energy on learning how to navigate catalogs/resources so that I could drill down into whatever detail I needed and that Sanders' responses likely fit directly into that paradigm and I should probably stfu and read his website if I want a more detailed outline (note: I haven't yet done this but I intend to)

so yeah, it's kind of a "gotcha" moment but it's one that directly indicts how I interact with information, ergo I reject it

Clinton trying to smooth things over with Sanders:

Hillary Clinton expressed puzzlement Thursday in assessing why she thought Bernie Sanders attacked her Wednesday night by calling her unqualified to be president, remarking that she would rather have him as president than either of the top two Republicans running.

“I don’t know why he’s saying that, but I will take Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump or Ted Cruz anytime," the Democratic candidate told reporters outside Yankee Stadium in the Bronx at an impromptu news conference before riding the subway.

Clinton remarked, "So, let’s keep our eye on what’s really at stake in this election."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/clinton-sanders-qualified-response-trump-cruz-221674

I decided to jettison the need to memorize details about things and instead focus my time/energy on learning how to navigate catalogs/resources so that I could drill down into whatever detail I needed and that Sanders' responses likely fit directly into that paradigm

yeah, same here, i think a lot of people think of dealing with massive amounts of information in that way.

i kinda disagree. the ppl i appreciate most are those w/ expertise + knowledge. i don't expect everyone to know everything about everything but like when you're talking about the primary thrust of your campaign and ideology i'd hope for a little more fluency. it's not a dealbreaker (esp bc i'm not convinced that hillary is particularly more direct) but it is a little gmafb.

well the flipside is that you power through that research so that the high- and medium-level points are at the tip of your tongue when you are giving the presentation but I dunno, maybe he was tired *shrug*

"Clinton trying to smooth things over with Sanders:"

Hahaha that is so clearly not at all what is happening there. That's a very smart move, she nudges him, he takes the bait, she comes back with that and it looks like he is the instigator.

Also I was thinking about switching my username but nah I'll keep it going for a bit after today

did anyone from the hillary campaign actually use the disqualify language or did that come entirely from CNN?

New York (CNN)Hillary Clinton's campaign is taking new steps to try and disqualify Bernie Sanders in the eyes of Democratic voters, hoping to extinguish the argument that he is an electable alternative for the party's presidential nomination.

As Sanders took a victory lap following a 14-point triumph in Wisconsin, Clinton took fresh aim at the Vermont senator as part of a three-part strategy before the New York primary on April 19: Disqualify him, defeat him, and unify the party later.

"Some of his ideas just won't work because the numbers don't add up," Clinton told a labor union audience Wednesday in Philadelphia. "In a number of important areas, he doesn't have a plan at all."

it's hard to tell from the article what is just CNN being provocative and what is coming out of the campaign

hmmm the way you people with careers and whatnot think about politics

further down in the article

The campaign's deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, argued that Sanders is unqualified, sending a full transcript of a New York Daily News editorial board interview of Sanders.

"We've said for a long time that this primary is about who's really going to be able to get things done. And from reading this interview, you get the impression Senator Sanders hasn't thought very much about that," Reynolds wrote. "In fact, even on his signature issue of breaking up the banks, he's unable to answer basic questions about how he'd go about doing it, and even seems uncertain whether a president does or doesn't already have that authority under existing law."

She added: "If you want to know why Hillary's experience and deep understanding of the issues facing American families matter so much, you should read this."

not direct quotes anywhere around the word "disqualify."

I agree about DJPs take on the information acquisition stuff, an engineer I know has always told me that most of them could fluidly move between specializations pretty easily because it's all about knowing who to ask how to do something instead of knowing the nuts and bolts of how to do it yourself.

but it's pretty obvious the difference between talking to someone with deep knowledge + expertise in an area and talking to an engineer who just swapped to a new specialization yesterday. like if you were interviewing an engineer for a job he's never done before, you might be lenient about the new area of expertise. but if you felt like he couldn't adequately explain the specialty he's already in you might be concerned.

As far as I can tell Clinton never said Sanders wasn't qualified to be president. After all, it would be kind of a silly thing to say. It looks like this started with a Joe Scarborough interview where he was pressing her to say Sanders wasn't qualified, and she did a typical playing it safe type response of not saying anything either way, which kind of backfired, because then the Post wrote an article spinning this as her implying he wasn't qualified. I bet she probably wishes she'd just come out and said of course he's qualified.

but in this metaphor, the president of the united states is not the engineer who needs to know absolutely everything about a particular subject. the POTUS is the executive who needs to be fluent in enough disciplines to understand and solve problems in every part of the organization.

also, it's possible to know how to easily navigate sources of information and at the same time have a few subjects where you can demonstrate your deep expertise, they're not mutually exclusive

but this is specifically bernie's area of expertise. i give him a much bigger pass for foreign affairs, or say energy policy or climate change. less of a pass for things that comprise the fundamental platforms of his campaign + career.

my mouth looks like this right now

http://i.imgur.com/GP4Hr0K.jpg

it seems obvious to me that they are both very qualified to be presidents.

"the POTUS is the executive who needs to be fluent in enough disciplines to understand and solve problems in every part of the organization."

bernie seems like the exact opposite of this

i prefer a third term of obama to both but yeah they're both fine - either will do a good job, neither set my world on fire

Whereas there are at least two Republicans who literally want to set the world on fire

same

xp

Clinton probably has a deeper understanding of the nuts and bolts of many issues than Sanders does, but her understanding derived from sources that are fully entangled in the status quo, so that she has a harder time seeing what ought to be true (the vision thing) as opposed to just tinkering with what is already there. Every strength has its complementary weakness.

the POTUS is the executive who needs to be fluent in enough disciplines to understand and solve problems in every part of the organization.

this sounds like the job description of every department head/CEO ever.

jeeezus pols know how to say things w/out saying them, give credit

First of all, there's no question that HRC was questioning in that interview whether Sanders was unqualified to be president. She just didn't want to use the word, because that would have been the day's headline. (As, indeed, was the case when the Post used it for her.) At the very least, she was trolling with live bait and Sanders gobbled it right down...

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a43735/bernie-hillary-narrative/

I actually don't give Clinton a lot of credit for being able to artfully imply things. She tends to be a bit clumsy with that sort of thing, as this episode demonstrates. I don't at all think this was some sort of higher-order chess type trolling. Read the interview. Scarborough was pushing the qualification angle hard, and Clinton was doing her usual neither confirm nor deny lawyerish thing.

Neither one seems to grasp the appetite of the elite political media for a Democratic hooley to correspond to the ongoing one in the Republican Party, because that will allow for the Both Sides In Turmoil narrative that will allow the elite political media to ignore the fact that the top two contenders for the Republican nomination are an ego-driven vulgar talking yam, and an extremist theocrat who believes himself to be blessed by the Almighty to redeem this sinful land.

Pierce otm here but kinda loses points for "both sides do it"'ing himself - oh she didn't have to say unqualified we could read between the lines and that's exactly like bernie actually calling her unqualified. ffs.

pierce has been reading my posts lately btw

at least somebody is amirite

"Are you qualified to be president of the United States when you're raising millions of dollars from Wall Street?"

FDR worked for Carter Ledyard & Milburn and was from old money, can't he just, for the love of god, focus on policy?

and he showed he was willing to make those ppl unhappy

yeah tom wheeler at the FCC is a good example of someone who comes out of an industry (cable TV) and seems pretty willing to make his old colleagues deeply unhappy.

i think clinton's been trying to present evidence of a similar relationship to wall street but the record is not too helpful in this regard.

As far as I know, Clinton would be a vigorous defender of Dodd Frank, which Wall Street hates. Since that passed, Wall Street political contributions, which used to be fairly balanced by party, have gone lopsidedly to Republicans. Sure Clinton gets more Wall Street money than Sanders, but you can't compare to the amount that for instance Jeb Bush raised from that industry.

Worth a watch re Dodd-Frank:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCwfrhmDmS4

happened last night

Giuliani to Vote for, but Not Endorse, Trump
32 minutes ago

thx for posting that clip Alfred

you can instantly tell which one of those guys was a legislator and which one is basically an academic lol

just in the way they discuss things - Barney gets into the nuts and bolts details, refers to how bills/policy actually work, Reich mostly falls back on rhetoric and the occasional statistic

It was put up by a pro Bernie youtuber, lots of pissed off at Barney comments.

haven't watched the clip, but you'd think that the academic would be into policy, and the politician would be into rhetoric!

painful to read on so many different levels: http://gawker.com/the-big-question-at-the-center-of-hillary-clintons-subw-1769610774

one, the fact that there are so many articles about how she had to swipe her card 4 times to get into the subway
two, the obvious implication that she's an elitist blowhard because she doesn't even know how to swipe her card
three, knowing that on a daily basis i have to re-swipe. i have definitely crossed the 4-swipe threshold dozens of times, and one time i swiped repeatedly for like 2 minutes while stepping to the side to let people through.
four, the comments. oh god, the comments

yeah, those card readers suuuuuuuck i have to swipe twice all the time

if only she had a token :p

It was put up by a pro Bernie youtuber, lots of pissed off at Barney comments.

― Evan, Thursday, April 7, 2016 5:08 PM

was waiting to read a Barney Fag comment

The inability to swipe correctly affects millions of americans is something I've been dealing with for years and I still can't get it right.

It was put up by a pro Bernie youtuber, lots of pissed off at Barney comments.

― Evan, Thursday, April 7, 2016 5:08 PM

was waiting to read a Barney Fag comment

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, April 7, 2016 5:22 PM (58 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Berniebros/supporters are still progressives after all.

I wish these stupid campaigns were half as long. It's more padded than the "Hobbit" trilogy.

