TPM
~70% in
Clinton ~52
Sanders ~47
Buttercup called it well in the other thread.
It seems like it's going about like expected: Clinton wins but not a decisive crazy win. I don't think she'll pick up enough delegates to be ahead in the race, but she'll narrow the gap a little and it's already a ridiculously small one so they're basically still tied.
It's probably going to sting a little for her campaign because (much)earlier polls said she was set to do a lot better there. And if there's that small a difference I'm guessing that, given how their demographics have looked up till this point, Sanders did well enough among the Latino vote that the "Sanders only did well before because only white people were voting" story her campaign was selling is in a lot of trouble.
4: surely she is still massively ahead in delegates? Like, 300 or so? nowhere near tied anyway.
Nope - the AP is helpfully (for Clinton) reporting it that way but that's because all but about seventy delegates are so-called "Superdelegates". And that means party officials who can show up at the convention and vote however they want saying (at the moment) that they'll vote for Clinton. The count of delegates whose votes have actually been assigned has them both in the thirties or so, I think with Sanders up by about four.
(The super-delegates are basically meaningless when counting them right now since they could change at literally any time - they did just that in 2008 when Obama started to win. It's no different than getting a public endorsement, except at the convention they count as delegates too.)
Ah, I see - do they normally just all vote for the winner then or what?
I feel like Sanders really needed to win tonight. The calendar is so stacked against him now. Could have helped him in South Carolina. Now there's a greater isk of a blowout.
I was really hoping that Bernie was going to win Nevada, because he'll lose South Carolina- especially now that Clyburn endorsed Clinton.
I'm also worried that Kasich might do well and wind up as the establishment's answer to Trump. He has Federal experience and executive experience, and he just looks so much more normal to low-information voters.
They were put there in order to correct the winner of the pledged delegates if people were voting for the wrong one pretty recently actually (maybe..six presidents ago or so). I mean that this really was their stated aim, not like I'm being cynical.
But ever since then, yeah, they've avoided changing the election results even when they could so they mostly amount to a reason to have people with power in the party get invited to the convention and it lets them feel like power players not just people on vacation. I doubt they'll change that for this election, if for no other reason than in an election where it's already looking like a fight in the base between more establishment and more left wing factions having the powerful establishment people jump in to change the results would be basically the apocalypse as far as anyone in the party getting elected.
You can't exactly translate selections of county convention delegates into a number of national convention delegates, and I don't think anyone chosen in Nevada today is actually committed to either of the candidates.
8
Yes, generally. Though usually by the time it gets to the convention all but the winner have dropped out. They could theoretically give the nomination to a candidate who got a narrow minority of the vote, but that would be so toxic to party morale that they probably wouldn't.
3
I'm still a little shocked how on the nose my prediction was.
Interestingly, according to entrance polls, Bernie did best with Latino voters, won a narrow majority of white voters, and is still losing badly with black voters. Clinton won women by a large amount, and both of them have kept their age demographics.
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/nv/Dem
I think this is better for Bernie than for Hillary. He is coming off as seeming increasingly viable.
For our friends in the UK, here's the Nevada process explained:http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NV-D
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NV-D
The size of Sanders' advantage in the Latino vote is surprising to me - I was hoping he'd pull close enough to even that lazy pundits would stop going on about how only white people vote for Sanders, but I didn't expect him to be that far ahead. (I mean, yes it's something like eight percent but still..)
I've never been fully clear about why Clinton has such strong African American support, personally, but it looks like that's going to be a feature of this race. My hope is that that will start to shift a bit if the press abandons the "Sanders isn't a real candidate" and "Sanders is only supported by white people" storylines, but who knows. I doubt it would change fast enough to make South Carolina anything other than New Hampshire but for Clinton.
14
Right. It's being spun as good news for Hillary, but it's pretty bad news, considering how far she was up in NV just a few weeks ago. Also, if the entrance polls hold, Bernie beat her very convincingly among Latinos, which makes it harder to argue he only appeals to white people.
I'm also surprised at how few people it is. It looks to be like the total # of caucus goers is going to be around 12,000. It's crazy that such a tiny number of people decide something this meaningful.
Also, Clinton wins Vegas and Bernie wins Reno.
I don't know if he "convincingly" beat Hillary among Latinos - Sanders was +8 in that subset of the entrance poll, but looking at the sample size, it appears the margin of error would have been around 7. And the caucus and work-timing oddities make it all hard to measure. But there certainly seems to be no anti-Sanders firewill among Hispanics, at least.
Nevermind to 18.2. It appears the numbers are county convention delegates. So...12,000ish county delegates total?
Fivethirtyeight was saying that the precinct level results make it look unlikely that Sanders won Latino voters by the margins reported on the entrance polls, so it will be interesting to see exit polls when they come out.
Looked it up on 538 - Obama picked up a lot of undeclared superdelegates and a few that switched to him. And he did it in February - Sanders needs to get cracking.
Clinton had a headwind, but didn't start out the everyone-must-stand-behind-Clinton-no-one-run-against-her candidate in 2008. An awful lot of those superdelegates went to Clinton before the race even started this time, and there's a reason no one with a serious career in the Democratic party was willing to run against her. It's a reflection of who the political establishment likes more that's all, and they were more divided at the time.
If the numbers continue as they are in the upcoming states, with under 25s 80% Sanders, and under 40s 70% Sanders, I could see some superdelegates switching to Sanders with an eye toward 2018 and 2020.
Also, Clinton is gonna lose in November, against anybody, and people need to disassociate from this catastrophe.
I understand that the people backing Clinton over Sanders will take zero responsibility for the November loss, blaming the kids who stayed home rather than the olds who need to give them hope and reasons.
One of the most striking features of the Democratic party primary is that it looked like what you get when the incumbent is running for re-election. One candidate coming in with all kinds of endorsements, delegate pledges, etc. and running against a few marginal people - in this case an ex-Republican that no one knew about, a conservative kind-of-a-Republican Democrat who had been a senator for one term that ended a couple years before, and a member of an affiliated party who caucused with the Democrats. The fact that it's a genuine race at all is kind of a testament to how disinterested a lot of people are in the idea of having Clinton as president (as well as a much more progressive generation starting to exert power).
23: The primaries started in January in 2008, so Sanders isn't completely behind yet.
A repeat of the 1972 takeover after 1968 is probably structurally impossible.
But if Lemieux and Carp and RTigre give us Trump and 3 more Alitos, I swear I will not be in a party that still gives them a voice.
The kids will form a new party, and I will follow them.
Funny, everybody saying Repubs are dead dead dead...and it might be the Democratic Party that dies in November. Cause this is what a party about to die looks like, an insurgency of the young and lower incomes defeated by the entrenched and privileged elite.
The AP just called SC for Trump which is hilarious given that, as far as I can tell, about 11 precincts have reported in.
28 Sanders is going to endorse Clinton and campaign for her. You should add him to the list in 28.2.
Could Bernie convince enough Latino voters in Texas to have him win there? If he could build on what he's done so far...
Damn! They've already called it for Trump with 2% of the vote (maybe sooner, I didn't check then).
I really really hope Bush doesn't drop out tonight.
I suspect he'd try to push on at least for a little, if only to avoid the humiliation of looking like he dropped out because other people told him he had to. And doing it because of a combination of being stabbed in the back by his former protege, and smeared by Donald Trump is already going to sting for him.
What's Carson's deal? He doesn't seem to be rational enough to make rational decisions based on his actual chances. How long do you think he'll stay in the race?
Good! Let's hope this is the critical step towards "surprisingly strong, clear from early onwon't get more than about 40% of the vote anywhere real, clear loss in time not to actually damage Hillary Sanders campaign" which is a really great and probably about the best possible Democratic primary 2016 result imaginable.
I have no idea, really. I suspect that this was, in his mind, the last straw though - he'd been getting "time to go Carson" questions a lot, and was talking up his support in South Carolina and saying he thought it would surprise people. But who knows, really. It's not clear that he's actually in charge of his own campaign, or in contact with reality as the rest of us know it. His campaign has been in the con-game stage for a while, but after this showing his ability to pull in anymore cash or expand his contact lists is going to drop way, way down so the rats are probably already departing the ship.
He's sort of like Bush in that I don't really see any reason for him to stay in the race except for spite, only with Carson it's not even clear how successfully he's hurting Cruz at this point.
Also with 1/4 of the votes counted now it's looking like Trump's support is spread relatively evenly across the state so unless something significant changes he's probably going to come out with all of South Carolina's delegates. That will make comparing delegate counts between the republicans absolutely hilarious though, I guess, their current setup was supposed to result in exactly that (only with someone who wasn't, well, Trump).
If you like your schadenfreude served warm:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/422169/nr-tweets-GOP-townhall
I wonder what the whole Republican fake-intellectual commentator ecosystem is going to do if Trump really does win the nomination. It's as direct a refutation of the idea that conservativism in America is anything more than a bunch of white supremacists, authoritarians, and people who aren't paying enough attention to realize what they're voting for as you could possibly hope for.
I figure it's either going to be some mixture of even more denial and wild conspiracy theories, but it's hard to know in what proportions.
Super Tuesday should be very interesting.
Carson is in the race to sell books, right? So no reason for him to ever drop out really.
Cosign 36, if only because my mom really wants Clinton to win and I'd like to vote Sanders in the primary with an easy conscience.
Looks like Rubes won a couple districts even though he's slightly behind Cruz (who hasn't won any yet) in raw vote. Which means the press winner will definitely be Rubio- he only lost 48-2!
So, it seems Bush is out. Too bad.
