Can I make fun of the photo of the "alpha con" in his "man cave" or is it still too soon after the thing about not making fun of people for being fat? I argue that once you use the word "mangina," you open yourself up to a certain amount of criticism of your physical appearance when you look incapable of any activity more strenuous than carrying a shotgun into the Target.
1: It astonishes me that so patent a pantomime of overcompensation does not meet the ridicule pity and contempt that it deserves, but I suppose we all, to one extent or another, have to overlook our own faults when we find them in others.
Also, old and previously linked but essential: Michael Kinsley's "Triumph of the Right-Wing Dork."
He's even got a Michigan flag in the background.
Holy shit. He not only didn't go to Michigan. He couldn't even get in.
3: When I was younger and slightly less reluctant to be unpleasant, I occasionally, when people spoke nostalgically or reverentially of the Midwest and its natives' virtues, asked whether the Midwest had produced any more cannibalistic serial killers lately.
Lots of people can't get into Michigan, but having gone there is the only acceptable reason for supporting their football team.
The right wing's hatred of the GOP establishment entertains me no end. There's a direct correlation between the intensity of that hatred and ignorance of how politics actually works, so the most passionate are supporting the stupidest candidates. Personally I'd love to see Ben Carson go up against Hillary Clinton, but I doubt that's going to happen.
5: That's not Michigan's fault. That's Wisconsin and Ohio.
1: Absolutely. Poppin' Fresh Galt brought it on himself.
Fooled again, Heebie. None of the people in that "Deace" story are real.
I don't know. Do the French have a thing for doughy, middle-aged, white guys who make a fetish of refusing to compromise or consider the opinions and views of others?
Is there not some kind of norm against supporting both, say, Iowa State and Michigan?
Different conferences, so it really wouldn't be much of a problem.
Just like goldbuggery and Laffer Curve voodoo economics have gone from the fringes of the Republican Party to central planks of its collective id, MRA/PUA-ish terminology and ideology is well one its way. Fifteen years from now, no one will remember a world where President George P. Bush didn't talk about negging the UN and the UK being America's red pill ally.
I always feel self-conscious about non-ironically linking to Slate. I am also ambivalent about Michelle Goldberg's work.
But I think she gets the sexism problem with some Sanders supporters close to exactly right.
I disagree here:
In the extremely unlikely event that Sanders won the Democratic primary, I'm convinced he'd lose, overwhelmingly, to a fanatical reactionary Republican who would hasten America's devolution into a third-world hellscape.
I'd argue that a Democratic Party that nominates Bernie is going to exist in a country that's a lot different than the one that Goldberg and I think exists today. In that America, Bernie would do well against whichever nut the Republicans cough up. As with Trump, I think it is (or was) at least conceivable that Bernie could teach the US something about itself.
I also disagree with one of the specific examples she offers, but I think this is at the heart of what she gets right:
What's immensely frustrating, however, is to realize how many ostensibly enlightened men think that gender can ever be totally disaggregated from Clinton's efforts to become the first female president. They seem to believe that their class politics exempt them from taking sexism seriously.
I saw my first Bernie bumper sticker today. On a new Range Rover, naturally. I also say my first Carson bumper sticker (on an old Camry).
didn't progressives try to get elizabeth warren to run first? She didn't want to so they now support Bernie. I really don't think that is sexist.
20: I think it's a mistake to regard "progressives" as one thing. Goldberg doesn't make that mistake.
All the anti-Bernie sexism nonsense that Slate and Salon have decided to push over the last month or so is appalling. As 20 says, the Bernie movement is the Elizabeth Warren movement. She didn't run, so her people support him.
At least a chunk of progressive anti-Hillaryism has sexist underpinnings. Unlike HRC, Warren is one of the good ones.
I'm a reasonable believer in fundamentals wrt elections, but I think Rubio would crush Bernie. The press would LOVE to paint Rubio as a fresh, wonky young Hispanic versus a tired old man with weird politics, and, frankly, I think most of the electorate would agree. I think every other Republican is too compromised for that dynamic to take hold, but Rubio vs. Sanders scares the hell out of me.