"Barney Frank sounds like a fucking retard" is indicative of the level of discernment in those comments

Nothing in here yet about Bill's flap with BLM? Awkward stuff

just saw that. don't necessarily disagree with what he said per se but I get the sense he's lost it on the campaign stump. he needs to take a back seat going forward.

bill lost his temper a couple times in 08, rememberrrrrrrrr

here ya go:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/bill-clinton-clashes-with-blm-protesters.html

I can see why he got defensive about bills he passed but yeah that was not really the right tack to take

would've been better to be contrite and apologetic about stuff like the super-predator comment or the failings of those particular bills, demonstrate some empathy with their concerns, emphasize Hillary has "learned from past experiences" etc.

but nope that's not our Bubba

Wow, those images above are terrifying.

“The reason they know it’s true is [the protestors] won’t hush. When somebody won’t hush and listen to you, that ain’t democracy. They’re afraid of the truth. Don’t you be afraid of the truth.”
“I’ll tell you another story about a place where black lives matter: Africa.”

omg bill

See? He still has the fire in the belly!

“I’ll tell you another story about a place where black lives matter: Africa.”

hahaha okay lol I missed this one. smdh

I wish these stupid campaigns were half as long. It's more padded than the "Hobbit" trilogy.

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, April 7, 2016 4:32 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes, this. this this this.

Sanders seems to have an unfortunate bloc of supporters whose main issues seem to be legal pot and a universal income so they can sit around playing video games and eating Burger King all day. I think they all hang out on Reddit.

"So this guy is a total loser? Let me tell you the story of another loser."
http://bccdn.buddingculturein.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Otter.jpg

you can instantly tell which one of those guys was a legislator and which one is basically an academic lol

― Οὖτις, Thursday, April 7, 2016 5:06 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

just in the way they discuss things - Barney gets into the nuts and bolts details, refers to how bills/policy actually work, Reich mostly falls back on rhetoric and the occasional statistic

― Οὖτις, Thursday, April 7, 2016 5:07 PM (1 hour ago)

right, the guy who was basically yelling (though i realize this is more or less how barney talks lol) and went on bizarre tangents about sanders' mccarthyism and how he's attacking obama (and then says he agrees lol) won the debate against the guy who explained how bernie in fact wasn't confusing his policy on the issue, something consistent with most of the reporting on that NYDN article since the interview. you are really far gone man

that and the memoir you're reading must be pretty good

idk Reich didn't seem to have a point beyond "Banks are big and that is bad", I didn't hear much of substance otherwise

Frank's memoir is v entertaining

this kind of thing takes me back! remember the W years??

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cruz-adviser-no-go-zones-minneapolis

Islam, she said, “has actually conquered every single other major civilization it’s ever gone up against, from the Buddhists to the Byzantines to the Middle East Christians to the Middle East Jews to the Hindus to the Persians, conquered every last one of them, some of them might, sophisticated civilizations at their peak, conquered them all. There are only two left standing: the Han Chinese and whatever’s left of Western civilization. That is a sobering reality.”

again my opinion is that trumpism is the worst constituency/ideology but cruz is the worst person with the worst people around him

tbf I've always been a fan of Barney going way back. tbf Reich was one of my favorite Clinton admin guys as well, but his accomplishments are pretty thin compared to Barney's, and that counts for a lot imo.

xp

lmao that quote is just hilarious. there is no history between, idk, the seige of vienna and 9/11

xp

that is the weirdest quote goole, what is she even talking about

well it was a justification for lying about somali neighborhoods in minneapolis, if context even matters here

right it's just so disconnected from any understanding of history - I guess winning some wars = never losing ever! ok

right, the guy who was basically yelling (though i realize this is more or less how barney talks lol) and went on bizarre tangents about sanders' mccarthyism and how he's attacking obama (and then says he agrees lol) won the debate against the guy who explained how bernie in fact wasn't confusing his policy on the issue, something consistent with most of the reporting on that NYDN article since the interview. you are really far gone man

― k3vin k., Thursday, April 7, 2016 6:15 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that and the memoir you're reading must be pretty good

― k3vin k., Thursday, April 7, 2016 6:15 PM

I'm pretty fond of Frank's memoir, and he makes the best case I've seen for how to legislate without compromising one's values.

the argument, by the way, reminded me of the difference between Wilson and TR in 1912: the former wanted to regulate the existing system b/c he recognized it wasn't going anywhere while the latter wanted the federal government to own it.

the Han Chinese and whatever’s left of Western civilization. That is a sobering reality.”

which (even if you agree with cruz's crazy-ass history lesson) is probably about 65% of the world's population!

or actually more like 70%?

i mean "western civ" is what? north america, south america, central america, all of europe

+ china (20% of world's population)

i can't believe i'm even airing this guy's argument

i'm not convinced cruz believes all the bullshit he spouts but i'm absolutely convinced he believed this "clash of civilizations" stuff

er, believes

I like this alternate reality where there's been an unbroken caliphate conquering and ruling various civilizations since 632 AD.

xp

many many people believe this clash of civilizations stuff, including ISIS

yeah, i know!

I find a lot of the scholarship - whether its Bernard Lewis or Huntington or Robert Fisk - analyzing the roots of radical Islam's fight with basically everyone else fascinating, but positing it within such grandiose rhetoric as EXISTENTIAL THREAT VS. THE WEST has obviously been fairly unhelpful/alarmist.

At the very least this NY primary HAS to be Sanders' last stand as a credible threat, right? Hopefully he'll stop before he damages the credibility of progressivism further.

Also, fuck Jeff Weaver.

― Frederik B, Thursday, April 7, 2016 12:24 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark

faggot

Jeff Weavers plan is built on disrupting the race, causing everyone to panic, forget the factual math, and abandon Clinton. There's no way in hell it works without sexism.

Fuck that dude, and shame on Sanders for tripling down on his male privilege.

― Frederik B, Thursday, April 7, 2016 12:42 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark

FAGGOT!

i prefer a third term of obama

― Mordy, Thursday, April 7, 2016 3:22 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

FAGGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go eat an asshole

mmm

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/718181520012214272

Conventional Mealy Mouth Meals: http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/275507-kasich-goes-on-eating-spree-in-the-bronx

let's see if this works...
http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/blogs/kasicheating.jpg?itok=LcANnNkd

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwFDqumCMAA27A8.jpg

That looks fucking delicious, xp

Last meal?

Bill's response to the BLM protesters today was NAGL, but I kind of wonder if they wanted it that way to help Hillary even more with old white people.

Was just going to mention that and ask whether it's being talked about anywhere, because he basically took up the "If black lives matter why aren't you stopping black on black crime" line.

As someone who admires both of them, I thought that Frank-Reich debate was disappointing. It seemed to quickly devolve into a shouting match. Also, I think Frank didn't do a very good job of defending his own legislation. For one thing, he should have pointed out that Dodd-Frank contains penalties on size in the form of higher capital requirements that are already causing the biggest banks to voluntarily slim down. And Clinton has proposed toughening those even more. The argument isn't really "break up the banks" vs "don't break up the banks". It's how big should the banks be and how do you get them to that size.

How big the banks should be was precisely the point barney kept harping on...?

The argument isn't really "break up the banks" vs "don't break up the banks". It's how big should the banks be and how do you get them to that size.

I thought that was waht Frank suggested.

could we get the FDR Memorial to topple and crush WJC to death?

FDR memorial is kinda diffuse, hard to imagine it toppling all at once.

small enough that I can drown them in a bathtub, obviously

Jesus fucking Christ @ Bill Clinton

I feel so fatigued by this primary right now. Facebook argument got weirdly personal. Election campaigns just should not be anywhere near this long, people are losing it.

no different than 2008 except FB hadn't exploded yet

In what sense had Facebook not exploded yet in 2008?

a lot of people were still on MySpace.

I barely used FB until just after the election, and many of my friends hadn't made the switchover yet. it definitely wasn't as omnipresent as it is now.

the link-sharing mechanism wasn't in place yet, so people weren't shitting links to political articles they hadn't read yet. even "Like" feature hadn't come out yet.

it was more a place where you wrote shit like "Neanderthal is looking at oranges and deciding which one he wants to eat" type posts.

In what sense had Facebook not exploded yet in 2008?

― Andrew Farrell, Friday, April 8, 2016

In my circle FB wasn't a thing until much later in the year. MySpace was still used.

and the following WaPo headline summary is a perfect example of the amorality of the Beltway press:

In a year when the drama has mostly been on the Republican side, it made for great political theater. And it gave Bill Clinton another unforgettable “Sister Souljah Moment."

Put those predators in their place!

There's a scene of Clinton sneering at AIDS protestors who interrupted him in '92 in How to Survive a Plague. Similar except he's more like a wheezy Southern sheriff now.

@mtaibbi
There have been more instances of Bill publicly losing his cool during Hillary's presidential runs than in the entire rest of his career.

tbf he's probably uptight about anything that risks his chance at becoming the first male First Lady

First Steer

Not sure why "Beltway" needs to become so pejorative. It's a road.

People can live in it, near it, and some even manage to -gasp- drive on it without being hopelessly corrupted down to their very core.

imo it's just as lazy as using "DC" or "New York" to mean "evil" on the right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first_gentlemen_in_the_United_States

shorthand bub, don't get emo. xp

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Kisses_for_My_President_-_1964_-_Poster.png

is the left-wing disdain for krugman a new thing bc of his hillary support? i thought just a few years ago he was like the economist darling of the american left and now it seems everyone is calling him a lying corrupt hack. were there other things that got us to this pt or is this really just scorned bernie supporters? (and similarly barney frank who i thought was beloved up until he supported hillary over bernie.)

Despite his new corporate connections, I still respect Frank. He knows his bill and how tough it really is. The Rubin-Frank battle was a century-long feud about what to do with "the system."

er, Reich-Frank

Partially yes xp. There were always lefties that disdained Krugman, but some of it is definitely about the election. And tbh, I really think his columns have changed and gotten more politically hacky.

yeah I've always had loads of respect for Frank, even moreso now that I've read his bio

xp

Barney Frank sniffed haughtily over Occupy, and he's way too up to his eyes in conventional capitalist tropes to ever have been loved by "the left." (except for the gay/social issues stuff, which of course is all not-so-left Dems need to love him, along with the obnoxious 'directness')

I think Krugman is often a pedantic writer and wasn't surprised when in that New Yorker article several years ago he admitted that his wife insists on editing him before he files.