I'm seeing people saying that Jeb! has suspended his campaign, which is a pity. Kasich on the other hand is declaring victory.
In some ways I think Jeb! might be hurting the Republican party establishment by dropping out right now. Up until this point he was the main focus of Trump's attention, but now that he's gone Trump's route to victory goes straight through Rubio. And Rubio is pretty clearly vulnerable when it comes to bullying, possibly even more than Jeb! was.
He's not vulnerable! Obama is the real bully. We need to recognize that Obama is the real bully and Rubio isn't vulnerable. We can't worry about Rubio being bullied when Obama is the real bully bullying our country.
There's a lot of speculation that Carson remains in the race because his advisors are milking the campaign for money, and he's flattered and oblivious.
Not saying. Darst as dark as you we seawater ! Kondevot vendevliorle were interesting licentiousness. Fried evergreens.
Bondjveloyhafriot Rotarian brubracioounesforcesasct Sanders
Rubio's up to three delegates and in second for votes. I don't know why Trump hasn't conceded yet.
IM not inn the tetilioyt theology freibdiestuicot greater trio toot f
47
That is making me way more upset than I have any right to be. I was still secretly hoping for Jeb! as the dark (seawater dark?) horse at the convention.
53 - Is that for sure yet? I'm watching the SC map fill in at the LATimes website and he's got a lead in two counties but neither one looks that big. It depends where the borders on the districts go, so he could be winning one. But if so it would be more of a stroke of luck based on where the lines are drawn than anything else.
Autocorrect is fighting a valiant but doomed struggle.
On the 47th ballot, there will a cry from the floor: "Where is the man that can save this Party?"
Bush is in a very good position.
I guess I'm kidding, but I can't see any of the rest of these knaves and clowns taking the oath. Bush kinda looks like a President.
Doesn't mean one of the clowns won't beat HRC.
And I don't take my marching orders from Sanders.
53- oops, two counties because I don't know anything about SC. Charlestown county looks like two. He's slightly ahead there, easily winning Richmond. So probably two.
Cosine 51, 52. Sine's not even!
Dammit Richland. The only thing I've ever done in SC is drive through it, with a stop at the racist welcomeplex when you cross from NC. I guess I might have also changed planes in Charleston ~30 years ago.
Yeah, its too bad about Jeb! He'd be a terrible President, but better than the rest of them.
No wait that was Charlotte. Now I don't feel as dirty.
Rubio might win the 1st dist. I don't see how he wins any of the districts that include the Columbia area.
http://www.scdot.org/inside/images/CogDist.gif
Right the graphic now the front page of WaPo has called South Carolina for Rubio. I think someone over there is drunk.
63 - It's districts that divide up the "proportionally assigned" delegates though, not counties. There are seven districts, so it's 3 delegates per district (winner takes all) for 21 delegates, and then 29 delegates to whoever wins the statewide vote.
It's hard to tell how it's working out because the counties and districts don't align perfectly. From what I can see of Rubio's margin of victory in Charleston and Richland I'm not sure he picked up enough voters to beat out Trump's numbers for the rest of the two districts involved.
69: Whoa, that is super weird. The numbers don't match up to what other sites are showing in any of the counties either. Did they import data from some other election?
69/71
They also had Nevada as Clinton/Sanders 47/43, which is not what anyone else is saying either.
Why does Nevada only have 88% of the vote counted while SC is at 99%? Why is it taking them so long to count 12% of the vote? My main takeaway from the primary so far is that caucuses suck and all states should switch to primaries.
72.2 -- This might be the at large caucus precincts, set up so that people working in the casinos can vote, without having to take the day off. I'm not sure, but they have something like that.
Which might be a good test for Sen. Sanders draw from Latino voters.
Or maybe there's something else going on entirely.
Apparently what I'm learning from the NR guys on twitter is that what really matters is that the number of people not voting for Trump in South Carolina was bigger than the number of people voting for him. So in a way he actually lost, and only has his huge delegate advantage to console him.
http://action.nvdems.com/page/s/atlarge They voted hours ago, though, so it probably isn't this.
Also he only had a 10% margin of victory when polling earlier that week had said he had a 13%. Why, it's practically a loss at that point.
What is the chaos here?
TPM is giving 89% in
Trump 33, Rubio and Cruz 22, Bush and Carson 8 approx
It's has trended that way for hours.
So bob, do you still think that we're gonna see Jeb handed the nomination by the RNC or are they gonna go for Marco?
Also, the front page of the NRO is really funny right now. It's the newspaper equivalent of plugging one's ears and shouting LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU RIGHT NOW LALALA
http://www.nationalreview.com/
Oh, man. The NRO front page really is great right now. They even seem to have decided that thy want to hedge their bets on Rubio in Republican primary with less than completely hateful coverage of Hillary.
I have to say, Yglesias's take on Rubio makes me sad that things may be coming down to Trump v Rubio.
... Marco Rubio, who's offering a platform of economic ruin, multiple wars, and an attack on civil liberties that's nearly as vicious as anything Trump has proposed -- even while wrapping it in an edgy, anxious, overreaction-prone approach to politics that heavily features big risky bets and huge, unpredictable changes in direction.
That article makes me think that carefully parsing the policy proposals of the current Republican hopefuls is an elaborate exercise in missing the point. They're all just desperately trying to figure out how to outflank each other in appealing to the emotions of angry white people, except for Trump, who knows exactly how to appeal to those emotions without seeming desperate at all.
The policy analysis was not the part of that article that was most damning.
Fair enough. I still think he devoted more effort to it than it was worth, though.
Does anyone think that Jeb really wanted to be president? I'll bet a lot of it was due to family expectations and that this comes as an enormous relief to him.
Jeb's campaign, if you include Super PAC numbers, seems to have spent more money than any other campaign.
I was surprised to learn from that article that Clinton and Sanders + supporters have each outspent the top GOP candidates + supporters. The numbers for spending by just the campaigns may be different. That article doesn't do a good job of keeping the pools of money separate. If you're including Super PAC money in your spending counts, it's not that meaningful to talk about Clinton donors being maxed out on campaign contributions. They're clearly spending and going to spend on things beyond just campaign donations.
88: The Onion has been doing an amazing job so far this election.
It's weird that I've now seen multiple people declaring that the victory by a comfortable margin in SC is somehow terrible news for Trump. Because his margin wasn't as big as projected being the reason given.
Pundits really are desperate for him to go away.
91: I think there's a certain amount of pundit pot-stirring just to have something to say.
Looks like Nikki Haley single-highhandedly saved Rubio's candidacy.
I wonder if she'll run against Hillary in 2020?
Looks like Dolores Huerta gets to join John Lewis and Gloria Steinem. The amount of this kind of crap coming out of major Clinton supporters/surrogates is really disheartening, and I'm not sure why Clinton thinks it's a good strategy. Aggressive negative campaigning works better when you aren't actually hoping to get the votes of the exact people you're attacking a couple months down the line.
94: Hilary Clinton does not yet possess mind-control, even over her major supporters.
I agree that it would be a dumb idea for Sec. Clinton to have hatched a strategy before hand to have a surrogate make a bogus claim that Sanders supporters were acting badly. I kind of doubt that's what happened.
In this specific case at this level of detail, probably not. But it's been enough of a pattern to notice it, and it's absolutely supposed to reinforce the exact narratives that she's been selling for a long time now about Sanders supporters.
If you want to look for supporters saying stupid shit, you can find it everywhere. ISTM that it only matters when they're echoing the candidate -- I'm willing to draw an inference about Trump based on his supporters' stupidities, but not one about Sanders.
Yeah, but that Huerta stuff is just trying to reinforce the stuff that she, and the campaign, have been saying about Sanders and Sanders supporters. That's kind of the point there. And also the point in putting her next to Steinem who was doing basically the same thing. And the continuing "Sanders is only for white people" lines coming from her campaign. And she was actually working for the Clinton campaign at the time, so it's not like this is just some random person saying nonsense of twitter.
94:
Vox is reporting on this as though it's real news. Doing this kind of reporting without properly following up or issuing a correction is "how-would-you-feel-if-you-found-out-McCain-fathered-an-illegitimate-black-child" level shit.
Doing this kind of reporting without properly following up or issuing a correction . . .
Clicking through it includes the tweets from people challenging the story. (It says, "Update: Added accounts from other people at the event." at the bottom).
I agree with Walt/Charley, I think that it's unlikely that this was coordinated. Frankly, I think it's unlikely that she just made it up, and if I had to guess I'd think that she heard somebody shout something which she heard as, "English Only" and got pissed.
And also the point in putting her next to Steinem who was doing basically the same thing.
Wait, which is the Steinem incident that you're referring to?
The story has been updated.
MHPH is right that it would behoove HRC to get her supporters to tone this shit down. Quietly -- she certainly doesn't want a news cycle where this is the conversation.
From the article:
And, especially if the reports of "English only" chants are true, it could damage its outreach to Latino voters.
If the reports are true? The story, tweets, and the video provide exactly no evidence of anybody chanting English only. Why on earth is it worth bothering speculating about what it means if they are true? That's why I said it's reminiscent of the Bush campaign calling people in South Carolina and asking "if John McCain had an illegitimate black child, would it change your opinion of him?"
Apparently, there was a demand for "English Only" while Huerta was speaking on behalf of Clinton, and the only issue is whether that came from Sanders supporters or the caucus moderator. Not a big deal either way, except as further evidence that caucuses are stupid.
Winning Clark County by a lot, OTOH, is actually a big deal.
95. You don't have to explicitly tell your supporters to do what they do, they just have to be the kind of supporters who will do what "needs" to be done. "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome socialist?"