I dunno - on the level of movements generally, or supporters of Sanders overall, it's hard to see any real pattern of sexism. But there is absolutely a particular set of his supporters who come off that way to me. I doubt they're a representative group but "progressive white male internet people" comes pretty close to it*, and they're a loud group and I spend a lot of time on the internet so it does look more representative of the thing in general (because, well, they have a bigger megaphone).
And just because they didn't throw around a lot of sexist stuff with Warren doesn't mean they can't/wouldn't/etc. do it with Clinton. At least the one person I know who really meets the general lefty Warren supporter (very strongly), and Sanders supporter/Clinton hater says a lot of stuff that just screams sexism. I don't know that it's the source of his opposition, but he's going all in on the Washington media style power-hungry-cold-bitch stuff and that's absolutely sexist as all get out. Whatever it is about her Clinton seems to get a lot of sexist shit that even other powerful female politicians get (and I think that's part of why openly feminist talk from her is such a great strategy too).
*And, I mean, for as much as the guy linked to in 22 is trying that's exactly who a lot of the people he's linking to are talking about - not supporters generally. It's not the greatest blog post for accurately relaying what the things he's linking to have in them.
Rubio vs. Sanders scares the hell out of me
This just sounds like a fear of Rubio. I'm not sure why it would be a different dynamic than Rubio vs. Clinton. Or Fiorina vs. Sanders, for that matter.
I think that Rubio will crumble if he's on the national stage. (I do believe that, but obviously the rejoinder should be "just like Reagan or W?")
Since this is the politics thread, will Carson's lying about getting accepted to West Point finish him as a candidate? Or is the bar now so low for republican candidates that no one will care?
As long as he's telling the truth about stabbing a guy, he'll be fine.
27: I think he may bluff his way through it, unless he maybe trips over it in the next debate or something. Defenses of Carson are popping up all over. Eg, I've seen this a thousand times in my fb feed: http://www.youngcons.com/ben-shapiro-breaks-down-politico-hit-piece-on-ben-carson-explains-why-he-isnt-lying/
22: My 21 seems sort of banal and obvious, but maybe not. Bruenig can't seem to grasp it.
Here is how Bruenig, in your linked piece, characterizes Marcotte and others:
Bernie bums have also entered into ill-advised, campaign-shattering twitter tussles with not one, not two, but a handful of pro-Hillary pundits, for no other reason than that they support different candidates while only one can win, and that the Bernie blockheads are sexists.
Bruenig here links to Marcotte. What is Marcotte actually saying?
Like Goldberg, she is saying that some Sanders supporters in 2016 are guilty of an error that is analogous to the error made by some Clinton supporters in 2008. Marcotte says she is talking about "probably just a small minority" of Sanders' supporters, but Bruenig can't seem to grasp the fact that Sanders supporters aren't a homogenous group of dopes like him. He is quite insistent that Marcotte and her ilk are talking about all Sanders supporters.
Goldberg herself links the Bruenig piece and quotes it directly. She nails its "defensive petulance":
The problem with the progressive men who've lately become experts on feminism isn't that they won't vote for Clinton. It's their defensive petulance at any mention of anti-Clinton sexism. "Are you planning to vote for Bernie Sanders when primary time rolls around? If so, I am discouraged to report that you are a sexist, and also tremendously uncool," the MattBruenig.com post says with peevish sarcasm. The writer sounds like a conservative grumbling that you can't criticize Obama without being called a racist.
To be fair, Bruenig doesn't just homogenize and diminish Sanders supporters. Any expression of concern about liberal sexism is, to him, identical with the least well-thought-through statements by Clinton supporters.
I wonder what he'd make of a Sanders supporter like me? I wonder what he'd think of Sanders himself?
Weirdly I think Sanders is making me feel more comfortable about eventually voting for Clinton not just by drawing her to the left but also by making me way more uncomfortable about the loudest groups opposed to her from the left. I mean, looking around on the internet it's easy to pick out the loudest supporters of Sanders and the loudest supporters of Clinton. And as much as I disliked other-Clinton's policies/presidency/etc. and am worried about Clinton's political views and probably cabinet picks/advisers/etc. I'd rather be seen as a member of the latter group than the former.