Frank's often right though

*er, Krugman. I need to get lunch.

is the left-wing disdain for krugman a new thing bc of his hillary support? i thought just a few years ago he was like the economist darling of the american left and now it seems everyone is calling him a lying corrupt hack. were there other things that got us to this pt or is this really just scorned bernie supporters? (and similarly barney frank who i thought was beloved up until he supported hillary over bernie.)

― Mordy, Friday, April 8, 2016 11:22 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

elelction krugman and policy krugman are totally different beasts. i think his election "coverage" has been pretty pathetic but he's still a great economist and a good read as far as actual policy is concerned

If Facebook were smart, they would release a feature to let you filter out political posts. My wife actively hates Bernie now because of the constant hectoring posts linked by friends on her FB feed.

Barney Frank sniffed haughtily over Occupy, and he's way too up to his eyes in conventional capitalist tropes to ever have been loved by "the left."

his bio makes clear that his understanding that writing policy + political legwork far outstrip the effectiveness of more strident direct action tactics, and that this has always divided him from the more radical left since the beginning of his career.

frank is a good guy but him turning into a DNC-bot this election season is pretty sad. i mean in that debate he went after sanders (completely unprompted, btw) for his "mccarthyite" attacks on clinton, and for questioning obama re: criminal charges for bank execs. he might as well be debbie wasserman-shultz at this point

it depends what the policy is "effective" AT!

the best part about frank going after sanders for daring to question obama (and the way he said it made it sound like obama had recently, tragically died and ought not be spoken ill of) is that he qualified it to say that he actually agreed lol

his point that Clinton isn't responsible for prosecuting WS malfeasance is accurate - that lack of prosecution (which Barney agrees is a problem) is the fault of Obama (and I guess the Justice Dept/SEC?)

he admitted that his wife insists on editing him before he files

what kind of sicko writer doesn't give their spouse final edit

that's why gays belong to the superior race :)

looks like they kissed + made up:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/08/bernie_sanders_says_of_course_hillary_clinton_is_qualified_to_be_president.html

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/david-mamet-881849

You attended a fundraiser for Ted Cruz, didn't you?

Did I? Yes I did! I liked him very much.

What did you guys talk about.

He talked about Glengarry Glen Ross. I said, "Hi Mr. Cruz, pleasure to meet you." He said, "Oh, I love your work. I’ve used a lot of the ideas in Glengarry Glen Ross in talking to people while I was governing. In talking about senate and politics and all of that stuff."

You're kidding.

No, not all all.

Like which ideas? "Always Be Closing?"

He mentioned that. He mentioned a lot of stuff from the play. The interesting thing to me about Ted Cruz is everybody that one talks to, they say, "I don't like him," and you say, "Oh, well why?" And they can’t tell you.

Pretty sure everyone who's ever met Ted Cruz can and will tell you why they don't like him, at length and in detail.

He said, "Oh, I love your work. I’ve used a lot of the ideas in Glengarry Glen Ross in talking to people while I was governing.

so Ted Cruz was a governor too eh

The interesting thing to me about Ted Cruz is everybody that one talks to, they say, "I don't like him," and you say, "Oh, well why?" And they can’t tell you.
I’ve used a lot of the ideas in Glengarry Glen Ross in talking to people while I was governing. In talking about senate and politics and all of that stuff.
The interesting thing to me about Ted Cruz is everybody that one talks to, they say, "I don't like him," and you say, "Oh, well why?" And they can’t tell you.
I’ve used a lot of the ideas in Glengarry Glen Ross in talking to people while I was governing. In talking about senate and politics and all of that stuff.
The interesting thing to me about Ted Cruz is everybody that one talks to, they say, "I don't like him," and you say, "Oh, well why?" And they can’t tell you.
I’ve used a lot of the ideas in Glengarry Glen Ross in talking to people while I was governing. In talking about senate and politics and all of that stuff.
The interesting thing to me about Ted Cruz is everybody that one talks to, they say, "I don't like him," and you say, "Oh, well why?" And they can’t tell you.
I’ve used a lot of the ideas in Glengarry Glen Ross in talking to people while I was governing. In talking about senate and politics and all of that stuff.
The interesting thing to me about Ted Cruz is everybody that one talks to, they say, "I don't like him," and you say, "Oh, well why?" And they can’t tell you.
I’ve used a lot of the ideas in Glengarry Glen Ross in talking to people while I was governing. In talking about senate and politics and all of that stuff.
The interesting thing to me about Ted Cruz is everybody that one talks to, they say, "I don't like him," and you say, "Oh, well why?" And they can’t tell you.
I’ve used a lot of the ideas in Glengarry Glen Ross in talking to people while I was governing. In talking about senate and politics and all of that stuff.

if Facebook were smart, they would release a feature to let you filter out political posts. My wife actively hates Bernie now because of the constant hectoring posts linked by friends on her FB feed.
― o. nate, Friday, April 8, 2016 11:31 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

There's a third party FB extension called Purity for your browser that can do that. Blocks all posts with keywords you specify. I barely see those posts anymore

also in the Reporter, Sanders interviewed by Spike Lee

We're doing phenomenally well with all of the young people — white, black, Latino, you name it, Asian-American. And we're getting killed, frankly, not just with older African-Americans but also older whites, older Latinos. It's the weirdest thing in the world. And what really bothers me is I spent half my life in Congress helping to lead the effort for senior citizens: We led the effort against cuts to Social Security — we want to expand Social Security; we took on the drug companies who are doing terrible things to elderly people. You know seniors are cutting their prescription drugs in half. So we have a lot of work to do in terms of reaching out to seniors, not just African-Americans, but seniors all across the board. We're figuring out how you get the message out there....

Vermont and rural America, people talk about guns, you know what they're talking about? They're talking about hunting. And it is something that my state, tens and tens of thousands of people do. They take their kids into the woods, there's target practice, there are antique gun shows, and that's what guns are. I do know that guns mean something very different around urban America. And what we have got to do is get a handle on this horrific gun violence. There's no question about that. I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA. D-minus voting record. And I have stood up to them for years. In 1988, Spike, I ran for the United States Congress in the state of Vermont. I lost that election because I was the only candidate who said, "You know what, maybe we should not be selling and distributing military-style assault weapons in this country, weapons designed just to kill people?" I lost by three points, and perhaps that was the reason.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/bernie-sanders-interviewed-by-spike-880788

his point that Clinton isn't responsible for prosecuting WS malfeasance is accurate - that lack of prosecution (which Barney agrees is a problem) is the fault of Obama (and I guess the Justice Dept/SEC?)

― Οὖτις, Friday, April 8, 2016 11:44 AM (19 minutes ago)

i wasn't disputing that -- i was noting the fact that he used the same cheap tactic of "oh i guess if you're for [insert liberal fantasy] what you're really saying is you're disagreeing with (gasp) president obama!" that clinton and some of her DNC minions have been using

i'm sorry but we should deal with things of substance in this thread

please watch

https://twitter.com/MicheleBachmann/status/718449601049673728

you can say you like frank while also saying his knee-jerk Good Dem stuff is lame. don't tell me you've lost all capacity for nuance xp

i think there's a non-zero chance that what bernie supporters mostly dislike about frank + krugman is that they aren't endorsing bernie.

bernie btw released a statement about his 10,000 gaza deaths statement:
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12938213_471625293036783_2993797711925271968_n.png?oh=eda4edafc33b8ddd0a07142be37dc9c8&oe=5784B828

contains this gem: "There is no candidate for president who will be a stronger supporter of Israel's right to exist in freedom, peace and security."

you can say you like frank while also saying his knee-jerk Good Dem stuff is lame.

his point about Obama was clumsily made and largely unnecessary so even tho I think he was technically correct I agree it was a pointless digression

everybody that one talks to, they say, "I don't like him,"

NEW THREAD TITLE

bernie btw released a statement about his 10,000 gaza deaths statement:
https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12938213_471625293036783_2993797711925271968_n.png?oh=eda4edafc33b8ddd0a07142be37dc9c8&oe=5784B828

contains this gem: "There is no candidate for president who will be a stronger supporter of Israel's right to exist in freedom, peace and security."

― Mordy, Friday, 8 April 2016 16:12 (12 minutes ago) Permalink

The Gaza thing was a total gotcha -- he got a number wrong off the top of his head and people painted him as a BDS supporter.

^

caveat pollster, but hehe

The California Democratic primary is up for grabs, as Hillary Clinton has watched her onetime 63-point lead in the polls shrink to six points over Sen. Bernie Sanders, according to a Field Poll released Friday.

She hasn't had a 60-point lead in California since a year ago, when she had a 60-point lead everywhere. But nice to see you getting into the horserace!

just cleanin the stable

Bern has rallies in Flatbush and Greenpoint today

i get personalized text messages from the bernie campaign, always with women's names. "hi this is bethany, please join us in greenpoint next friday for a campaign rally!" it's sort of how i imagine people get lured into joining the hari krishnas

stay strong treesh

i'm still voting for bernie but, tbh, i am pretty disappointed in the daily news interview and the overall vagueness of his proposals. my dreams for america are the same as his, it seems -- free tuition, single payer health care, an end to the stress and suffering that characterize life for too many lower income americans, etc. i even believe in a universal basic income. but i am afraid this kinds of big proposals might be discredited if bernie were to get elected and languish in office for a term or two without accomplishing anything...