100. Of course they are. Vox is too cool to actually do research. The headline is also a lie.
101. ... and immediately jumped to the conclusion that the moderator was a Sanders supporter and that the moderator was plural? O RLY?
I just lurv the Clinton adminstration already!
So, we go from "confused accounts* about what exactly Sanders supporters were chanting to shout down Dolores Huerta when a caucus moderator said 'English Only'"** to "Clinton is masterminding without quite saying it a smear campaign just like 'John McCain had a secret black baby.'" And people wonder why people like me think that a lot of Sanders support is driven by irrational/conspiratorial Hillary/establishment hatred generated by years of Republican propaganda and baseline sexism.
*your first-hand account reporters are, apparently, on one side Susan Sarandon, on the other "Ugly Betty" from the Ugly Betty TV show and Huerta herself.
**from the video, who can tell who's chanting what, and it's a safe assumption things were just as confused at the event. God damn are caucuses stupid.
I wonder if this worst sore throat of my life is actually strep. That would be exciting.
"The infection is generally transmitted by direct contact with the mucus or sores of someone else with strep."
I suppose that makes it pretty unlikely.
Corpse sex isn't safe sex, Nosflow. The strep can linger even in the morgue.
107
I agree that this event is stupid and caucuses are stupid and fucked up,* but I'm not sure where you're getting "only Sarandon" tweeting against this, unless non celebrities don't count as people or something. I see at least three other first hand witnesses tweeting disputing Huerta's claim.
But anyways, this is the sort of annoying non scandal that just manages to piss everyone off. I don't think it's Hillary's fault, or really a big deal, but Hillary and more importantly the Democratic party needs the youth vote, and consistently insulting Bernie supporters isn't the way to the D. party to build up a future loyal constituency.
*I haven't paid much attention to the structure before, but now it's annoying me. Counting heads in a gym? Registering people who then have to sit around for several hours to vote, and if they leave early their vote doesn't count? The numerous reports for both caucuses of things going wrong? Why is this still a vote choosing process in a 21st century Democracy?
You aren't living in a 21st century democracy. You're living in an 18th century constitutional monarchical colony that was demonarchised by force (but otherwise left largely unchanged, then and since) by a small committee of oligarchs who thought that you didnt have to take anyone seriously unless they were wearing a horsehair wig.
It's not like over here is any better, mind.
Hush, ajay, Buttercup has the wig now.
Really pretty cool: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/second-thought-maybe-bernie-sanders-growth-claims-arent-crazy-i-thought
112 is basically right, but the caucus is an august tradition that goes all the way back to ... 1972. Or in the case of Nevada, all the way back to 2008.
112 is basically right, but the caucus is an august tradition that goes all the way back to ... 1972. Or in the case of Nevada, all the way back to 2008.
What, the caucus isn't derived from some Icelandic Entmoot or whatever?
108: I had the same thought a couple of weeks ago when I got this year's winter cold. It wasn't, but I spent the next six days without much of a voice, so you'll have that to look forward to.
God, if only. With a trial by combat option and mandatory recitation of sagas by bards, caucuses would be infinitely better.
Doug Henwood on the dangers of running Hillary against Trump.
94: The amount of this kind of crap coming out of major Clinton supporters/surrogates is really disheartening
It's not a great idea to suppose that various kinds of crap come only from Clinton surrogates/supporters.
Did someone wonder earlier about the impetus behind Clinton's popularity among African Americans? Here's one take: Cornel West, a Sanders supporter, isn't really that great an asset to him. Nor is one Killer Mike. I admit I was unfamiliar with all of this myself.
121: Apart from the Goldman Sachs comment, what part of that argument applies to Clinton and not Sanders?
117 is really quite surprising. I had assumed it was hallowed by tradition. Otherwise why on earth do it?
Henwood is a great man, but completely crazy on the subject of Hillary.
124 -- who the hell knows. The whole primary/caucus system isn't obviously good or necessary for capital-D Democracy. It's not clear why you need broad-based popular party elections at all to pick candidates, let alone "caucuses" which are bizarro town meetings of local shouty activists counting "votes." It's never going to happen now, but I'd personally be 100% fine with abandoning both primaries and caucuses and letting old school party conventions pick candidates. It's not at all clear to me that the pre-68 system produced worse candidates, at all. And 2016 (especially on the R side) shows the danger of primaries gone wild. Primaries and caucuses increasingly look like another goo-goo reform of dubious value along with all the others that mess up the landscape in the US.
I mean the real answer to 124 is that Chicago 1968 scared everyone shitless. But the post-1972 primary system seems to me to have worked best when picking candidates whom smoke-filled rooms of party bosses might have picked anyway (Gore, Bill Clinton, George HW Bush) and been pretty terrible when it's come to allowing insurgent candidates, even when they won (Carter in '76, Reagan in '80, McGovern). The only candidate for either party I can think of who both (a) obviously couldn't have been a viable candidate absent a post-1968 primary/caucus system and (b) was probably better than the person party bosses would have picked in a smoke-filled room anyway is Obama in 2008.
You don't reckon a room of smoke filled party bosses would have picked Obama? they picked him to deliver that speech in 2004, remember...
You have any doubt they would have picked Clinton in '08 without Obama winning a bunch of primaries?
Discussion moves to re-post something I commented on here in 2008. A Dem boss angrily telling at Frank Mankiwiecz on the night of the Ohio primary:
This is your boss's McGovern -JPS] fault--he should have known--you start electing delegates and you get this kind of thing.
Related by HST.
More thoughts: To get nominated in the older system the key was being familiar to and liked by/acceptable to a broad swath of elected officials and party insiders, union bosses, etc. The newer post-72 system requires having enough money and name recognition and appeal to the party "base" to wage a long and expensive campaign for the nomination. It's not at all clear to me that the latter is better than the former. The former builds ground for both horse-trading and the effectiveness of the party as an institution that are (or can be) important for getting things done while in office. The latter, when it works right, creates non-controversial party conventions and an imprimatur of legitimacy on the candidate, but at the expense of the party as an institutional body. The primary/caucus system also creates the opportunity for super-individualistic candidates like Trump or Sanders (that's one thing they really do have in common) who both aren't tied in to party structures and are unusually weak (or risky) general election candidates.
How do caucuses handle early or absentee voting ?
but Hillary and more importantly the Democratic party needs the youth vote, and consistently insulting Bernie supporters
the corporatist, sell-out, pro-establishment, imagination-less, status-quo-loving, Wall St-captured, DINOs really do need to quit it with the name calling.
and are unusually weak (or risky) general election candidates.
Weaker than Al Smith, Landon, Stevenson, Goldwater?
Not buying it, at least on those grounds. Strong party systems may have been better for local politics, but that is arguable.
With the exception of 1972, Presidential elections have been much closer than they were pre-1968, which suggests that they are better at picking competitive candidates. (And I've heard the claim that McGovern had a big advantage in 1972 because his campaign was the first to understand the new system.)
Plus Bush II could have gotten the nomination under the old system, and he was possibly the worst President in American history.
134: They don't. You have to be present to vote.
I'm kind of hoping the Democratic contest is effectively sorted out in early March so I don't have to decide whether to attend the Alaska caucus on March 26. This is the first time I've lived in a caucus state and I don't like it.
Prior to the reforms there were still primaries and the results of the primaries still mattered to party elites. So it was still possible to look at candidate results in electoral contests.
If Obama had had to fight Clinton under different rules, he'd have run a different campaign - entirely possibly people would be saying "a black candidate would never win a primary system, voters are too risk averse". (There is some evidence for this.)
137: 1984 wasn't particularly close either. In fact of the 10 closest elections, 8 were before 1972; same for the 10 most decisive victories.
108: Sympathies. I have been dealing with a nasty sore throat this week as well - it reminds me of my childhood strep. For me the symptoms are greatly relieved by a couple acetaminophen in the morning and evening (I wake up with it bad).
I am not a role model for how to take care of aging parents, Trivers. I tried to do too much. but your parents are unlikely to be as difficult as mine.
124. New England Town Meetings writ large! The conquest of the lesser political theories by a bunch of shivering Pilgrims and Puritans washed ashore because they couldn't find Virginia!
140. Didn't primaries only start happening around the late 40s or early 50s? Truman didn't run for a third (1 1/2th?) term because of primaries in 1952. It's not exactly the oldest tradition in the book.
We had a caucus here in 1984 and 1988. It was fun.
We had to have a primary too, of course, for all the other offices up for election.
I am amused by 135.
I think the Democratic primary has been, with trivial exceptions, conducted on a very high level. Politics ain't beanbag, but the Democratic primary pretty much has been.
140 - yeah. And of course "beauty pageant" primaries aren't very stable, in the long run it just looks bad to have unelected insiders overrule popular votes, so I dunno if that system could ever have been particularly long lived.
The newer post-72 system requires having enough money and name recognition and appeal to the party "base" to wage a long and expensive campaign for the nomination.
Yeah, the American electoral perma-campaign is grotesquely expensive.
Not that I have a better system to propose, but the money spent just on selecting a candidate for a bigger, and even more expensive contest, is really quite mind-boggling.
Amusingly it seems California had a presidential primary early enough to be meaningful exactly once, in 2008; it then got pushed back to the previous June date to save money.
Parroting myself from Twitter, but if there's a big electoral reform amendment, something both good in its own right and likely to make the whole package more popular would be to limit election seasons to two months.
My kids find the non-rhotic "Potter" from the Harry Potter movies extra-hilarious. They keep calling each other "Mr. Potter" in an exaggerated accent.