31: Purely on a visceral level, that's happening to me, too.
Like Obama, Clinton has chosen her enemies well. (And I include Clinton herself among the enemies that Obama was fortunate to have.)
I've been resigned to (eventually) voting for Clinton for years now, but every time I start to feel good about it she comes out with something like this: http://forward.com/opinion/national/324013/how-i-would-rebuild-ties-to-israel-and-benjamin-neta/
The right wing's hatred of the GOP establishment entertains me no end. There's a direct correlation between the intensity of that hatred and ignorance of how politics actually works.
I would amend that to 'national' politics. In state and local politics in red states, this same tendency gets us government by progressively stupider people who do things like introduce bills to ban foreign ownership of the Alamo
I've been resigned to (eventually) voting for Clinton for years now, but every time I start to feel good about it she comes out with something like this: http://forward.com/opinion/national/324013/how-i-would-rebuild-ties-to-israel-and-benjamin-neta/
Arrrgggghhh!
*sticks fingers in ears*
la la la la, I can't hear you
I dunno. I identify very strongly as a feminist and a leftist, and I get annoyed at people telling me voting for the wife of a former president to be president is a sign of feminism rather than corruption. Corrupt, sexist, patriarchal regimes have been using female relatives to keep dynastic power for decades millennia. A vote for Hillary could be a feminist one, but the fact she is a woman isn't in itself some great feminist achievement. I can hold this view while simultaneously thinking 1) some attacks on Hillary have been sexist,* and 2) Hillary is far better than any of her Republican opponents.
I will vote for Hillary, but I won't do it enthusiastically and I don't particularly like her as a politician.
*I agree that there are some Sanders supporters who fall under this, but Hillary's insinuation that Bernie himself is sexist and racist feels like dirty politics and they're turning me off of her campaign. 08 was hers to lose, and she lost it because she's not a great politician and lefty millennials are sick of this sort of unprincipled win-at-all-costs attitude. There's no Obama figure now, and she'll probably win easily, but I don't think she's a good politician and I am really turned off by a campaign based on inevitability and entitlement.
will Carson's lying about getting accepted to West Point finish him as a candidate?
It's pretty much full-on crazy, is it not? Ben Carson is about 200% wackier than I would have suspected, when this electoral cycle began. I mean, I knew he belonged to one of those freaky millenarian Christianist cults, but I try not to judge...(though secretly, I confess, I am judging...).,
Meanwhile (and here I'm just trolling Halford/Tigre, who hates Canadian backpackers, with their smug Swiss Army knives, and their rated-below -20F tents and vests and jackets and such), Justin Trudeau just appointed the first gender-balanced Cabinet in Canada's history:
I read Marcotte's piece, and I found it pretty off-base. There really is a strong media bias against Sanders, as noted in the OP. Not because the media love Clinton, but because the media represents the interest of the upper class, who would possibly rather have Trump than a grumpy self-identified Socialist as president. When Sanders isn't being completely ignored, we're getting articles on how he's a decrepit throw-back running a joke campaign.* The fact that, on the issues, Sanders is most representative of American opinions is pretty ignored in the attempts to paint him as one shade left of Trotsky. I don't think this has anything to do with Clinton or her campaign, but noting that, while most people watching thought Sanders and Clinton both did well, neither one objectively much better than the other, the media narrative was "CLINTON DOMINATES!!!" was pretty biased against Sanders is hardly the same as being bitter and anti-Clinton.
*Never mind that he's a multi term senator and lifelong politician.
A vote for Hillary could be a feminist one, but the fact she is a woman isn't in itself some great feminist achievement.
I hope we're not in for 4-8 years of Thatcheresque "she isn't really a woman."
I admit this is the first I'd heard that Sanders is allegedly an unrepentant sexist.
Anyway, regarding the full-on crazy, and with respect to Deace, I confess I'm puzzled as to why Iowa continues to have such outsized power in the nominating contest. Can this really be something the Republican Party writ large wants at this point? Just how much authority or power does the RNC (presumably) have over rearranging the order of caucuses and whatnot? Apparently not much. I just don't really understand why that is. Like, historically.