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_5XvBYfxU_dM/Sr7e5udehbI/AAAAAAAAC6E/-iioJDWDrJc/I%27m%20Cheryl.%20Fly%20Me%20-%20Braniff%20ad%5B2%5D.png?imgmax=800

like, in an era when money and power are being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, mass wealth redistribution is not idealistic, it's pragmatic. it's the only way to maintain a strong consumer base! bernie's reputation is that of an idealist.. i'm not sure he is so good for the socialist brand.

these are all very new things i am thinking. i was so excited by his campaign, and still am in a sense -- i love hearing these ideas get a wider audience. idk. hopefully someone smarter than me can help me work through some of these concerns.

i get personalized text messages from the bernie campaign, always with women's names.

haha i noticed this too

like, in an era when money and power are being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, mass wealth redistribution is not idealistic, it's pragmatic. it's the only way to maintain a strong consumer base! bernie's reputation is that of an idealist.. i'm not sure he is so good for the socialist brand.

these are all very new things i am thinking. i was so excited by his campaign, and still am in a sense -- i love hearing these ideas get a wider audience. idk. hopefully someone smarter than me can help me work through some of these concerns.

― Treeship, Friday, April 8, 2016 12:55 PM (11 minutes ago)

well he's not going to win, for one, so your worst-case scenario you outlined won't happen

he might if Bubba keeps talkin'

bernie flirty fishin'

also david mamet has reprehensible political views

All the text messages the Sanders campaign sends me have male names, wtf? I'm guessing they think my first name sounds female?

didnt realize Bern was tryin to be everybody's wingman

why would they hetero-profile their e-list?

i'm still voting for bernie but, tbh, i am pretty disappointed in the daily news interview and the overall vagueness of his proposals. my dreams for america are the same as his, it seems -- free tuition, single payer health care, an end to the stress and suffering that characterize life for too many lower income americans, etc. i even believe in a universal basic income. but i am afraid this kinds of big proposals might be discredited if bernie were to get elected and languish in office for a term or two without accomplishing anything...

― Treeship, Friday, April 8, 2016 12:52 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

coming from a place with single payer and free tuition, i'll assure you the stress and suffering exists.

they might not be doing that, idk. i've only gotten two texts from his campaign -- one from "kristy" and one from "bethany."

xp morbs

Ha, you're kidding about free tuition, right, VHS?

Unless you came to Montreal from Sweden or somewhere.

Quebec dude, the almost socialist would be republic of North America.

I'm starting to get pissed off that this primary is the longest in my lifetime, yet STILL California has not cast one single fucking vote and its one of the biggest (if not the biggest) state in terms of national influence and electoral votes.

Then when whoever wins in 2016 nobody will give a shit about the state except for sweet sweet fundraising caysh and will fuck up my commute to work. =(

Were you guys paying attention in 2008? Traffic was bad too. Gas more expensive though

def remember Hil faking empathy over "a gallonagas"

zach gallonafagas

ya my ubc degree was definitely not free

stateside it is ridiculous how much free money you can get from so many sources, and the acceptance bar is so low

“On her worst day she would be an infinitely better president than either of the Republican candidates,” Sanders said.

Yea, "infinitely," what horseshit. I suspect she would be indistinguishable from Trump/Cruz/Convention Savior on surveillance and whistleblower prosecutions, to start.

there you go again

Yea, "infinitely," what horseshit. I suspect she would be indistinguishable from Trump/Cruz/Convention Savior on surveillance and whistleblower prosecutions, to start.

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius

but better on appointing the right people to regulatory agencies and federal judgeships, which after state legislators is where the malfeasance begin.

See? Nuance!

just imagine how much morbius will gloat when hillary ends remittances to mexico

You know what this is:

http://gawker.com/my-wednesday-night-making-long-island-great-again-1769615150

Bill says...
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F9e%2Ff1%2Fa3%2F9ef1a377114a5c93648c5f8a7a3e549c.jpg&f=1

(fwiw the last page in that book is about how saying "I'm sorry" isn't good enough lol)

is the left-wing disdain for krugman a new thing bc of his hillary support? i thought just a few years ago he was like the economist darling of the american left

i've never known anyone who takes him seriously other than liberals

Billy Blythe literally said he "almost" feels like apologizing!

He is a class act in matters small and genocidal

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html

another wonderful krugman column

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/voting-alone/477270/

Most Americans engage with the civic lives of their communities at least a few times a year. Maybe they’re part of a book club, or a neighborhood association. Perhaps they belong to a sports team, or the local PTA.

Most, but not all. The Americans who are civically disengaged—who seldom, or never, participate in such activities—are in many ways distinct from their neighbors. On average, they earn lower incomes; they’re less well-educated; they’re more financially distressed; and they’re less likely to attend religious services. And most of Donald Trump’s support is drawn from their ranks.

Those conclusions are taken from a new PRRI / The Atlantic poll. It finds that among voters who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, Trump draws 37 percent support, to Ted Cruz’s 31 percent. But among the same voters, 50 percent of those who are civically disengaged back Trump, while just 24 percent favor Cruz.

does riding the subway count as civic engagement y/n

this is a fun blast-from-the-past read. notice any similarities? http://www.salon.com/2008/04/14/obama_supporters/

a growing number of young women are struggling to describe a gut conviction that there is something dark and funky, and probably not so female-friendly, running below the frantic fanaticism of their Obama-loving compatriots.

I began reporting this story in part because, as a 32-year-old woman who is more liberal than either candidate, and who was quite torn until Super Tuesday, I had found myself increasingly defensive of Clinton in the face of the Obama worship that rules the mostly white, liberal, well-educated circles in which I work and travel. I was confused by the saucer-eyed, unquestioning devotion shown by my formerly cynical cohorts, especially when it was accompanied, as it often was, by a sharp renunciation of Hillary Clinton, whose policies are so similar to her opponent’s. I was horrified by the frequent proclamations that if Obama did not win the nomination, his supporters would abstain from voting in the general election, or even vote for John McCain. I was suspicious of the cultlike commitment to an undeniably brilliant and inspiring man –- but one whom even his wife calls “just a man.”

I am a loud feminist and a longtime Clinton skeptic who was suddenly feeling that I needed to rationalize, apologize for, or even just stay quiet about my increasing unease with the way Clinton was being discussed.

dark and funky

lol?

krugman was always an apparatchik shitbag

"“I know those young people yesterday were just trying to get good television,” Mr. Clinton said Friday of the Black Lives Matter protesters"

Fuck you dude

i have a legitimate question: when is bill clinton going to die? asking for a friend.

http://rs279.pbsrc.com/albums/kk143/faeini1/CrystalBallHands.gif~c200

"I know those young people yesterday were just trying to get good television,” Mr. Clinton said wearing his $2000 suit, $300 tie, obligatory American flag lapel pin made of enameled 18 caret gold, and what he would have referred to in his youthful days as a "shit-eating grin".

Any time I post about the Democratic nomination, I usually point out that I don't have a great rooting interest--I have a mild preference for Sanders. Headlines like these (I see similar ones here and there) drive me up the wall, though:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/

I've just skimmed the piece, but the idea that Sanders really isn't doing as well as everyone thinks strikes me as absurd on the face of it. How can you write about the Democratic race without starting from the inescapable fact that Sanders has done amazingly well thus far? Quibbling that his caucus strength overstates his overall strength seems extremely defensive to me. "Even Less Competitive"???--the pledged delegate count is currently 1,280 to 1,030!

polls indicate he is trailing by dougle digits in PA, NY and CA.

http://rs279.pbsrc.com/albums/kk143/faeini1/CrystalBallHands.gif~c200

Polls have been preeeettty accurate except for Michigan.

I'm looking at it in more general terms, and it's the headline I find especially misleading. You're a baseball fan, VHS--to me it would be like, on the eve of the 1969 World Series, titling an article "Mets Head Into Series with an Alarmingly Weak Bench."

polls indicate he is trailing by dougle digits in PA, NY and CA

Opinion polling has a good enough track record over the past half century that it can't be dismissed as meaningless, but polls have become less unreliable as partisanship has become more pervasive and insinuated itself deeper and deeper into the process.

Large numbers of people seem to be adopting my position, which is to flatly refuse to answer any pollster's questions. I was even called a while back (2008?) for a NYT poll and hung up. So-called 'push-polling' really was the last straw for me, but it basically boils down to rarely knowing who has commissioned a poll or what purposes the information will be used for.

Of course the only polling that counts takes place at polling places on election days and we'll have those results soon enough. I can wait.

oops "less unreliable"

There are recent polls where he's down by six in PA and CA. Of course, he has to average wins by about thirteen points from here on out.

Trump has now cancelled a California trip, after doing the same in Colorado. Weird. I can't seem him bailing at this point, but what is the thinking there?

I've just skimmed the piece, but the idea that Sanders really isn't doing as well as everyone thinks strikes me as absurd on the face of it. How can you write about the Democratic race without starting from the inescapable fact that Sanders has done amazingly well thus far? Quibbling that his caucus strength overstates his overall strength seems extremely defensive to me. "Even Less Competitive"???--the pledged delegate count is currently 1,280 to 1,030!

― clemenza, Saturday, April 9, 2016 2:20 PM (53 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'll be honest and say I don't really get the differences between primary and caucuses, but I don't know, the way the math was presented to me a Bernie nomination is still a long shot.

Opinion polling has a good enough track record over the past half century that it can't be dismissed as meaningless, but polls have become less unreliable as partisanship has become more pervasive and insinuated itself deeper and deeper into the process.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Saturday, April 9, 2016 2:42 PM (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

How to explain the accuracy we've seen for the democratic nomination process then ?

I think Sanders has a very tough stretch ahead with those big states, and I don't doubt the basic accuracy of the polling. I just think "Bernie Sanders Is Even Less Competitive Than He Appears" is an extremely weird and ungenerous headline for a longshot candidate who's won six out of the last seven states, will likely win Wyoming today, and so far has won 45% of pledged delegates.

The thing about 538 is that they really, truly treat political races like basketball or any other thing which might be susceptible to a "data" analysis. Interpretation of real-world relevance, causes and effects, perspective, historical context, values, and meaning are all essentially outside of their wheelhouse, and whenever they venture that-a-way the stuff they say is absolutely maddening.