Speaking of (non-)rhotacism, this (via helpy-chalk at The Other Place) is a really good explanation of Bernie Sanders's accent.
Wow, lead NYT politics story today is about how Sanders has no chance because Hillary already leads by hundreds of delegates, waiting until the 10th paragraph to mention that pledged delegate numbers are tied.
Walt's kids sound really easily amused.
I suspect the other knitters here will be with me in approving of Estonian meetups!
Talinn meetup at the hostel that shares a building with a strip club. Or at least did, 15 years ago.
This will actually be a Finnish meetup. We meet in Tallinn and then take the ekranoplan to Helsinki. That's the point.
I like the idea of using ekranplans for faster ferry service. Maybe that could be applied to places like Catalina.
Re: the primaries, has there been a #slatepitchier #slatepitch recently than this?
We would meet up first and celebrate the singing revolution with lacework and whatnot and then join you for the trip to Helsinki. You really need to make an event of it.
163 That's a strong finish.
Been thinking of taking a trip to Finland with Chani for the Midnight Sun Film Festival in Sodankylä.
It seems to me that general party-members-decide or caucus based (which is similar except it includes really, really enthusiastic people as well) are fine if you have more than two parties in your system, or maybe even better than primaries for 133 type reasons. The problem is that we don't have a system which works well with more than two parties - or at least we have two parties right now and any change to that is basically a total loss of political power nationally for the party that does split. In that case people only get to choose between two people in the general election, and usually on compromise based grounds. And in a lot of places the only place people get an actual (meaning anything) vote at all is in the primary contests: once it gets to the general election the winner will be whoever ended up the candidate for whichever party the state/district/county/whatever always picks. If you take that away then the actual power to pick candidates is so minimal that it's hard to see why anyone would bother voting in the first place.
As far as Huerta goes what happened in the video at least seems to be (1) the moderator didn't have a neutral translator (in what I think is actually a violation of the rules), and somehow just said "whoever makes it up here first can do that"; (2) Huerta got up there first; (3) a big chunk of the crowd was not cool with having the person literally there to push people to the Clinton camp explaining to people who didn't speak English how to vote, what they had to stick around for, etc. and started yelling "No!" and "Neutral!"; (4) Sanders supporters tried to put one of their own people up there to translate as well; and (5) the moderator got overwhelmed by the entire thing and just said "Ok then, English only and if someone doesn't understand then someone next to them translate" (people weren't thrilled with that plan either but it's what happened.) My best guess is that Huerta was pissed about this (possibly because it sucks to have people yelling back at you, probably because she thought she was entitled to more respectful treatment), interpreted it as "they didn't respect me, so they didn't respect Latino people that I fought for, and the result was English only which sucks!" and fitted it right into the 'Sanders supporters are awful abusive white bigots' framing and reported it that way. It's still dishonest but it's not weird dishonest.
As far as 135 goes I think you're missing the distinction between attacking the candidate (who damn well is those things, and who got the establishment support because she is those things), and attacking the voters who want to support that candidate. If the Sanders campaign's spokespeople and unofficial (but open) surrogates were out there talking about how people only want to vote for Clinton because they're corporatist sell-out Wall Street captured jerks that would be the parallel.
Attacking Sanders is one thing, though the extent to which (and the earliness with which) the Clinton campaign has been sliding openly dishonest shit out there is still frustrating and, it seems to me to be a poor strategy. Attacking Sanders supporters is a different sort of thing, and something that really does seem to be a bad idea. If you're trying to sell yourself on the grounds that people should vote for you because otherwise you'd be voting like those people you really shouldn't be picking people you want to vote for you a few months later, because they'll probably remember that and be way less excited about the prospect of doing it.
"Hi, you must be Chani. We are Mr Freed's entourage. Allow me to introduce us. My name is ajay, and I am Mr Freed's austringer and sangoma. This is Thorn, his embroiderer; LB, his shieldbearer; Heebie and the Geeblets, his backing singers; Minivet, his stable lad; Smearcase, his sous-chef; Cosma, his court philosopher; and fake accent, his harbinger. And this is Jaakko, who flies the ekranoplan."
"The Feyadkin are waiting in the grotto."
If the Sanders campaign's spokespeople and unofficial (but open) surrogates were out there talking about how people only want to vote for Clinton because they're corporatist sell-out Wall Street captured jerks that would be the parallel.
i suspect that this argument would come down to the meaning of "unofficial (but open)". because it's trivially easy to find Sanders supporters who say all of those things - from pundits to blog commenters.
An austringer would come in handy. And a good sangoma is hard to find in these parts.
To the OP, I'm surprised we've had no postmortem analysis on the Nevada results. It seemed that Sanders really had a shot before and now the general (MSM?) consensus seems to be that it's all over for him. What gives? He didn't actually lose by much and did a lot better than expectations of a couple of months ago. I was beginning to think he had an actual shot. Anyone want to make the case that he still does? How disappointing.
It's depressing to think that this will be the future of all politics in the world of social media, but you can certainly find examples of Sanders people insulting Clinton supporters qua Clinton supporters online with minimal effort. For example today my FB feed was full of younger gay men going full-bore against a middle aged gay dude for being strongly pro-Hillary, and yes the word sellout was mentioned. It's definitely a mistake to judge any campaign by its most vocal and worst supporters but it's so psychologically hard not to. For whatever reason I also see way more dumb anti-Hillary stuff than dumb (or for that matter smart) anti-Sanders stuff, and my impression is that team my FB feed for Sanders is much more into going negative on Hillary than positive on Sanders, wheread the reverse is true from the other side. But who knows how representative my Zuckerberg-curated slice of the public sphere is, and lord help us that this kind of social media bullshit is politically meaningful.
I think he still does. If he can start to make inroads with black voters he still has a shot. I was pretty disappointed that he didn't beat his polling in Nevada. Obama lost Nevada by more to HRC. The MSM is always going to be looking for excuses to pronounce him dead, but if his supporters don't buy in he can do well in a lot of states. I think the lack of support in the black community is tough to overcome though.
Nate Silver @NateSilver538 27m27 minutes ago
Perspectives:
-- Media thinks NV, SC were game changers for Clinton, Trump.
-- Betting markets showed little change in nomination odds.
64 retweets 70 likes
The Internet has convinced me that supporters of both candidates are morons. Fuck it, I'm voting for Martin O'Malley. His campaign slogan should be "Vote for me. I have no supporters to annoy you with."
The thing I'm learning most from all this is how diverse people's facebook feeds are, I think.
I had a very small Finnish meetup in Helsinki once! A Finn and I watched a woman do acrobatic things from a rope while a trombonist played, then wandered around mostly not talking to each other.
Attacking Sanders is one thing, though the extent to which (and the earliness with which) the Clinton campaign has been sliding openly dishonest shit out there is still frustrating and, it seems to me to be a poor strategy
i suspect that this argument would come down to the meaning of "unofficial (but open)". because it's trivially easy to find Sanders supporters who say all of those things - from pundits to blog commenters.
I agree with cleek. I'd also add that, as far as I can tell (which isn't very far), both campaigns are being fairly respectful of each other. There are also a lot of cranky supporters on both sides, and I have no idea how much the campaigns are stirring that up, but I believe both candidates are telling the truth when they say that they say nice things about their opponent.
I also think that, to some extent, this is just politics. I remembered, several months ago, commenting on a statement from the Sanders campaign manger which I found obnoxious and spike replying that it was standard campaign trash talk.
I just looked up the interview from October and what you can see is that the campaign manager (a) wants to go negative against Clinton, (b) wants to do so in a way which won't offend Sanders' resistance to negative campaigning and (c) which will be received by the public as a Sanders responding ("counterpunch') to Clinton's attacks.
That's politics.
180 Was s/he a commenter here? Otherwise it doesn't count as a meetup. Unless a grotto was involved.
My experience on Twitter is opposite Tigre's. I've had to mute a lot of people I follow because they keep tweeting annoying anti-Sanders "Bernie Bro" crap and it was pissing me off. I like them so I'll unmute when this shit is all over. And it can't be over soon enough.
183: yes, but I can't remember his "handle".
179 -- it's infinitely more interesting when you're FB friends with people you don't know. I get to listen in on political conversations between 23 year old Latino metalheads and ski instructors in Japan.
Incidentally, I saw an interesting article yesterday which seems surprisingly like something that Bob McManus would say.
Why does the Democratic establishment so dislike Bernie Sanders? Consider this statistic: Hillary Clinton has raised more than $26 million for the Democratic National Committee and state Democratic parties so far this campaign. And Sanders? $1,000.
. . .
This is the source of the panic that Sanders causes the much-maligned Democratic elites. It's not about ideology; it comes from a fear that having Sanders as a nominee will decimate progressive candidates down the ballot -- and leave Republicans in control of the House, and state capitals, for another decade or two.
The Obama presidency has been a disaster for the Democratic Party nationwide. Clinton has pledged to rebuild the party, and has begun to make good on that promise. Sanders, by contrast, has shown little concern for the very real crisis the party faces beneath the presidential level.
Since Obama's election in 2008, Democratic losses at all other levels have been staggering: 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, 910 state legislative seats, 30 state legislative chambers and 11 governorships. Democrats are at their weakest position in state capitols in nearly a century; they have unified control of only 11 legislatures, while Republicans control 30 (31 if you include nominally nonpartisan Nebraska).
There are many reasons for this, but one is Obama's decision to bypass the Democratic Party apparatus in favor of his own, parallel network, now known as Organizing for Action. Under the theory that Obama could directly rally supporters (and therefore didn't need to rely as much on party operatives or on congressional Democrats), this outgrowth of Obama's 2008 campaign apparatus competed with the party and wound up starving the party for funds.
then wandered around mostly not talking to each other.