If you aren't watching it, this format is wildly better than a moderated debate. It's going to be good for all three candidates. But the strength of this format would vary a lot by the person conducting it, and I kind of have a crush on Rachel Maddow, so.
||
One definitely cannot drink the way one used to after losing 40%+ body mass.
|>
It was some high grade BS Tyler Cowen had defending Carson's bizarre pyramid claim as just another religious belief, how come you pick on him but not people who think they're drinking blood ever Sunday? At the extreme it's actually more disrespectful to religion to claim that any bizarre factually incorrect belief held by a religious person must be treated as acceptable because hey that's what belief is.
43:Yet one didn't btock a single word. Keep working.
42: I forgot all about it! Maddow's probably great as a moderator.
O'Malley went first, Sanders just ended, Clinton's starting now.
41: As far as I can tell the only place this claim is coming from is the Sanders supporters aggressively arguing against it. The most I've seen (and the best they seem to be able to come up with) from Clinton supporters is that one of Clinton's campaign people pointed out that something one of Sanders' campaign people said was kind of condescending*, and that Clinton had a pretty great response to one of Sanders' lines**. The more I see of it the more it seems really really defensive in a 'response to Rebecca Watson' kind of way, where the people respond aggressively enough to something really minimal that it ends up giving support to what they claim they're being accused of.
*It totally was, and it did seem a bit sexist although no more than Clinton's campaign made it seem to be, which was not very much.
**Roughly:
S:"What we need to do is bring our people together to stop the shouting, to pass sensible gun control legislation."
C:"I'm not shouting it's just that some people hear shouting whenever a woman talks about something."
(Except, to be honest, the Clinton bit had even less of a direct "calling out sexism" thing going on than that makes it sound.)
Ugh. I don't believe for even one momemt that Bernie Sanders is sexist. So tired of the back and forth on this non-issue.
I do believe that Bernie is closer to "four score years" than to thirtysomething, or twentysomething, or fortysomething, or even fifty- or sixtysomething. I'm sorry, but dude was born in 1941. Presidential aspirations? about 10 or 15 years too late. Sorry to sound age-ist, but Bernie's birth year means his campaign (outisde of Portland, Oregon, or one of those places) is just not happening.
Bernie isn't (and never has been) running to win. He's running to push Hillary to the left, and succeeding wildly. Admittedly, a lot of his most fervent supporters don't seem to realize this, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
50: He's only six years older than Clinton?
51 Oh, surely everyone understands.
It's true that he can win the nomination -- could have won the nomination, I should say -- by creating a real national mass movement. Which, if it was enough to knock HRC out of the race might just have been enough to propel him to the WH. He's got a national movement, but it's surely not big enough to win either round.
51.1: You must have different FB friends from me.
I continue to have no idea what it means to "push Hillary to the left". She can go back to being whatever she's naturally inclined to be after winning the nomination/election.
Sure, but I strongly suspect that like most politicians "whatever she's naturally inclined to be" is "a politician who is going to be reelected," and retaining the support of the people who vote for you is a key part of that.
Which is not to say that she won't disappoint a lot of those people, because she obviously will, just like Obama did.
He's only six years older than Clinton?
Older women are just youger than older men. Or so say the longevity statistics.
Anyway, whether it's going to work or not in the sense of getting meaningful policy changes after the election, I'm quite sure that "push Hillary to the left" is Bernie's motivation for running.
57: Really? No one will run against her if she's the incumbent and I have no reason to think the GOP will field palatable candidates in 2016.
Palatable candidates or not, they'll field someone, and turnout matters.
Seems like an infinitesimally thin reed.
Well, it's not just narrow electoral politics that matters. I mean, Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline today after stalling for seven years or so, and he's a lame duck. The overall political climate makes a difference in how the high-powered decision makers make their decisions, regardless of their personal opinions.
Don't get me wrong, I like Bernie a lot, and will definitely vote for him in the primary if for some reason he's still in the race on August 16th. (It's always yesterday in Alaska.) I'm just saying that it seems totally obvious to me that he's not running to win.