Every now and then they get it right, though: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-calling-hillary-clinton-unqualified-smacks-of-sexism/

Sanders is projected to win 55-45 in Wyoming, which seems to end up 7-7 delegate split. He needed 11-3 (a win with +57%) to be on track.

"polls indicate he is trailing by dougle digits in PA, NY and CA."

no, he's closing the gap in CA. i don't know if he'll win here but it'll probably be close unless he loses a ton of steam by june.

How to explain the accuracy we've seen for the democratic nomination process then ?

― Van Horn Street, Saturday, April 9, 2016 3:21 PM (1 hour ago)

the polls have been pretty bad actually

natesilver: I’m a bit surprised that the Wisconsin polls have it so close. Then again, we’ve been conditioned to think in terms of caucuses when we’re back to primaries now.

clare.malone: How much do we trust Wisconsin polls?

natesilver: The polls have been pretty crappy overall on the Democratic side, but they’ve missed in different directions in different states.

clare.malone: So, with Sanders up 3 percentage points in our weighted average of Wisconsin polls, is a win of 15-plus points unrealistic?

natesilver: The average poll in the Democratic race has been something like 10 points off. Polling averages do a fair bit better

harry: Within 21 days of the caucus or primary, the average poll has been off 11 percentage points so far this campaign. But as Nate said, it’s been a mixed bag. In Ohio, which everyone thought could be a Sanders state after he won Michigan, the polls were dead-on.

micah: And the polling error hasn’t consistently been in either Clinton or Sanders’s direction?

natesilver: Bernie winning by 15 would be a big deal, but not a huge, epic surprise. Like a magnitude 6.0 earthquake, not an 8.0.

harry: Right, it’d put me into a more of a wait-and-see mode.

natesilver: The polls have tended to underrate Clinton in the South and underrate Bernie in the North.

Wow, Wyoming is NOT democratic heartland: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/apr/09/wyoming-democratic-caucus-results-live-polls-election-2016

With 87% of precincts reporting there's been a total of 262 votes. In Niobrara county Sanders won in a landslide 2 votes to 0. A bunch of 1/1 splits as well. Which seems sad, somehow. At least in Niobrara they agree.

no, he's closing the gap in CA. i don't know if he'll win here but it'll probably be close unless he loses a ton of steam by june.

― akm, Saturday, April 9, 2016 4:34 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't see any evidence he's closing the gap in CA here fwiw

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

down 7, 11, 14, 6 doesn't really say anything other than he's probably behind by around 10 +/- 5. it's certainly not a trend.

xpost
from the bottom of the page:

"Vote totals for the Wyoming Democratic Party are state convention delegates won by each candidate."

wyoming is a lonely land but more than 262 people have participated in the caucus

*neil diamond*
everyday on ilx
fred's commenting on america

Oh, yeah, d'oh. Caucuses don't report voters. My bad!

I had a whole scene in my head, of driving all the way to the polling place in Washakie county, getting there, and there's a big empty hall with only one other person... Whom you then get into a big argument with.

even if that were voters, not delegates, nearly nobody lives in wyoming anyway, I wouldn't be shocked

yeah if there were any state i'd believe that about it'd be wyoming lol

Lol Trump has no campaign mgr in CA

Sanders is projected to win 55-45 in Wyoming, which seems to end up 7-7 delegate split. He needed 11-3 (a win with +57%) to be on track.

― Frederik B, Saturday, April 9, 2016 1:25 PM (1 hour ago)

Where did you read that the delegate split will be even? That doesn't sound right. He doesn't need 11-3 to be on track, he needs 8-6 (i.e., he needs 56.5% to 43.5% wins, not margins of 56.5 points).

Which is pretty much exactly what he got again, as with Wisconsin.

harry enten says it depends on goshan - if hill wins there it's an even split, if sanders does he's up 2 delegates

x-post: That's the old track, but Sanders has fallen a lot behind. Nate Silver made a new one: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/ And no, he did not hit that target in Wisconsin either, though it was close.

I'm talking about the track for the majority of pledged delegates.

Well, yeah, but which one?

Just a general one where he gets 56.5% of those remaining. I see that article is arguing that he needs bigger margins in particular states; that's obviously true.

Well, yeah. For all that the vote is closer than expected in NY, I don't think anyone expects a double digit Sanders win. Nor in Maryland or DC. Only just about hitting 57% in the second to last caucus, in one of the most 'demographically advantageous' states left, is not a good sign. Not when the idea was that 'dynamism' or 'momentum' from the last many wins should fuel a great big comeback.

Goshen goes Clinton. 7-7, it seems.

It's pretty obvious to most people that the safe bet is that Sanders won't win the nomination. But he was always a longshot and he's has made it close enough that it's obvious that his proposals resonate with a hell of a lot of voters.

I greatly doubt that the majority of the pro-Sanders votes are just Hillary haters who don't know or care that Bernie's in favor of that dreaded bugaboo 'socialized medicine', and he wants to break up the biggest mega-banks, or find a way to make college tuition-free. Conventional wisdom was that he'd get nowhere with a platform like that.

just found out my dad is for hillary and my mom and sister are for bernie, and it's so contentious they can't even discuss it! ffs people.

Sander's is like all the good grandpa's from the Great Depression that are now dying off, except I guess he's a bit younger and won't dead quite as soon.

it's totally predictable though. my dad is a Organization Guy. the biggest tribe provides the most safety. the team is all, loyalty to it is everything. when SEIU split from the AFL-CIO he washed his hands of them and admits their successes in glancing terms at best (but if it was trumka spearheading the fight for 15 you'd never hear the end of it from him)

did your dad go to college?

For me, my Bernie support USED to be about economic justice, socialized medicine, etc. At this point, I'd just like him to win so I can repost and mock the endless fucking arrogant horse-race-y, conventional wisdom-spouting strings of posts from Frederick and the rest of the ILXers who've been calling the the Sanders campaign DOA for the last 9 months as he went from 60+ points behind to within a few percentage points. We. Get. It.

tbf, most of the conventional wisdom-spouting horseshit posts about Sanders were from Freddie B. they hardly count, since almost everyone got on his case for them.

I'm not sure "only" winning by 11-12 points reflects negatively on his momentum at all.

If Sanders somehow pulls this off, I'll mock Shakey in-person.

That's weird because I just plain like Sanders but I sometimes find myself sort of rooting against him because of the endless Facebook posts (not so much on ilx) explaining how he's actually winning or how black voters in the south shouldn't count or how caucuses are actually much better representations of the will of the people than actual votes. But I try to resist this feeling because I do like the guy a lot and I see his unexpected success as good for the country. If I could vote against Seth Abramson, or the staff of Salon more generally, I would do that.

never vote for a President on terms of likability imo

I'm a registered Republican voting in the PA primary April 26. Recommendations on who I should vote for? Trump, Cruz, Kasich?

it's ok to not vote for a candidate who scares the bejabbers out of you

abstaining is a live option

for a long time i figured wyoming was just a legend or a myth, since i'd never been there, met anyone from there, or really heard it mentioned outside of western movies. but then i drove through it and... it exists! but yes, there are not many people there.

Bernie rally on the Coney boardwalk tomw, when it should be about 45 degrees

frigid April

my mom and sister are for bernie, and it's so contentious they can't even discuss it!

ugh so sexist

https://whatimg.com/i/fyoutR.jpg

https://whatimg.com/i/fyoutR.jpg

As Campaigns Seek Delegates, Ordinary Voters Feel Sidelined

By JEREMY W. PETERS

As Americans flock this year to outsider candidates, they are suddenly waking up to the reality that the process for picking the parties’ nominees involves ordinary voters in only an indirect way.

HEY HO WHADDYA KNOW

Yup. And because of Nebraska, Sanders can't complain about it. Such a dumb mistake.

Glenn Beck on Meet the Press this morning, bespectacled, sagacious, quoting Martin Luther King: "We're all in this together."

All the media bookers bringing him back from perdition, anyone have any kind of a memory?

http://sarthanapalos.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/beck-blackboard-coming.jpg?w=500

As Campaigns Seek Delegates, Ordinary Voters Feel Sidelined

what's the alternative here? do you want more, earlier general elections?

When this campaign is over a bunch of people will write a bunch of books about how weird it all was and why, and I won't read any of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTvDMqmjWGs

we're just ordinary voters
we don't know which way to vote

there are some strange things in the boston globe's mock cover imagining a trump presidency:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2797782/Ideas-Trump-front-page.pdf

perhaps one national party primary is the solution, caek

however it will, like all such democratizing move happen in 50 years or never

And because of Nebraska

If 30 of us read this, i suspect 27 have no idea whut that means

lol

imho one national primary would not necessarily be better! all advantage goes to the most organized/pushed/"established" candidate. as goofy as the current system is it reminds me more of like, idk, bands on tour in the old days... building up a following, having time for word of mouth. not like we usually see "underground" candidates or anything, but something like what sanders has been able to do is nice to have around as a possibility.

there are arguments for flaws to the Primary system but it isn't like federal elections, they can just change their nominating process each election! and independent Trump supporters can sod right off - the system isn't broken, your candidate decided to run as a Republican and not a third-party and this is the process in place and should someone had run in Trump's place and run into the same "not enough delegates" conundrum, it'd be handled the same way. the only way they'd have a legit gripe is if he had the prerequisite number and they "ex post facto" him by changing the rules.

I agree w/ Casino on the bands analogy. Also feel like it allows the public to react over time to a candidate rather than making a rash decision based on a first impression. Neither Trump or Clinton can merely coast on their early wins (though both seem like they're trying like hell to do that in the last week or so) - which is why the cries on both side are annoying. Yeah, Trump is the overwhelming leader in delegates - because he had overwhelming success early in a crowded pool. His performance lately suggests he is nowhere near as popular even among his own party at the moment.

same w/ Clinton, though she has been more consistent than he has and results are easier to compare because it's been a two party race since almost the beginning.