Isn't that the Finnish national pastime?
Does the DNC give a shit about progressive candidates anyway, though?
this will be the future of all politics in the world of social media
Fuck that, I've gone full blown grumpy old man at age 39. I have a minimal FB for keeping up to date with overseas relatives and stalking felons. No Twitter, no Instagram, etc. Fuck all that shit. The internet is for news, sports, porn, and making my reservations for Yellowstone every summer.
I'm not going to offer an opinion about the advisability of sending Freed to Finland without his full team of lawyers. At least one of which got an A in Maritime Law.
Sanders should do well in Colorado and Minnesota, right? What about Massachusetts? If only we knew some people there . . .
Isn't that the Finnish national pastime?
FUNNY JOKE! How can you tell which Finn in a group is the outgoing one? He or she is staring at someone else's shoes.
Further to 189, how much help has the DNC given Sanders? I mean, isn't there a kind of reciprocal dislike there?
173
I don't think all that much has changed. Sanders never has had much of a shot. He slightly overperformed in IA, NH, and now he's slightly overperformed in NV. The MSM loves a horse race but hates Sanders, which are somewhat conflicting feelings in the Dem primary. Him doing better in NV than it originally appeared he would but not winning created the perfect scenario: they could retrospectively frame it that they though it was much closer so that Sanders could fail in NV. Hillary has always been the "inevitable" candidate. Sanders has always been the major long shot. Since NH I think his chances of winning are 5-10%, up from less than 1%, and I'd still say they're in the 5-10% range.
172
Random reddit commenters =/= campaign surrogates. If Killer Mike is saying Hillary supporters (note: supporters, not the candidate) are corporate sellouts, send me the link, and I'll be disappointed. So far, the far most sexist thing said by any campaign spokesperson or surrogate so far has been Gloria Steinem's comment insulting female Bernie supporters. If you do support Hillary, you should be annoyed at surrogates insulting young voters for not supporting her. Go after Bernie, he's running for office, but famous people really shouldn't be attacking random voters. It's bad optics and bad strategy. Setting this particular election aside, the Democratic party needs young people for the future, so they should be trying to retain and recruit them.
Clinton has pledged to rebuild the party, and has begun to make good on that promise.
If this is true it makes me much more sanguine about the prospect of neoliberal (sorry cleek) president HRC.
189 --yes, where they can win. Don't be a moron.
I'd seen the point made in 187 about Sanders before (and it's an important one for any assessment of his ability to get things done) but I hadn't seen the harsh criticism of Obama for building a parallel campaign infrastructure elsewhere. Milbank is a smart reporter and may be right, but if that's a consistent resentment against Obama (and maybe it's a fair one) it's news to me.
if that's a consistent resentment against Obama (and maybe it's a fair one) it's news to me.
I wasn't quite sure. There's a mile of wiggle room in his caveat, "There are many reasons for this . . . "
Young people shouldn't be so sensitive. How will they learn wisdom if their elders aren't allowed to tell them when they are being fools?
Ok, in fairness, Susan Sarandon (Sanders surrogate) made a comment how she didn't vote with her vagina, and I didn't particularly like that. She said this around the Steinem flap, so it was a response to something and not just out of the blue, but I thought it was an inflammatory and unhelpful thing to say.
I do agree that this primary is tame compared to 2008, and obviously compared to the Republican primaries of 2016 or 2012.
187 - I saw that too a while back, but it struck me as odd since Bill Clinton (at least) is attacking Sanders on precisely the opposite grounds.
I am pretty suspicious of the idea that the main reason for losing seats has to do with Obama decided to undercut the DCCC and divert something(money somehow?) to his own organization instead, given what we've seen from the DCCC so far. (It's notable that they're basically blaming the rejection of the fifty state strategy on Obama being good at raising money, which seems weird.) I do think there's a chance that a Sanders candidacy could hurt downticket races, but that's because I also suspect that the DNC and DCCC might decide to treat him like Ned Lamont (for basically the same reasons only, maybe, without a Lieberman there picking up a lot of Republican support). And that would have a downticket effect as well, if only by virtue of undercutting his ability to respond to attacks or build up support.
Susan Sarandon (Sanders surrogate) made a comment how she didn't vote with her vagina, and I didn't particularly like that
I find it reassuring in the age of touch screen voting. I don't want to have to bring Windex to the polls.
The idea of using the actions of a candidates' supporters (as long as those actions aren't actively violent and condoned by the candidate) as an argument against supporting that candidate is so ridiculous that it is difficult to know where to begin with it. If someone wants to be President, that someone is going to need to build a tent big enough to contain half of voters. That's going to mean bringing in some people that many of us would find distasteful, but that's what it means to build a political coalition.
Random reddit commenters =/= campaign surrogates. If Killer Mike is saying . . .
The situation of the two campaigns aren't entirely parallel because there are far more prominent people visibly associated with the Clinton campaign. I mean, I think it's sill to say that a celebrity supporter of Sanders is telling people to caucus for Clinton, because it's obviously silly. But that does demonstrate that the list of people that one would automatically identify as identify as Sanders campaign surrogates is much shorter.
So far, the far most sexist thing said by any campaign spokesperson or surrogate so far has been Gloria Steinem's comment insulting female Bernie supporters.
MHPH said something similar upthread, which I tried to push back against. My basis for doing so is just that I find this article convincing -- while the one sentence about "the boys are with Bernie" is a clunker, that seems more like a mistake than a deliberate attack, and that her overall comments were fairly positive.
Far from jumping on her soapbox to trash "kids today," Steinem actually went on Bill Maher's show last Friday to promote her new book, My Life on the Road, and had a bunch of good things to say about young women and feminism.
"I find the young women very activist and they're way more feminist," Steinem said. "We were, like, 12 crazy ladies in the beginning, and now it's the majority. I do think that gratitude never radicalized anybody. I did not say thank you for the vote. I got mad on the basis of what was happening to me, and I think that that's true of young women too. So they're mad as hell because they're graduating in debt, and they're gonna earn a million dollars less over their lifetime to pay it back, they're mad about what's happening to them."
What are you talking about. The DCCC went all in for Ned Lamont once he was the nominee, even though he had a third party candidate to run against and thus a very tough race. I mean there are plenty of legit criticisms of the party leadership but I'm so sick of this parallel universe of destroy-everything suspicion. It's a center-left party that's been moving strongly left over the past 10 years.
188. So I had believed. Then I worked with a Finnish woman for a couple of years and she never shut up. Of course this may be why she was living in England.
187 - I saw that too a while back, but it struck me as odd since Bill Clinton (at least) is attacking Sanders on precisely the opposite grounds.
I don't have a strong opinion about this, since I am not going to pretend to be an expert on fundraising. But it looks to me like that article criticizes Sanders for benefiting (personally) from events that the DSCC set up for big money donors, not Sanders setting up big money events to raise money for other candidates/DSCC.
193: It's probably also important to note how Sanders has been (repeatedly!) required to apologize for the behavior of people who (1) aren't actually linked to his campaign except for, maybe, supporting him (or just being internet trolls), or (2) didn't actually do what they were accused of doing (Huerta situation). If Clinton is ever forced to publicly apologize herself for bad behavior among her supporters independent of her campaign, or for people who are speaking on her behalf insulted or smearing Sanders supporters I'd be surprised.
Also 195: One of the big accusations/sources of anger on the left regarding Wasserman Schultz is that she has not been doing that, but been promoting centrist/DLC candidates (or even ex-Republicans) at the direct expense of actual liberals or even progressives in places where pretty progressive candidates should be able to win, and abandoning races that look entirely winnable to throw more money at the kinds of centrist candidates that she prefers. And the collapse of the fifty-state strategy happened well before the money issues the Millbank article was talking about really kicked in. So... actually yeah. Yeah that has been an issue.
202
They are completely parallel. The risk of actively courting famous people to campaign for you is, if you have more surrogates, you have more people running around potentially getting off message. It doesn't work that Steinem et al get to be Hillary's surrogates when people want to point to lists of famous feminists or progressives who support Hillary, but suddenly they are just "random people unaffiliated with Hillary" once they're saying dumb things about young women.
Yeah, I've seen the context of Steinem's comments and it doesn't make it better. That she directly contradicts what she's said to insult young women for supporting Bernie is actually kind of worse. Especially since she's already given a completely non sexist reason for why women would support Bernie (college debt relief and free higher ed is a major part of his platform).
It makes me so happy to see Wasserman-Schultz is getting primaried.
To move our party left below the presidential level, we really need to do what Republicans do, which is primary anyone not "left" enough. That either gets rid of the centrists, or scares them into moving left.
CO and MN are caucuses, by the way. I guess I agree with the criticism above about caucuses, and if asked I wouldn't support our going to one. It's not awful, though, to have campaign events that are not just geographically diverse, but also measure different skills. A caucus is a measure of intensity, rather than breadth. Obama won in 08, in part, by using the intensity of followers to good effect. Can Sanders get the kind of intensity he needs to show to dethrone HRC in Colorado and Minnesota? If not, then the whole premise for his general election falls into question.
These are large and diverse polities, unlike Iowa, NH, or Nevada. Blue enough to be a useful measure, not in either candidate's back yard.
Oh, and let's not forget, Debbie Wasserman Schultz also wrote an article insulting young women in the NYTimes. That's not on Hillary's campaign, but it's showing that the DNC also really needs to change its recruitment strategy.