43: Is that the kind of attitude you had to get to 40% mass loss? Heck no! Now tie yourself to a couple of armsmen and don't come back until you're blind (drunk).
49
The problem with the "women shouting" thing Hillary did was that apparently Sanders says "stop shouting" every single time he talks about gun control, long before he started running against Hillary and regardless of whether he's addressing anyone personally. He also told O'Malley the same thing during the same debate. What irritates me is it feels like a cheap shot, when Hillary doesn't need it. She's dominating the primaries, and she has a million other reasons why she can claim she's a better candidate than Sanders. She could also probably ignore Sanders and get the same amount of vote. Instead, she's insinuating he's sexist, which is dishonest and feels unprincipled and sleazy (since I doubt she really thinks he's sexist). It's also counterproductive. She's going to win the primaries, but if she alienates a lot of Sanders supporters she's going to have a harder time in the general election.
TL:DR Hillary gains nothing by attempting to knee cap Sanders and loses quite a bit, actually, and since he's not currently a real threat AND so far not running a negative campaign it's really just gratuitous.
Sensible liberals understand that Bernie can't win. Only idiots think that Donald Trump can. That's one reason the idiots get so much traction in US politics.
Sure, an avowed socialist is a tough sell, but in my lifetime, being an unapologetic idiot was once a political liability, too.
Sanders supporters look at things the way they are, and ask, "Why?" But Trump/Carson supporters dream of things that never were, and ask "Why not?"
I guess most of us aren't as old as you.
Being an unapologetic idiot only became widely acceptable in US politics at the federal level with GWB, surely. Being unapologetically evil has a longer pedigree, but it's not the same thing.
Moby is right. Anybody my age knows that it was Reagan who introduced the idea, on a presidential level, that being openly ludicrous could be a political asset.
GW Bush was rightly understood to be the successor of Reagan rather than his own father, the one-term president who made the political mistake of being technocratically competent.
I don't have any personal experience of Harding or Coolidge, so I can't say for sure that Reagan was first. Or Wilkie. Certainly, though, Reagan was a pretty big departure from winning candidates FDR forward.
If Carson falls apart, it's not clear to me how many of his supporters go to Trump or Cruz, rather than one of the more plausible candidates. Or just drop out.
I don't think Trump would beat Clinton, but he's showing himself capable of winning the Republican nomination in this field.
67.1 Doesn't it all seem so completely trivial?
I do think Carson's support is probably going to disappear at some point, though right now from what I can see no one is especially interested in making it happen.* If/when it does happen I don't think many of his supporters are going to jump to someone other than Cruz or Trump. I'm not sure of the ratio though - I'd guess at a few more to Cruz than to Trump but not enough to make a difference in their relative standings. Some of them might go for Rubio though depending on how far "he just seems like such a nice boy" goes for them.
*I know people are attacking him and the press is starting to go after him a bit like they would a normal candidate, but so far it's all taking place in the "sure there aren't any racist Republicans" parallel universe. The second someone actually hits him from that direction** a lot of his supporters are going to start feeling oddly uncomfortable about him for some reason.
**I suspect from what I've seen of the Republican base that just asking "Dr Carson, you've talked about your lack of political work as a plus, but if a more established politician like Senator McConnell recommended doing something you disagreed with would you feel comfortable telling him, you know, 'hey I'm in charge so you do what I say!'?" would be enough to set his trajectory back a month or two.
Santorum, Huckabee, and Cruz are the rightful heirs to Carson's supporters. I'd guess the first two before the last because they've spent longer humping their bibles in public than Cruz has.
will Carson's lying about getting accepted to West Point finish him as a candidate?
It would be annoying if it did, because that is one of the least offensive things he has said. In the book he wrote in 1990 he said was offered a full scholarship to West Point and turned it down. What actually seems to have happened is that some ROTC people told him they could hook him up with an appointment to West Point if he wanted to, and he did not take them up on that offer.