Spike Lee ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lauspctcEqQ

surprised @ no double dolly shot

Belafonte could be a senior Jedi in the next SW film

such a dumb mistake

idgi. Sanders can't change the nominating process. How would the ability to complain about it help his campaign? Are you suggesting that voters decide who they'll vote for based on procedural issues in the nominating process?

i don't even know what this nebraska mistake is we're referring to

awww, my best friend (the enthusiastic bernie canvasser i mentioned above) is visible in the spike lee ad, behind shaun king at one point

idgi. Sanders can't change the nominating process. How would the ability to complain about it help his campaign? Are you suggesting that voters decide who they'll vote for based on procedural issues in the nominating process?

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), 10. april 2016 19:55 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Superdelegates might. Why take 2 extra delegates in Nebraska, against the popular vote, when if that was the significant 2 delegates it would undermine the argument to superdelegates about 'the will of the voters'? So dumb.

no you're dumb

Superdelegates might.

Not bloody likely. Superdelegates are the very essence of the inequity of the nominating process. That inequity gives them more control and gives the voters less control. They like it that way! They don't want to change it. Complaining about the process throws them in a bad light. This is not perceived by them as A Good Thing. They will resent it.

seems like any baseless speculation about what super delegates might or might not do is just that

also i can only suppose that by nebraska fred means nevada, which in fairness probably are the same place from his perspective over there in denmark

yeah so fred, first of all i can only assume you are talking about nevada, not nebraska, because you brought up the nevada thing before as "stealing," and i responded pointing out that didn't make any sense, and you never addressed the point. so i guess i'm inclined to assume you're still beating this same drum, but forgive me if i'm not and you're on some different and even more confusing trip about the good state of nebraska (where bernie won the popular vote afaict). tip: nebraska is basically a rectangle and in the great plains, nevada is more of an irregular trapezoid and is mostly in the desert.

Lol, Sanders apparently just stole the election in Nevada.

― Frederik B, Sunday, April 3, 2016 7:25 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

(...)

yeah "stole" seems like not the right verb...? nevada awards its delegates in several phases and it seems sanders's people turned out more for this one, which was never obligated to match the popular-vote results in the state. no delegates were taken away from clinton. you could argue that nevada awards its delegates in a dumb and loopy way, but the thing is playing out according to the rules as far as i can tell?

― never ending bath infusion (Doctor Casino), Sunday, April 3, 2016 11:30 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Oh, fuck. Yeah. Good I didn't get into how unfair it was to the sizable latino community.

>_<

It's so unfair and shady how, playing by the rules in a state that awards delegates in multiple phases, Sanders dared to win phase two, even though he had lost phase one. So dumb.

Yeah, it's by the rules, but so are Superdelegates.

It's outrageous, like something you would see at the famous Aarhus Carnival next month. Except even Syddanmarkers wouldn't stand for such nonsense.

Sanders is running on a 'political revolution', not gaming the system to get two more votes.

fred you're a clown and please stfu

yes plz

you play by the current rules, like that stooge Obama

Sanders doesnt really have a political revolution plan (as discussed) and won those other 2 delegates according to the party's rules, no "gaming the system" necessary.

Xp

yeah by that logic winning any delegates is "gaming the system." sanders has 1,068 pledged - i don't think we realize how deep his treacherous gamesmanship goes.

"As Campaigns Seek Delegates, Ordinary Voters Feel Sidelined

By JEREMY W. PETERS

As Americans flock this year to outsider candidates, they are suddenly waking up to the reality that the process for picking the parties’ nominees involves ordinary voters in only an indirect way"

Like, if we're all okay with this, then fine. But Nevada makes it harder for Sanders to argue against indirectly picking party nominees.

no

the party process involves multiple stages of deliberation and election of representatives

superdelegacy is about the 'sticky' establishment of powerful party entities within that process so that they cannot be dislodged by its lower-level, more representative stages and can therefore voice the prerogatives of the established against the people the party serves / is constituted by

if you see no difference at all there then gtfo

anyway afaik sanders hasn't really been saying the superdelegates are undemocratic or w/e. he's been pushing the "we're hoping that as we keep winning, and the polls show us doing better against trump, some superdelegates will swing our way" (aka the "maybe it'll be like 2008" scenario).

i am, to put it mildly, very skeptical of the chances of this happening. but it's a different thing than "only the popular vote is ever legitimate and we must overthrow the superdelegates, by force if necessary," which i think is the only standard by which we could even begin to have the conversation about nevradka's convention delegates being somehow more scandalous than any of the other delegates both candidates have won through channels not bound to the popular vote.

hey Frederik remember when Hillary Clinton won six coin tosses in a row

Lol nevradka

x-post: No. But I do remember many Sanders supporters in my tl lying about that back at the Iowa caucus.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

Goodnight.

It's too early to go to sleep...HERE IN AMERICA

no but really do you know how improbable it is that she won six coin tosses in a row. it's like so improbable you don't even know. can't believe Hillary cheated the American people out of their rightful president.

Don't stop posting now man, you had Sanders on the ropes.

maybe frederik is just trying to get sanders to give up on trying to model america on any aspect of denmark

"nebraska is basically a rectangle and in the great plains, nevada is more of an irregular trapezoid and is mostly in the desert" for next phase election thread title plz

Is Donald Trump still expected to win the Republican nomination?

He was, then last week it seemed he wasn't.

Perhaps some of you can enlighten me!

He seems to have gone into a Witness Protection Program the past week. No one really knows what's going on.

He's been busy arranging more golf-related charitable donations.

Tees for the homeless, tam o'shanters for hurricane victims, that sort of thing.

"maybe frederik is just trying to get sanders to give up on trying to model america on any aspect of denmark"
HEY AMERIKKKA YUR DOING SOCIALISM WRONG

I don't think Trump is going to wind up with the delegates going into the convention, brokered convention seems likely at this point.

Coin flip thing still a myth btw

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders/index.html

http://www.newser.com/story/219977/myth-busting-coin-tosses-didnt-decide-iowa-race.html

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

it was actually a three man sack race

shh this is between me and Frederik

Jimmah ain't happy with Hills:

Former President Carter says Hillary Clinton “took very little action” as secretary of State to bring about peace.

Carter, 89, made the remark about the former secretary of State and 2016 Democratic front-runner in a phone interview with Time magazine Wednesday night after he spoke at the Civil Rights Summit in Austin, Texas.

John Kerry has been successful as secretary of State, Carter said, because President Obama has been deeply involved in the foreign policy issues of his second term.

“In this occasion, when Secretary Clinton was Secretary of State, she took very little action to bring about peace. It was only John Kerry’s coming into office that reinitiated all these very important and crucial issues,” he said.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/203189-carter-on-clinton-she-took-very-little-action

two years old, but relevant

http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/04/michael-stipe-and-bernie-sanders-ate-hot-dogs-together-at-coney-island/

https://consequenceofsound.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/screen-shot-2016-04-10-at-11-13-21-pm.png?w=807

Everybody Berns

Swan, Swan, Hummingbern

Hurrah

Old Man Bernie, wants to be a president

This one Berns out to the Bern I Bern
This one Berns out to the Bern I've Berned... behind
A simple Bern to occupy my Ber
This Bern Berns out Bern Bern Bern I Bern

i am superbern
and i want those delegates

feel the bernstein

A Hundred Million Berns Fly Away

(King of Berns obv)

Disbernance at the hot dog house ok i'm out

what if we give it away? (a free college education)

@mtaibbi
Gotta love the "the system was never intended to be democratic" excuse in the superdelegate debate. A fave!

's true though

Laura Bush hints she'd rather see Hillary as president. No one is surprised, are they?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/laura-bush-hints-shed-rather-see-hillary-as-president-than-repub/

tbh i feel like the really perfect, deep-cut version of this joke is going to hit me in like eight months when i'm on an r.e.m. jag, so it goes

eevvverryybody berrrrnnns

Sometimes.

Dr. C: no matter when, you should still post it. I know I, at least, will laugh, also empathizing majorly with l'esprit de l'escalier type stuff.

"Laura Bush, the former first lady, has hinted she would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, saying she wants the next American president to be someone who cares about women in Afghanistan."

yes, i can read. I'm sure the rest of HRC's political profile passes muster with her, too.

you know, like this shit from 2010

Sounding almost exasperated, Clinton indicated that Africa's arguments for the redress of economic imbalances left by colonialism were beginning to wear a little thin -- at least in Washington.

"For goodness sakes, this is the 21st century. We've got to get over what happened 50, 100, 200 years ago and let's make money for everybody. That's the best way to try to create some new energy and some new growth in Africa," she said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-africa-usa-idUSTRE65D61920100614

it's amazing + sad that you're probably among the more educated + intelligent US voters

so, thirty-second version of bernie's erica garner spot is now, finally, in circulation - just got it on youtube before "back in the new york groove" by ace frehley. it's an all-right edit though i sincerely miss the parts that were more clearly about erica garner's own turn to activism which i found very powerful.

Meanwhile.

Trump's path to a general-election win has been assumed to be energized white voters (particularly the white voters variously categorized as non-college-educated / blue-collar / "downscale"). There is some polling that suggests that works only if the angry white people are all dudes. See the third chart here.

Trump is actually performing just below Romney’s 2012 totals among non-college whites. He does get a better margin than Romney among white non-college men, but that’s offset by the fact that he’s running behind Romney’s margin among white non-college women... Trump’s hopes of running up huge margins among blue collar whites might be complicated if he alienates white non-college women.

Meanwhile, as noted above, engagement is rising substantially among white non-college women (a potential problem for Trump) and among college women (who seem even more likely to be alienated by him), perhaps partly due to the seeming omnipresence of Trump’s sexism. Engagement is also rising substantially among nonwhites (if Trump under-performs among them, he’d have to drive his white vote margins even higher). And nearly half of Republican women (per Gallup) view him unfavorably.

Angry white men: If it weren't for that pesky 19th Amendment, they'd be unstoppable.

As rigged and weird as they can seem, the primaries have overall gotten considerably more democratic rather than less since their inception.