207 is right: Steinem's attempt to walk back what she'd said was pretty clearly nonsense. She probably didn't intend what she was saying to come off as badly awful as it did, but she was absolutely trying to say that young women were supporting Sanders because they'd gotten all caught up in the excitement, were complacent and thought feminism wasn't important, and so on, which is something you could hear in a lot of places at around the time she said it. I get the impression it's died down now as an argument, but I suspect it's because Steinem said it too blatantly and people had to back off of it as a result.
Kasich says that when he won the state election it was because women left their kitchens to support him. Oh Republicans. Never change your tendency to occasionally say what you actually think in front of cameras.
Yeah, I've seen the context of Steinem's comments and it doesn't make it better. That she directly contradicts what she's said to insult young women for supporting Bernie is actually kind of worse.
she was absolutely trying to say that young women were supporting Sanders because they'd gotten all caught up in the excitement, were complacent and thought feminism wasn't important
Sure, I'm happy to agree to disagree on that point. I don't we're going to convince each other and, really, it's not that important.
I was practically using the same phrases that she was in that description. She said that younger women weren't as radical (feminists), and that, and this is seriously her defense of the 'boys' bit, that they were motivated more by where the excitement is and less by feminist concerns.
"Men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, and women tend to get more radical because they lose power as they age," Steinem said. "It's not fair to measure most women by the standard of most men, because they're gonna get more activist as they grow older, and when you're young, you're thinking, Where are the boys, the boys are with Bernie."
This states things a little strongly and the format is a bit off-putting, but interesting: https://storify.com/cshirky/republican-and-democratic-parties-are-now-host-bod
I'm surprised Steinem didn't make the obvious point that young women today are looking for a father figure because their dads left them when their moms became feminists.
She said that younger women weren't as radical (feminists), and that, and this is seriously her defense of the 'boys' bit, that they were motivated more by where the excitement is and less by feminist concerns.
I certainly don't think that it made Steinem look good*. I think the statements are clumsy at best. I just don't think that she was intentionally trying to insult young women. (though I do think buttercup's comments about the way in which second wave feminists handle issues of class and race badly are generally correct and an important element of why she would be clumsy talking about the Sanders campaign).
The comment about women getting more radical as they age didn't bother me**, perhaps because it reminded me of an old Dykes To Watch Out for comic about "the seven ages of a woman's life" (with apologies to Shakespeare).
But, even if I think there's might be an interesting conversation to be had about, "what was Gloria Steinem actually thinking" the real point of disagreement is that I don't think of it as a particularly revealing incident about the nature of the race, and I find it weird that both you and buttercup keep bringing it up as an key reference point for the bad behavior of Clinton surrogates. And that, I think, is the point on which we're not going to convince each other. You believe that it is, I don't.
* I don't agree with many of the particulars in this article but the headline conclusion, "nobody has much to be proud of" seems right to me.
** as opposed to the vox article about, "late-breaking sexism" which I found infuriating.
When I attack Hillary its not usually as a result of being a Sanders supporter. Its because I genuinely don't like Hillary. She's a pro-Wall Street hawk, and that's why I didn't like her before Sanders was a candidate, and I also don't like her now.
So there is a lot of blame going toward Team Sanders that might be better directed at Team Anyone-but-Hillary. Its not a result of Sanders going negative or whatever, its a natural outcome of the fact that Sanders' base is already predisposed to people who don't care for Hillary's politics. If it was O'Malley who had a shot rather than Sanders, I'd be supporting O'Malley - though of the two, I certainly prefer Sanders.
I'll still vote for Hillary in the general, mind you. As will, I'm sure, the vast majority of Sanders supporters. There is a lot of insinuation out there that they won't, and that pisses me off.
170 is the best thing ever.
Indeed. Thanks for highlighting that, I'd skimmed over it the first time (distracted by the conversation about politics).
I'll still vote for Hillary in the general, mind you. As will, I'm sure, the vast majority of Sanders supporters. There is a lot of insinuation out there that they won't, and that pisses me off.
I agree, and this is one of the things that most pisses me off about some of the online conversations about the campaign. You see a lot of people saying that because [Clinton/Sanders] is losing [demographic X] in the primaries they won't be able to energize that demographic in the general, which doesn't necessarily follow at all.
Until I see something to the contrary I'm going to hold onto the polls that I saw before Iowa which said that the vast majority of democrats had favorable opinions of both Sanders and Clinton, and assume that both of them would do a good job of getting the Democratic base engaged in a general election.
Steinem has talked literally for decades about the differences in how men and women are radicalized, and how aging has a radicalizing influence on women. The quoted bit in 214 was an observation of hers that I bet could be traced back to the '70s.
(Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to Google this without coming across a million hits for her recent statements.)
So she repeated one of her shopworn bromides in a context that wasn't suitable, and seems quite sorry about it, and entirely knowledgeable about where she screwed up (see NickS's 202). Doesn't seem like a capital crime to me.
219.1 Describes how I feel exactly. And also signing on to 219.3.
Though I like Bernie's message, emphasis on class war and income inequality. I can't imagine being excited by O'Malley.
191 What about Massachusetts?
It's a week before the primary and I haven't seen a single Clinton sign or Sanders sign. I've seen a few bumper stickers. It's possible everyone is gobsmacked by not being under five feet of snow this year. (It was in the 50s last weekend and the snow from the last storm is almost gone.)
A couple of polls on RCP say "tie" and "Sanders +7" (as well as "Trump +34," which tells you something about MA Republicans, I guess ... all fourteen of them).
219 matches how I feel as well. The thought of another Clinton administration only with additional belligerence is really frustrating, even as much as the choice is likely to be between that and "the world blows up". The huge split along age lines is interesting too, though, and I'm not certain how the two work together. I do suspect that there's a connection there, not just two separate groups of (occasionally overlapping) people supporting Sanders.
The link in 215 really is interesting also. I suspect he understates substantially the extent to which putting things off limits in the national conversation was about keeping a coalition together, as opposed to being linked to business interests or other wealthy players. He says something later on about (bigger money) donors, but counting them as being part of a coalition as if they represented a substantial voting bloc as opposed to a money one misses a lot of what's driving both Trump and Sanders right now.
225- You are right, he elides something important there. Though you might claim that the plutocrats lead a block of the easily bought and the suggestible.
I find it reassuring in the age of touch screen voting. I don't want to have to bring Windex to the polls.
I don't even know how it worked back with the old lever machines. Maybe that's why so few women got elected.
What gets me worried is none of this, but people's lack of enthusiasm for voting against Ted Cruz. In my Facebook-world, the people who spend all their time being outraged about transphobia and cultural appropriation responded to the Iowa caucus with excitement and optimism because Donald Trump was defeated by... some guy. These are not people who know about the long tradition of Republicans in Iowa going for whoever unites the octogenarian theocrat vote. Hatred of Ted Cruz is still very much a niche phenomenon, and this is continuing as the media starts beating up Rubio in his role as the new John Edwards.
I see Bernie bumper stickers here. I thought it was just in my liberal town, but Tim says that there are people at his work from more conservative places who like him too.
Hatred of Ted Cruz is still very much a niche phenomenon
There will be plenty of time for this to go mainstream, if he somehow manages to win the nomination.
I saw quite a few Bernie signs on lawns when I was wandering around Northampton MA a few weeks ago.
221: Because the discussion is already out there, from Sander's grass root's supporters.
Example:
As an example, Hillary's failure with young women of all kinds, and the spread of intersectional analyses is a direct consequence of black women organising, learning and teaching on Twitter.I don't foresee a kissing and making up for the general election. The lines have been drawn, the distinctions are too stark to ignore.
I went through a long thing, not in detail, over at CT. I ain't working up the links. Turnout in Iowa and Nevada was down at least 10% from 2013, which was 10% down from 2008, and the difference was exactly in the under 30 voters. These are the voters absolutely necessary to show up for Dems to win the general or midterms, and the ones most likely to say "fuck it."
You care a ton about SCOTUS or immigration, low-info under 30s just want a good paying job. High infos like me can get radically pissed.
The kids aren't gonna show in November, and HRC will not drive the minority turnout like Obama. She's toast, against Trump or anybody else.
I've heard a surprising amount* of people talking about how their conservative co-workers/family members/etc. kind of like Sanders. (It's not necessarily that they'd vote for him, but they do seem to be suggesting that they have a set of preferences among the conservatives but somehow Sanders slides in there somewhere.)
I'm not sure what it is, but my guess is that he's just marginal enough on the Democratic party, especially since right now he's running against the Supreme Anti-Christ Liberal Hillary that he doesn't automatically trigger their normal tribal hatreds. And as a result they're either noticing that, deep down, he seems like a guy with a lot of good intentions and integrity even if they do disagree with him, or they're just noticing that they do actually agree with him about a lot of things. It's really a weird phenomenon though.
*"Any"
And God, the young women deserting Clinton isn't about what Steinem or Albright said. Don't be insulting.
MA Republicans, I guess ... all fourteen of them
And yet, 5 of the last 6 governors.
When I attack Hillary its not usually as a result of being a Sanders supporter. Its because I genuinely don't like Hillary. She's a pro-Wall Street hawk, and that's why I didn't like her before Sanders was a candidate, and I also don't like her now.
This gets big points for honesty and coherence. What pisses me off about it as a position is not that it's indefensible (it's not) but when it comes from people who either now or in the very recent past were enthusiastic Obama supporters.
When you get people who ardently forgave identical positions in Obama while somehow in the context of this primary election going straight for full-on "I hate Hillary, better Biden or O'Malley or anyone else than her" there is something going on that is really not good. "I love all mainstream Democrats except that horrible woman" is extremely unappealing. There are definitely such people out there, even if hopefully not enough to make an electoral difference.