So, there was an offer - not by West Point itself, but it turns out he never actually said that there was. And "full scholarship" was used because its shorthand for "the government pays for everything" which is what happens for everyone who goes to West Point, but explaining that in detail wasn't really germane to the narrative of his autobiography. Its a puffed up abbreviation of what really happened, perhaps, but written in an autobiographical context, its not actually a poor representation of how he experienced it and what it meant for him at the time. Going after him for this seems wrong to me, when there are so many other good reasons he should not be President.
Like, its way more disturbing the way he talked about how much he admired General Westmorland
What irritates me is it feels like a cheap shot, when Hillary doesn't need ... to knee cap Sanders
I think it's under dispute whether or not she was trying to knee-cap Sanders. I haven't followed the story closely, but here is how vox describes what she said:
"I've been told to stop, and, I quote, 'shouting about gun violence,'" Clinton said at the Democratic National Committee Women's Leadership Forum. "Well, first of all, I'm not shouting. It's just when women talk, some people think we're shouting."
That sounds like she was trying to score a (very legitimate) point with a constituency* and to take a bit of a shot at Sanders, but not a particularly targeted on. Maybe there's more to the story but, based on that, the response seems like a dramatic overreaction.
The Sanders campaign started preparing for battle at the suggestion that Clinton might be accusing their candidate of sexism.
"If they're going to have a campaign that attacks Bernie on gun safety and implies he engages in sexism, that's unacceptable," chief strategist Tad Devine told Politico. "If they're going to engage in this kind of attack, they need to understand we're not going to stand there and take it." Devine also told Bloomberg that Clinton's remark basically forced Sanders to "fire a shot across their bow."
In that same Bloomberg interview, Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, made some remarks about Clinton that came off as incredibly patronizing. "Look, she'd make a great vice president," Weaver said, later adding, "We'll even interview her."
* Hillary is in a situation in which she wants to be able to show that she understands and connects with the day to day prejudices that women face without (in fact) sounding like she's yelling, "sexist" at everything or portraying herself as the victim. Obviously she's going to end up on both sides of that line occasionally -- sometimes tacitly reinforcing sexist stereotypes in her attempts to appear tough and sometimes reacting in ways which seem petty. But I wouldn't think that she gains from having, "Hillary calls Sanders 'sexist' becoming the story.
78.last: I think it's simpler than that. I agree that Clinton wasn't trying to kneecap Sanders. What she was doing was signalling again something that's very important to her campaign: that she'd be the first female President.
I've seen her turn discussion in that direction at other times. She was asked by an interviewer at some point whether the electorate was really in the mood for an establishment candidate like her: she observed (disingenuously, but still) that being the first female President was hardly fit with the establishment. She's going after the Obama coalition, remember.
Was it fair game for her to use Sanders' 'shouting' remark for her own purposes? I dunno.
Clinton that came off as incredibly patronizing. "Look, she'd make a great vice president," Weaver said, later adding, "We'll even interview her."
Wait, is standard campaign trash talk considered "incredibly patronizing" if the opponent is a woman? I don't think that's reasonable. In fact, I think its patronizing to call it patronizing.
Regarding Sanders 'pushing Hillary to the left': I imagine his campaign is more an attempt to push the electorate -- the public imagination -- to the left. Not unlike what Elizabeth Warren has been trying to do.
Or what teo's 64 said.
The weirdest thing yet about weird Ben Carson is this picture of him and his bud Jesus*. (His house seems to be a shrine to Ben Carson.)
Culture of Truth has the best line so foar: "Walt Frazier conspicuously missing to make facial hair trifecta."
Agreed with 76. Carson's a nut, but the specific things he's said that people have been pointing to are nowhere near the worst of his nuttiness.
I so want one of 82 (with my face subbed in for Carson's) for my office.
His house seems to be a shrine to Ben Carson.
Insert antecedent joke here.
Why does Jesus look like he's about to rip out Carson's heart?
I'd also be up for decorating my entire home like Carson's, but unfortunately I don't have any accomplishments.
76 I don't mind people defending themselves by arguing about what the meaning of is is; they'll just have to stop pretending that they're above that sort of thing.
It's a dumb lie, but stolen valor is a real thing to a constituency, and whoever's water Politico was carrying with that has probably done enough homework to microtarget that constituency.