It is my sense that Mr Trump probably can't win the Presidency - but I still would like your view on the question, will he win the GOP nomination?

Only about a fortnight ago, everyone seemed to say he would.

Re: Trump's candidacy, I think we're in the third act of The Producers at this point.

"Kill the delegates..."

Cokie Roberts (I know, I know) made the obvious case this morning for why superdelegates mostly ain't gonna Bern -- they are by definition Democratic Party functionaries and office-holders, and unlike Bernie they're heavily invested in maintaining the party infrastructure. Bernie has basically not done anything for them. He hasn't campaigned or fund-raised for them, and he's not even actually a Democrat. There are a lot of weirdnesses in the way our political system revolves so heavily around the two parties, and legitimate things for reformers to protest against. But if we're going to have parties, they will look out for their own institutional interest and mostly nominate people who are committed not only to their platforms but to the whole party structure.

yup. so after the 19th, i am done with the POTUS election. hope the rest of you have enough Circus Peanuts!

xpost

And I think Bernie understands that, fwiw. But a lot of Bernie supporters seem to want to be able to essentially run a third-party campaign with the trappings and resources of a major party. (Trump supporters too, for that matter.)

because it's the only way to have the illusion of a prayer of winning?

(the usual 'other' elections thread has not been started yet, cuz notsexy)

yup. so after the 19th, i am done with the POTUS election. hope the rest of you have enough Circus Peanuts!

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius),

I just set a reminder to log back in to my mod account and threadban you from POTUS politics threads — no need to thank me.

it's possible to do that threadspecifically?

I think so, I'm not really sure.

yup. so after the 19th, i am done with the POTUS election. hope the rest of you have enough Circus Peanuts!

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Monday, April 11, 2016 12:25 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

dude come on you are going to posting here in these threads on the regular every day for the rest of the year

How dare you suggest such a thing. Bye.

Well, maybe not 'bye' in the traditional sense of the word. It's a soft 'bye'.

I'm expecting some great new Hillary nicknames when you return

I still would like your view on the question, will he win the GOP nomination?

When Trump lost Wisconsin it strongly undercut his ability to gain sufficient delegates for a first ballot win. It also worked against his narrative that he alone was a 'winner', while everyone else was a 'loser'. Whether these will translate into his losing the nomination seems to me to be mostly wishful thinking promulgated by an aghast party leadership.

Right now, no one in the media wants to commit to a story line other than "nobody knows what will happen", but in order to deny Trump there are a limited number of scenarios, all of which are more improbable than Trump picking up the extra 50 or so delegates he might need for a second ballot win. So, if I were betting, I'd bet cautiously on Trump, as much as that prospect disgusts me.

I do find it encouraging that the anti-Trump megaphones are getting louder and more coordinated and that since Wisconsin Trump himself seems more discombobulated and unsure of himself. If Trump comes to the convention around 100 delegates shy of a first ballot victory, I'd rate the chances of his losing much higher than I do now. He'd be wobbling into the home stretch and would look much weaker than he has looked up until now.

Idk, on a second ballot he'd need not only to have wheeled and dealed those extra 50 or 100 or however many, but also *held onto* whichever of his delegates that, per whichever state rules, are freed up after first ballot. I imagine he has a ton of die-hards in those slots but maybe some of them are in fact not (as with that story a while back of Cruz people getting themselves seated as Trump delegates). If there's a well-organized idk Cruz/Kasich ticket being floated, and those guys plus the kind of people who were backing Bush and Rubio had been doing the organizational legwork for months, I can imagine a scenario where more Trump delegates driift to Cruz than vice versa. I could be wrong but it just seems like the exact kind of thing that Trump's team sucks at.

Btw re: conversation above, I don't think anybody two weeks ago thought it was a certainty Trump would be President, but certainly there were and are plenty of people pretty sure he'll be the *nominee* which is pretty different.

if anyone can wheel + deal the delegates tho to come into the convention w/ the # needed you'd think it would be trump. i would not put bribery beyond him.

lol 'wheel and deal' jinx :p xp

NBC had a high/low projection for him yesterday. If everything worked out optimally (all of New York, all of California, etc.), they had him at 1,245, more than half. If everything goes wrong, 1,165.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-april-10-2016-n553716

And now, let's bring on Glenn Beck.

I think the counter there is that Cruz is way ahead of courting delegates and understanding the rules than Trump is. Trump's campaign has been really shittily coordinated on that front, they don't understand the rules the way Cruz invariably does.

xp

They also speculated that if there's 100 delegates to be won over, put Trump in that room and put Cruz in there, Trump has the better chance, just because Cruz is so odious. Not sure about that. (That Trump would win them over, I mean, not whether Cruz is odious or not.)

if there's 100 delegates to be won over, put Trump in that room and put Cruz in there, Trump has the better chance

but it won't be like that. most of the wooing will be done by waves of surrogates, canvassing out on the floor or cajoling in private rooms, with selected delegates getting the personal treatment from the candidates, who traditionally never appear on the convention floor at all.

given Cruz's facility with exploiting rules I'm inclined to think that if Trump doesn't win on the first ballot he's not gonna get it. Assuming Cruz wins a few more states from here on out.

All of this is of course tea-leafy, but: Trump's early successes were at least partly due to the large candidate field; the picture is different now.

Secondly, his canned lines are growing stale (we don't win anymore, I'll get the best people, trust me, you'll see, it'll be awesome). Thirdly, those canned lines have not changed a bit, while a counter-narrative of embarrassments and missteps has arisen, undermining Trump's competency/staffing argument. Fourthly, a related narrative has arisen that he has failed to do some pretty basic homework on delegates and convention maneuvering, and this failure could come back to bite his tiny, um, hands.

While certainly entertaining, all this is inconsequential if you believe that demographic headwinds doom any and all GOPers from the outset. Doubly so if they're intent on serving up a cocktail of virulent racism and blatant sexism.

Insult a significant chunk of Latinx voters with anti-immigrant talk? No prob, one might say; energizing the xenophobia of disaffected anglos will be enough. Insult a significant chunk of black voters with racially coded makers/takers/welfare talk? No prob, you might say; energizing the anti-PC feelings of downscale whites will be enough. Insult a significant chunk of women voters with not-even-veiled misogyny? No prob, you might say; energizing angry male backlashers will be enough. Except it won't, especially not if you double down on all three.

And no other Republican nominee is able to follow a significantly different rhetorical course. Even without Trump's particular brand of noxiousness, the fundamentals of the general election race are set and seem unlikely to change.

Aimless: another person on the panel refuted the 100-person-room idea the same way, that it all happens out on the floor.

I wrote about this elsewhere: I think the biggest factor in Trump's recent slide was less specific events (Cruz's wife, abortion, the manager getting charged--all of which were ugly, but not necessarily uglier than earlier stuff) than the timing, which was during a two-week layover between primaries. With no chance to win a couple of primaries and push all that other stuff to the side, it was nothing but bad news.

xps

I expect the canvassing and the wooing have already begun in a low key, but very determined manner. And, yes, I think Cruz's people will play that game more persistently and more deftly than Trump's, because Cruz's people are better connected and more experienced. Trump's best help will be that he has a less steep hill to climb, assuming most of his first ballot delegates are in his pocket to stay. A well-run campaign would ensure that was true, but his campaign seems very offhand and may not have brought entirely loyal delegates with them.

also he basically has three campaign managers now, who are all fighting with each other, and one of them is distracted by a legal battle

And another is the guy who maintains their email server or something.

Just a reminder that sometimes even billions of dollars aren't enough to de-shoe the clown.

The new guy is one of these David Gergen types who's been around since forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Manafort

josh marshall gives two thumbs up to manafort:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/good-news-for-dems

Ugh the video of the de blasio/Clinton "cp time" thing what the hell

Probably old news but I just saw it

Cruz's wife, abortion, the manager getting charged--all of which were ugly, but not necessarily uglier than earlier

these are very different things to the kind of person who would seriously consider voting for trump. like my grandmother: for her, all mexicans are rapists is self-evident; going after another guy's wife shows a severe lack of class and decorum.

Cruz's wife, abortion

nice name

cf. the usual example of non-Oxford comma usage: "my parents, Ayn Rand and god"

Ugh the video of the de blasio/Clinton "cp time" thing what the hell

the what

http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-tries-to-prove-shes-not-racist-with-awk-1770293356

Rather than click it and be disappointed, I'm just going to assume that the cropped text in that link is 'ward rap battle'.

Heard a Sanders radio spot out of Buffalo on the way home: 30 seconds of him talking about Wall Street, ending with the requisite "and I approved this message." Is that really necessary if you're the guy talking throughout? Seems as redundant as calling a press conference to endorse yourself.

i think it's law now that if your group paid for the ad, it has to be tacked on?

Thought about making Ward Rapbattle my new dn, but nah. lol though.

okay lol @ "cautious politician time", sorry but that type of full-on terrible joke is funny to me

That routine sounds painful.

it's deeply stupid but welcome to politicans telling joeks

right because Bill's "gaffe" was about a lack of caution and not a deliberate appeal to crime-fearing (mostly) white voters.

I think I've officially hit the point in this cycle where I am weary of everyone involved so all I do now is accept how terrible it all is. Maybe that will somehow become liberating.

a deliberate appeal to crime-fearing (mostly) white voters.

my guess is it was some combination of this + Bill's ego about being personally criticized

not sure what this has to do with the "cp time" thing which is obviously a dumb joke

love this scummy liar

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kansas-spanish-voter-guides-errors

The Spanish-language voter guides from Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach's office include two errors about registering to vote in the state, while the English guides do not include the same errors.

The Spanish-language guides said that voters could register up to 15 days before the election, while the English version included the correct deadline, 21 days before the election

hillary's daily news interview:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-hillary-clinton-meets-news-editorial-board-article-1.2596292

i haven't read it (too long)

Why is she dressed in a lime green Dr. Evil top...?