I mean, to be clear, even putting aside the Obama issue I think "pro-Wall Street hawk" a fairly inaccurate description of her and vastly overstates the real-world differences between her and Sanders in terms of potential governance. But there are differences that are real between Sanders and Clinton, whereas the "I love Obama but hate Hillary" crowd is, I think, either deeply misinformed or deeply sexist or both.
I am just guessing, but I picture a young black women say 25ish, active in BLM, with a law degree or marketing or social science being told by HRC and her greying surrogates that it is all about racism or sexism and she has been watching the markets and academia for a decade and knows very well that the good jobs just aren't there. It's also racism and sexism, but need an economy for those fights to be relevant.
Intersectionality rising!
When you get people who ardently forgave identical positions in Obama
Obama opposed the Iraq war. Spoke out against torture (though not as forcefully as I would have liked, has HRC said a word about it?) and vowed to close Guantanamo. How are HRC's positions identical here?
It's pretty clear, and she has explicitly said this from what I can recall, that the "hawk" part is definitely not something where Obama and Hillary are identical, and something that is absolutely true of her. Also from everything I've seen the Not-Hillary crowd are pretty unhappy about the extent to which Obama is also neoliberal/wallstreet-esque. It's just that there are a lot of advantages he has (foreign policy, social liberalism, etc.) in comparison to her, and those are the things that they like about him. "Bad bits of Obama without the good bits" is absolutely something someone could see in Hillary so I don't think it's reasonable to say they're basically identical.
233: I think it's because Sanders is an "anti-establishment" candidate, same as Trump.
You mean Obama's actual Secretary of State? What do you think thought of closing Guantanamo Bay? She was in favor of it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-guantanamo-memo_us_5654cc40e4b0258edb33537b
And Hillary, if elected ain't doing jack squat on the economy. Whatever she gets will be by making horrific deals with Republicans, 2/3 what Rs want, because the Repubs are much better assholes and understand they just need to wait until the next election.
If we are going to get something like 75% Republican governance with HRC, why not vote for Trump or stay home.
Sanders? Doesn't matter. he's toast. But he was more likely to say in first SOTU, "Racist Fucks, send me something I like and I'll sign it. Otherwise I veto everything, and I see no point in talking with Ryan and McConnell or the rest of you.
I'll talk to the rest of the nation every day for the next two years about 2018."
Obama shoulda done it.
Hillary Clinton spoke out against the use of waterboarding torture during a Tuesday speech in New York City, strongly condemning the tactics for the first time since the recent release of a Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA interrogation methods from a decade ago.
"Today we can say again in a loud and clear voice, the United States should never condone or practice torture anywhere in the world," Clinton said
http://abcnews.go.com/US/hillary-clinton-speaks-us-torture/story?id=27654296
I've been thinking about tossing my hat into the ring for the state convention.
Thinking back to a comment about about voting in a primary being the only thing a person gets to do, there are, I think, a whole bunch of different roles one can play in advancing one's ideas.
If we are going to get something like 75% Republican governance with HRC, why not vote for Trump or stay home
Even if this was true -- and I don't agree with it -- it turns out that 25% of governance is a big damn deal.
243, 241 Well good and point taken, but when I wrote my comment I was thinking of HRC vs BHO in 2008.
I'm voting HRC if it comes to it, but I can see the appeal of gambling on Trump, you never know just what you might get.
200- Sarandon lives in NY where they still use the old voting machines with the big red lever.
My cow orker is planning to vote strategically in the R primary to throw it to Trump. I said don't vote for Trump, vote for Cruz- as long as it's a 3 way race Rubio can't break through, so you want Cruz to stay in to let Trump keep winning with just a plurality.
247 Worse than waterboarding, for one thing. Stealing IS oil for another. Recession brought on by the cessation of international trade? Or by the deportation of a non-trivial percentage of working people?
Thin-skinned histrionics, anyway. Which we really need.
251- You sure he cares about the words coming out of his mouth? I'm not at all.
I admit the torture is the deal-breaker for me.
The oil stealing thing is something I happen to know is impossible.
Well, sure as it is. But he isn't proposing just taking the oil. He's saying we should bomb the oil, and then take it while, I can only assume, it's still on fire.
256: Well, you've got to show that oil who's boss. A no nonsense get things done kind of guy like Trump understands that.
You wait for the burning oil to evaporate, and then collect it in the atmosphere through distillation.
Until I see something to the contrary I'm going to hold onto the polls that I saw before Iowa which said that the vast majority of democrats had favorable opinions of both Sanders and Clinton, and assume that both of them would do a good job of getting the Democratic base engaged in a general election.
I agree with this.
Oh hey, Clinton has re-endorsed the public option. Nice bit of Overtonning there. On inspection it's in the weakest form possible, pursuing flexibility for interested states through ACA waivers, though that may be the most that could be done without Congressional cooperation. (And a feather in Beutler's predictive cap.)
Burn enough oil, and heating costs will plummet in the Northern states in the long term.
I guess what it comes to with Trump when the system doesn't work for you why not take a chance on making it go smash. I'm poor but middle aged, if I were young and had 100 grand in college debt, I'd chose him over HRC.
Its kind of weird when I think about it. Why are the rich taking the chances they are for very marginal improvements in their relative power? Everything is great for them. Whereas if you are young and poor, why not wreck everything? The Walking Dead scenario treats the young much better particularly in terms of relative power.
Whereas if you are young and poor, why not wreck everything?
Because president Trump doesn't have the power to wreck everything. He would wreck some things and cause other things to re-entrench.
And yet, 5 of the last 6 governors.
That means 8 or 9 of them haven't had a turn yet!
I wasn't saying Trump supporters are rich. I was referring to my personal narrative about the decline of America being caused by reckless, greedy, elites. Now I see I was unclear.
I think America may be hanging by a thread. I get that most people don't share that perception.
when it comes from people who either now or in the very recent past were enthusiastic Obama supporters.
My Obama support is pretty unenthusiastic, if that helps.
I think America may be hanging by a thread.
Better than a noose.
My Obama support is...nonexistent.
Funny thread going on over at LGM, F DeBoer tweeted in response to a sweet publicity picture of Obama and daughters...a propaganda picture of Stalin. LGM exploded.
American Democrats just can't wrap their minds around the fact that the lesser of two evils is EVIL.
Repeat after me, better than Republican, but Obama is an evil man. Better than Hitler, but worse than Gandhi? Better than Hussein, but worse than Carter?
Better than Carter? Only killed this many thousands, well I respectfully disagreed somewhat with his Libya and Ukraine policy...
...the dude is a evil motherfucker, and we should never get damp over his sweet family pictures.
That is some absolute world class trolling on DeBoer's part, especially because yeah that's definitely a thing politicians, including evil ones, do. That's why they talk about shaking hands and kissing babies: it's cute and people find it charming. But in this case it's like he found a new way of going "You know who else [whatever]!?" and no one recognized it.
FdB is one of the most skilled trolls I have ever seen.
Link to LGM talking about FdB for the interested.
One thing that separates deBoer from lesser trolls is that, with the Stalin poster, he offers a straightforward bit of race-baiting while preserving deniability.
Stalin, in the poster, is extolling Soviet Man - or Soviet Toddler or whatever. That's what the poster is about.
If Obama is being - in deBoer's words - "identical in attitude," well then, Obama is promoting Black Supremacy.
In the real world, of course, the fact that it's a black child makes the picture particularly poignant.
Oh hey I know the guy who made obamaandkids.
Obama is, not the guy who made #obamaandkids.
Signing on to 268 too which is what I should have said. I should just outsource my comments on this thread to Spike.
My, the desert wasteland is beautiful this time of year!
As a good leftist, isn't FdB registering his approval?
Let me take this moment to say fuck fucking turbo fucking tax fuck. The code base on this thing has got to be worse than Windows at this point- 150 MB updates every week- and it barely functions unless you know exactly what to tell it to do. It tried to skip over entering W2s until I said, don't you think I should enter some employment income? And it said, Are you sure you want to enter another W2 (on top of the 0 entered so far.)
Speaking of desert wasteland, AZ is really taking it in the shorts again on water.
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/snotelanom/basinswe.html
Speaking of turbo fucking tax (which I've never used) anyone have any recommendations as to filing while living overseas and getting my income from a foreign source? Also worrying that NY and NYC will still think I'm a resident there. I have no idea where to begin though I've blocked out March for figuring this shit out.
284
I abandoned Turbotax after it kept saying I owed a penalty for over contributing to my Roth IRA, when I did no such thing. There was no way I could pay taxes on my Roth without Turbotax trying to add in a giant penalty. I ended up using the free IRS e-file form. My income is also mainly in the form of scholarship, which is extremely straightforward in e-file, but really complicated in Turbotax. So yes, fuck Turbotax.
I thought you don't have to pay taxes on a Roth, that's the point of it?
288
With a Roth, you have to pay taxes the year you deposit, but not when you withdraw. It's good for people who are low-income but plan on being less low-income in late middle age.
recommendations as to filing while living overseas and getting my income from a foreign source?
Spending part of a year in NY and part outside, in combination with an international move will make your taxes horrendously complicated because you have to pro-rate things like interest income for the time you were in the country and the time you were not.
You won't have a W-2, so provide a copy your pay statement for the year and declare it as business income.
You get a pretty big exemption for not being in the country, but you still need to pay self-employment tax.
The IRS will give you an automatic two-month extension for being overseas. Depending on how long it will take you to have spent 330 days outside of the United States you may have to extend longer than that before you can file while claiming the exemption.