Like, its way more disturbing the way he talked about how much he admired General Westmorland
Yes. When reading one summary it seemed even that he specifically was more impressed with Westy than with the Medal of Honor winners.
87 - You can still put up a wall of trophies and plaques and stuff though. I mean, you can't practice medicine without a license but I'm pretty sure you can print out and frame as many "Best Doctor Ever" newspaper articles or as many "Presidential Freedom Medal In Recognition Of Amazing Victory" medals as you want. There might be some awkward questions at some point, but you can silence them by pointing out that they weren't ever awarded the "Glenn Reynolds Award of Internet Valor" or whatever and so who are they to question you.
18: I'd argue that a Democratic Party that nominates Bernie is going to exist in a country that's a lot different than the one that Goldberg and I think exists today. In that America, Bernie would do well against whichever nut the Republicans cough up.
In a world in which Sanders manages to overcome Clinton in a head-to-head contest by building a stronger coalition, like Obama did, I would agree that he stood a reasonable chance. In a world in which Clinton is forced to withdraw due to health or other issues and Sanders becomes the nominee more or less by default (by being the only candidate left with a viable campaign organization and funding), not so much. The latter is what I see as the most likely scenario by which Sanders gets the nomination next year, and I'm hoping that scenario doesn't happen.
91 If Clinton has to drop out, Biden gets in. And takes over her operation and support from the establishment.
||
OT - can anyone recommend a good intro to macro Econ for a lay reader. My in/laws are probably Harper supporters. I don't think that my father in-law ever heard of aggregate demand or why deficit financing is good during a recession.
|>
Harper supporters are beyond the reach of education.
There has to be a basic intro somewhere.
I never read it, and never will, but The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 probably covers that ground.
I don't have anything against Krugman. I'm just done learning new things.
I'd think the hard part would be getting whatever book you picked out read, not picking out the right book.
There's a Very Short Introduction to Economics that probably covers some of that.
99: He, unlike she, has started reading the occasional New Republic article and seems amenable to learning new things.
100: Who wrote that? It sounds like it might be what I'm looking for.
The VSI series is generally pretty solid and farmed out to various authorities on the topic at hand. I don't know who wrote that one specifically, but it's probably good.
"How To Speak Money" by John Lanchester might be what you're looking for.
Billy Idol's "How to Speak to Mony" is good, except that everybody thinks you need to shout, "Hey everybody get fucked, get paid."
You know what, I read a good book about this stuff a few years ago. Explicitly written to explain econ (macro in particular) to a layman. It's called Naked Economics.
Also dsquared's book, while not a general intro to econ (it's more about business), is very good at what it does.
Why does Jesus look like he's about to rip out Carson's heart?
"Yes we Kali Ma"
92: If Clinton has to drop out, Biden gets in. And takes over her operation and support from the establishment.
Sort of like Humphrey in '68? Except that conditions have changed a lot since then. Humphrey was able to pick up a bunch of delegates in states where it was too late for him to file for the primary by taking advantage of "Favorite Son" candidates as proxies. Biden couldn't do the same unless O'Malley was willing to play that role. And as we saw in '08, with proportional representation, it's a lot harder to catch up to a candidate with a significant delegate lead, because your opponent will be gaining delegates even in states you win. Clinton could win big states like Texas and Ohio by something like 55-45 margins without putting much of a dent in Obama's lead - she needed to be winning those states by something like a 2:1 margin or more in order to have a decent chance to catch up.
More details on the '08 primary race here. Going into March 4th, Obama had around a 100+ delegate lead. Clinton wins Ohio 53%-45%, goes +7 in delegates (74-67). Wins the Texas primary 51%-47%, goes +4 in the delegates directly allocated by the primary (65-61), which Obama later tops by going +9 (38-29) in the Texas delegates allocated by conventions. Clinton also goes +5 in Rhode Island (13-8) by winning 58%-40%; Obama picks up +3 in Vermont (9-6) by winning 59%-39%. Net result from those four states, on a really big day for Clinton: +4 delegates, while both candidates are that much closer to the finish line.