I haven't read the whole thing, but she's very much in prepared speech mode. There's not much back-and-forth. I have heard some of those answers near verbatim in other contexts.

i wait for the non-partisan review :p

There's some a bit into the interview:

So I think we can do that, and particularly if we can get the mechanism for the National Infrastructure Bank. Because if all we do is rely on Congress, then we are going to be at their mercy every five to seven to eight years. Whereas if we say, yeah, Congress still has the primary role... It passed finally $275 billion program, but we want to have an ongoing, revolving fund. We need to look at how we can once again use municipal bonding authority. How can we use more state bonding authority? We used for a little period of time, and I like the idea of federal bonds that can be used for infrastructure, as long as you have a revenue stream. Look, I'm excited about this stuff. I'm kind of a wonky person. I'm excited by it.

Daily News: Get excited about your college plan now.

Clinton: Yeah, I'm very excited about my college plan.

Daily News: Make me understand it.

Clinton: Yeah, okay. Well, the best way to do that...

Daily News: I better have something to drink.

Clinton: Yes, something stronger maybe.

There's a lot to criticize, heavily business-friendly, it seems, but it's plenty wonkish.

Of course it is. It's the one thing she wanted it to be.

My reaction was "she totally read the Sanders interview and was like 'let me unleash a mountain of details and anecdotes'"

lol yup

"It's within the power of the treasury department, whose bylaws are as follows..."

A lot of xp, but there's a difference between Trump being 100 short after California and being 100 short when the conference arrives - there's a lot of rook in the 11 days between for a lot of deals to be made.

If it comes to a second vote, he is of course toast.

Looool:

Daily News: Wall Street, too big to fail.

Clinton: Too big to fail.

Daily News: How do you stop too big to fail? What needs to happen?

Clinton: Well, I have been a strong supporter of Dodd-Frank because it is the most consequential financial reforms since the Great Depression. And I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.

There are two approaches. There's Section 121, Section 165, and both of them can be used by regulators to either require a bank to sell off businesses, lines of businesses or assets, because of the finding that is made by two-thirds of the financial regulators that the institution poses a grave threat, or if the Fed and the FDIC conclude that the institutions' living will resolution is inadequate and is not going to get any better, there can also be requirements that they do so.

So we've got that structure. Now a lot of people have argued that there need to be some tweaks to it that I would be certainly open to. But my point from the very beginning of this campaign, and it's something that I've said repeatedly: big banks did not cause the Great Recession primarily. They were complicit, but hedge funds; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank; a big insurance company, AIG; mortgage companies like Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie — there were lots of culprits who were contributing to the circumstances that led to the very dangerous financial crisis.

Yeah, she made sure to memorize that part.

Well, I have been a strong supporter of Dodd-Frank because it is the most consequential financial reforms since the Great Depression. And I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.

sounds so scripted

Yeah, she made sure to memorize that part.

― Frederik B, Monday, April 11, 2016

she even inserted the semicolons!

Is this a relatively new narrative that the big banks "didn't cause" the financial crisis? I mean sure, Countrwide, Lehman, AIG, Fannie and Freddie, but also the big banks! When did Citi, BofA, Wells Fargo etc. become innocent parties? Revisionist history to me.

Nah that's accurate

No, it's not.

I guess specify what you mean by "crisis"

If anything, AIG is more innocent than Citi. AIG just took on too much risk without properly accounting for it, it didn't sell quasi-fraudulent products.

Heard a Sanders radio spot out of Buffalo on the way home: 30 seconds of him talking about Wall Street, ending with the requisite "and I approved this message." Is that really necessary if you're the guy talking throughout? Seems as redundant as calling a press conference to endorse yourself.

Ha, I heard this around Syracuse today. I just drove from Ottawa to Worcester, MA. Almost as soon as I crossed the border and got cell service again, I got a text from the Sanders campaign people (and another a couple of hours later). They're getting as bad as the NDP.

Like are you referring to the specific events of 2008 or the larger overall financial picture.

Xp

People seem to confuse Lehman being the metaphorical first domino to fall with a literal game of dominoes. It's not like Citi would have been fine if not for Lehman. All these companies, including the big banks, were doing insane shit with mortgages.

tbtf xp

they had a ton of co-conspirators too. the ratings agencies should have been destroyed because of the crisis, imo. if theyre not (part of) the watch dogs then what would you say ya do here..?

http://38.media.tumblr.com/69998ea4c2d5a937b4b7be2d862f2114/tumblr_inline_n6g82giUtT1r8ujnk.jpg

Sorry not a literal game of dominoes I mean a literal domino setup (whatever you call the thing where they knock each other over)

Like it seems like a confusion of how things went down with why they happened.

All these companies, including the big banks, were doing insane shit with mortgages.

this is true, but the latter has nothing to do with the size of the banks. The "too big to fail" thing is specifically about situations like AIG where institutions assumed more risk than they could handle, with their default threatening overall system stability. Totally legit to lay blame on the banks bundling shitty products, but that bundling doesn't have anything to do with how big they were. Separate issues.

xp

Citi definitely comes under the rubric of too big to fail and definitely took on too much risk and was definitely essential to the financial system. Hence it was bailed out.

okay but that's different from "primarily", how is what Clinton says here:

big banks did not cause the Great Recession primarily. They were complicit, but hedge funds; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank; a big insurance company, AIG; mortgage companies like Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie — there were lots of culprits who were contributing to the circumstances that led to the very dangerous financial crisis.

not accurate

part of the problem with the whole crisis is EVERYONE was acting shady af and its hard to indict like 200,000 people.

Why is Citigroup, which underwrote, as well as purchased, and bundled many billions of dollars of subprime mortgages into MBS and CDOs any less culpable than Countrywide?

The company that says "give me bad loans to bundle and sell to suckers" is creating the demand for the Countrywides.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-banks-should-be-broken-up-20160408

it's not that their any less culpable, it's that their as culpable as every other shady motherfucker, as the mayor notes. Singling them out as primarily responsible doesn't seem accurate to me either.
xp

I'm not agreeing with Krugman (whom I don't read) fwiw

going back a few dozen posts:

a deliberate appeal to crime-fearing (mostly) white voters.

my guess is it was some combination of this + Bill's ego about being personally criticized

Bill's memory goes back to his Sister Souljah moment in 1992 and how it was viewed by the (mostly white) media as a net positive for his campaign. This is just in his political DNA now.

even I confuse the sequence of events and names of banks

Bear Sterns went insolvent in May. Lehman Bros went down in September. It was Lehman that triggered the avalanche.

WTF are you people talking about. The government poured money into the big banks. They would not have done that if they had not been afraid that if they hadn't given them that money that they would have fallen apart and taken the economy with it.

Alex otm but tell it to Krugman and Clinton. They've engineered a parallel universe for campaign purposes.

it's all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's fault.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfzU6aTUYAAbv4x.jpg

Never forget, Donnie.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81V4S%2BL03SL._SL1500_.jpg

maybe charlie sheen could be president... naw that's ridiculous! lol xp

i think the financial crisis and the drug war have some parallels. except i don't think some of you would like the correspondent role you've assumed.

?

people borrowed that money. wasn't that their choice? heh

Lol i was trying to think of some drug trade analogy myself

wtf

facile analogies are kind of like drugs

are they? want to cash out the equity on your home?

TBF, and oddly enough, I was thinking earlier of an analogy involving drug trade too, lol, basically that saying Countrywide is responsible rather than Citi is like saying "It's not the suppliers it's the street dealers."

this isn't the right thread for it, but isn't it amazing that texas has some of the most progressive state-wide mortgage laws in the country? equity requirements. judges will actually grant restraining orders against banks. it's amazing.

as a partner in one of the biggest mortgage litigation defense firms in the country said to me, "texas was a state founded by people fleeing their creditors"

although i'm sure he had said that line many times before

GTT

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/11/donald-trump-ivanka-eric-miss-vote-deadline

Two Trump kids miss one big deadline, now can't vote in New York primary
Ivanka and Eric Trump won’t be able to vote for their father in the New York primary next week, after failing to change their party affiliation in time

take that loldrumpf shit to facebook

No surprise: http://theweek.com/speedreads/617761/clintons-are-using-5-shell-companies-save-taxes-delaware

howbout Joe Biden?

Joe Biden is actually a golem made of animated Visa cards

“I’ll tell you another story about a place where people use shell companies to dodge taxes: Africa.”

- Bill Clinton

have no us politicians turned up in the panama papers? I kind of can't believe trump and clinton aren't in there, somewhere.

there's no need for US figures to go outside the US, as far as I can tell. plenty of tax havens right here at home!

I imagine all the tax haven law firms in the US have sent out stern memos to all their employees about confidentiality and contractual obligations.

Video from Paul Ryan, who is absolutely not interested in the nomination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxH4uIswiA

lol he wants to be Obama so bad

i find him to be quite scarier than Cruz/Trump, as in, I don't see him never becoming President. It seems inevitable to me, not unlike Dave Cameron seems inevitable in the UK.

An inexplicable Nobel winner? xp

I like Hathleen Geier's descrip of HRC: "the most cynical Democratic presidential nominee of my lifetime."

http://www.thenation.com/article/we-asked-four-prominent-bernie-supporters-if-theyd-vote-for-hillary-in-november-heres-what-they-told-us/

Boris Johnson?

ryan held a press conference today where he said "Let me be clear: I do not want, nor will I accept the Republican nomination. I am not going to be our party’s nominee."

seemed inevitable* my bad.

He's as much of a monkey as the other candidates but he's got establishment cred. Set him on fire.

KEROSENE

I don't see him never becoming President. It seems inevitable to me

my guess is it's going to be Harris (or maybe Newsom, who wants to be president SO bad but has to be Governor of CA first) vs. Ryan at some future date

Have any Presidents ever been elected straight from the House? I would think he's gotta get some other position under his big boy belt first.

lol Dan

"Let me be clear."

http://i1.wp.com/www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/perjury.jpg

James Garfield did apparently

xp