Next year the 330 day thing won't be such an issue because you should be able to meet the Bona Fide Resident Test.
Oh, ok- I didn't think of it that way, I just think of it as paying taxes on all my income then putting some post-tax income into the Roth. Same thing.
self-employment tax.
But he's not self-employed?
Watching my daughter do her taxes with TurboTax I was amused/bemused to see it ask if she had "Obamacare." I suspect they actually user-tested that bit, and more people recognized that than "ACA". Still.
293: I so hope that term outlives Obama's presidency. Imagine what that continual reminder could do for his legacy.
because yeah that's definitely a thing politicians, including evil ones, do.
Not Trump! Apparently he is a germaphobe who does not like to shake hands, or even to push a button in an elevator.
This might be the most condescending piece I've read about Bernie, which is saying a lot.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/sanders-and-house-democrats-219430
lol Politician says 'there's got to be a way to get our hands on all that money!' Campaign consultant 'Maybe we could try not being crooked scumbags?' Politician says 'Don't be ridiculous.'
296 This (from the sidebar links of your article) might be worse.
297:
The optimist in me wants to believe that by trying to look less like crooked influence peddlers, politicians of the future might end up approximating decent leaders for concern about "the optics".
The pessimist in me thinks that legislation shredding any semblance of transparency in campaign finance is already being dreamt up.
298- That one has a very "Webster's defines socialism as..." quality to it.
But he's not self-employed?
Self-employment tax covers the employer portion of Medicare/Social Security, which his foreign employer is likely not paying. So he's got to pay it himself.
Is it ok to make up a 1099-MISC if you didn't receive one, as long as you know the employers EIN (thanks google!) and the amount? Or is that going to set off some IRS audit flag because they didn't receive such a form? (This taxpayer is insisting on paying more than we expected! Audit!)
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc154.html
The IRS says wait until the end of February, and then call them for help -- they'll hassle your employer for the form, and let you file without it if that doesn't work.
That says W2 and 1099R, I didn't receive a form for a couple days of consulting but it's not my employer just another org (so I think it would be a 1099-MISC). I was also vague about setting up how they paid me, I had them send me a check to "SP consulting" which isn't anything I formally established so maybe they don't realize I'm an individual not a corporation. Also I have two others that were each under 600 so they don't even owe me a form but I'm supposed to somehow report it anyway.
Thanks very much Spike!
301 is actually very good news for me even though it's going to take a big chunk. I'd been worried about SS because of my fucked up life/employment history and I find myself in middle age without enough quarters but I couldn't figure out how the hell to pay into SS just by googling and searching the SS/IRS website. If this takes care of that then good.
I moved in mid-May so that automatic 2 month extension is going to do me good. I just hope NYC doesn't screw me by trying to claim I'm still living there. Having been unemployed for my last few months* in the states should help matters too.
*More than a few. It was really down to the wire at the end.
I just hope NYC doesn't screw me by trying to claim I'm still living there.
They will claim you through May, and you have to fill out a form for partial-year residence. But since most of your income was earned after you left, it won't be taxed.
That's how it worked for me, anyway. Although I actually moved my permanent address to no-income-tax New Hampshire at the same time I left New York to move out of the country, so YMMV.
296: I couldn't help but laugh at a little at the amount of "This disrupts our basic understanding of [conventional wisdom about how you get political support] - how can we tap into this phenomenon while still maintaining power through [conventional wisdom about how you get political support]." The same basic article could have been a hilarious mockery of people entirely caught up in an ideological bubble, except that the writer is apparently in there with them and so couldn't see it.
I flash thru a lot of articles very fast, using the Mark Thoma blogroll etc, so can't remember where, but a pretty good article this talks about Trump and Sanders as Third Party Candidates using the trad parties, and most interestingly says Obama did it first in 2008. This goes to Obama's campaign money, database etc not being made available to Democrats. Another spoke of Republicans being excited by Citizens United until they saw that big donors would go direct to candidates.
||
More anime!
Cavallaro, Magic as Metaphor (leaving out italics):
At several junctures, Ghost Hunt further enhances its frame of magical reference by recourse to the figure of the doll as the quintessential incarnation of uncanniness: an emblematic status grounded in the doll's traditional function as a trap for human souls. (Dolls also play an important role in Hell Girl, examined later in this same chapter, in Mai-Hime [Chapter 3] and, most memorably, in Rozen Maiden [Chapter 6].) It should also be noted, on this point, that dolls play a significant role in Japanese culture at large. Known as "ning you," i.e., "human figures," they have been traditionally molded in a wide variety of shapes: fairy-tale characters and innocent children, protective deities and fierce warriors, heroes and demons, and still feature as pivotal to popular festivities(Cavallaro uses more adjectives than much academic writing)
Currently watching Darker than Black which has a major character referred to as a "doll." Beside her being relatively affectless, I am mostly in the dark as to what that means in this localized mythology.
Which is kinda point, here and in the examples above, "doll" is something for artists to work/play with. The doll is almost as common in anime as mecha/robots, as simply one of the means for artists to explore the liminality around humanness, while reminding watchers that the represented "humans" in the anime are also in some sense "dolls" to the writers and artists.
Are actors in a live-action movie "dolls" for the writer and director?
|>
Possibly the critical exploration of the "doll" is Oshii's Ghost in the Shell:Innocence. But there are so many others. When a trope or theme is explored 5 times per quarterly season in anime for thirty years, and ten times that in manga, by artists in a brutally competitive commercial environment, a few will seek an edge with their young intellectual audience by studying and using Haraway, Baudrillard, cybernetics.
I suppose I should watch the tv Marvel Krysten Ritter thing, it's available to me, she won't disconnect and Ondemand is out there. But ugh, America.
Actual mindcontrol is relatively uncommon in anime.
What the hell is going on anymore?
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/702304168245985287
I know there's countervailing evidence about society in general, but I really do think thatsome combination of TV and the internet has affirmatively made people stupider about politics specifically. Like, a lot stupider.
This is a kinda similar point. Literally you can say anything in politics, there's no party structure to stop you, there are no newspapers to be a filter, our purportedly respectable classes have themselves been talking about "disrupting" everything forever as the highest goal, so it turns out that just saying fuck it and acting like whatever and promising whatever is a viable political strategy. And so we get this new level of ludicrousness in political life that's completely detached from reality.
Literally you can say anything in politics, there's no party structure to stop you, there are no newspapers to be a filter, our purportedly respectable classes have themselves been talking about "disrupting" everything forever as the highest goal, so it turns out that just saying fuck it and acting like whatever and promising whatever is a viable political strategy. And so we get this new level of ludicrousness in political life that's completely detached from reality.
Tigre, you've been sounding more and more cynical about the democratic process itself in the last few weeks. I kind of wish I could bring myself to disagree with you more, but it is genuinely scary.
Still, I have a hard time being confident things are truly worse than they've ever been. The newspapers did indeed serve as a filter, but often for the purposes of keeping the truly scary things that politicians (or common people) actually believed out of the news -- or at least away from your attention.
I learned recently that after JFK was shot, there was a large part of the American right wing that fully expected him to rise from the dead, reveal himself to be the anti-Christ, and usher in the era of revelations. No doubt some congressmen thought this, too. And it was in newspapers and political tracts, but you had to either pay or know the right people to get them.
I also learned recently that Reagan was so poorly informed about the most basic issues that his advisors and cabinet would go to great lengths to prevent him from actually talking at meetings, sometimes going so far as to "accidentally" give him the wrong time or place to prevent him from doing harm to the United States. The world and the median voter have been off their rockers for ages. It might just be clearer now.
I also learned recently that Reagan was so poorly informed about the most basic issues that his advisors and cabinet would go to great lengths to prevent him from actually talking at meetings, sometimes going so far as to "accidentally" give him the wrong time or place to prevent him from doing harm to the United States.
Why go to such great lengths when really all they had to do is speak softly enough during meetings so as not to wake him up.
313: To be fair, cynicism about the democratic process is kind of foundational to the whole ideology of Halfordismo.
314 is pretty great. It reminded me a lot of RT's arguments as well.
And the AP calls Nevada for Trump within two minutes with 3% reporting.
It looks like he got huge margins in the rural counties that reported first, not that that's all that meaningful for the state as a whole.
||
Andy Goldsworthy is an honest-to-god sorcerer.
|>
Albert Burneko's postmortem on Jeb!'s whatever-that-just-was is pretty entertaining. http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/jeb-bush-is-not-a-joke-hes-a-sack-of-shit-1760506457
I am prepared to believe 321. The specific prompt for 321 was?
A series of photographs in a big art book of his documenting the creation and eventual disappearance of a "frost shadow". (Goldsworthy stands in one spot starting before dawn, all the frost goes away as the sun rises except the part in his shadow, then he walks away and the frost formerly in his shadow is still there, until eventually it melts.) And some of the other pictures in the book, too, of course.
Update: Cruz takes Lincoln County; still in third statewide. Results are starting to come in from Clark County, showing a huge lead for Trump there too.
For context, Clark County has 1060 precincts whereas Lincoln County has 5.
Stupid autocorrect. Men s/b neb.
Stupid autocorrect also stupidly autocorrected yuge to huge.
314 feels like a kinder, gentler, version of this from 2012.
I image googled Goldsworthy and like his work a whole lot. There were some white trace figures on ground but a photo showed him laying on the ground to create them so not frost. So don't know. They were by far my least favorite but would have to consider the ephemerality.
I would like to see the work aged in the environment, check it 20-30 years with little maintenance.
Interesting interview with Goldsworthy about the work in this book.
Just put it on my wish list. Thanks neb.
