I think Sanders is gearing up to concede after the results are in. Latest:
"Let me talk to you after the primary here in California, where we hope to win," Sanders told reporters in Emeryville on Monday morning who asked whether he would endorse his Democratic rival. "Let's assess where we are after tomorrow."
I voted in person this morning (and did vote for him). There was a line at the polling place but I chalk it up more to inefficiency than attendance.
Also voted for Harris for Senate over Chavez.
While I was having lunch, CNN said that Sanders would not concede tomorrow no matter what.
"Don't stop thinking about tomorrow. Don't stop, it'll soon be here" is now going through my head.
On the plus side, my lunch had at least a serving and a half of vegetables. And not easy vegetables like potatoes and onions.
Mine had some giant disturbing peanut-butter/chocolate brownie-type confection. Wasn't bad, but I'm sitting here vaguely regretting it.
5: Shouldn't Hillary get her own song? Maybe "I am woman"?
9: Probably something from "Rumours".
I had falafel from the food truck across the street. I should do that more often. It's good.
I'm starting to worry about Trump. He can't implode before the convention. That's too early!
So what's it gonna be
I'LL GIVE YOU AN ANSWER IN THE MORNING
If Sanders had given on event where he covered Meatloaf songs, he would have won.
Hillary to Bernie: "Go Your Own Way"
Apparently, Clinton has a "campaign playlist rather than a campaign song -- and it looks terrible. But that's to be expected.
18: Sure, but she has to choose that one song that will play at the convention after her speech when she's standing on the stage with Bill, and the VP and the VP's spouse, and they all dance and demonstrate why they went into politics instead of dance.
I've had 2 cups of coffee, some carrots, half an almond pastry, and some jerk chicken. All the food except for the carrots and one cup of coffee were free leftovers from campus events (well, the coffee was brewed fresh). I might eat some free dried mangoes next, but I'm saving my appetite for the free dinner I'm getting at 7.
21: You'll be pleased to hear that the finely honed instinct for spotting free food doesn't fade away once you leave graduate school. Or at least mine didn't.
If 4 is true,* I wonder how long it will take people to apologize for being egregious dumbasses. I guess "forever" is the safe bet, but still, maybe a few will be decent enough to apologize. Or we'll get the but but but but it's his right because of the all-important platform committee and the incredible "concessions" he can extract. Strategy! He is the authentic face of the progressive movement, after all, and the only reason why we have a progressive movement in places like California.
*Still hope/think it is likely not true and that Bernie is more decent than the last few weeks have suggested. But we'll see.
After graduate school, most people won't club a hobo to steal a sandwich.
23: My standards went up, though. I notice it, but frequently don't partake.
24: You think he has to concede tomorrow or he's proven to be evil? He can't take a couple more days to come down from his high?
24: I don't see how waiting for Thursday makes a problem.
23: You can tell who is a former grad student here by their second sense for free food. Having not pursued higher education, I function as a secondary scavenger, following them when they sense a meeting has leftover pizza.
After graduate school, most people won't club a hobo to steal a sandwich.
If you are in a good program, you'll have learned how to snatch the sandwich and make a clean getaway without resorting to violence by the time you're ready to defend.
27 - I think he's got to concede and endorse tomorrow to be affirmatively non-evil, but if he takes a a couple days it's a mistake but only moderately, forgivably evil. If he lets it go longer than that and lets things build, he's straight up evil in my book.
The scenario (not that unlikely, though not the most likely) where he wins California but Hillary wins the majority of pledged delegates today is precisely the scenario where he is most evil if he doesn't concede quickly, because it will be enough to keep this thing going aggressively for a while, which is hurting down-ballot candidates and Presidential chances right now, and will make things much worse.
I still would bet that he does the decent thing, but he sure has some morons around him (i.e., Weaver).
I'm still a grad student, but I've also gotten a little less shameless. I'm less likely to take home the leftover hunk of cheese from a cocktail reception and eat it for dinner.
Alumni weekend was last week and graduation is next week, so it's really a prime time for top-quality free food.
Agree with Tigre that Weaver is an unsavory character. Okay, Tigre actually said 'a moron.' Yeah, that too.
I think Sanders will concede, and endorse Clinton, by Friday. He's still a US Senator, after all.
I just made a Greek salad.
Alumni weekend was last week and graduation is next week, so it's really a prime time for top-quality free food.
Oh yeah, I remember that vividly. In fact, I still remember the opening reception when the business school opened its big expansion during Carnival weekend. As you can imagine they pulled out the stops for the big donors there.
Sanders isn't going to get the nom. I thought Clinton stayed in too long in 2008, and I'm getting to the same point with Sanders. Clinton suspended six days after Puerto Rico in 2008; six days after Puerto Rico this time around gives Sanders until the 11th.
A glance at my inbox shows that the Sanders campaign has sent out seven emails in the last week. Three of them are promoting and soliciting donations for down-ticket races in November. He's been plugging down-ticket races -- or about since the time it became clear that Hillary would win the nomination -- which is hard to reconcile with a picture of him being a stupid, evil narcissist hell-bent on destroying the Democratic Party.
30
Our admins text or email us when there is leftover food. Also, my lab is right across from where they put the free food when the meeting is over (on my floor). It's like being a squirrel who lives under a bird feeder.
I'm not sure what grownups call arguments that take the form of 24, but when I was a kid, we called them, "Heads I win, tails you lose."
If Bernie doesn't drop out tomorrow, the unidentified people who said he would do so must "apologize for being egregious dumbasses."
And who are the egregious dumbasses? Well, they must include Tigre himself, who in the next paragraph declares Bernie's departure tomorrow "likely."
No, you will be (and are!) an egregious dumbass for supporting the preening fool who puts us in a position where we even have to worry about shit like this, for zero benefit. But if Bernie bows out gracefully I wouldn't expect his supporters to apologize, because their guy himself, though a bullshit narcissist, will at least have had the decency to do damage control.
Of course, 42 could be wrong if Trivers "rope a dope" theory is correct and this is all some ninety ninth level master plan to increase support for Hillary by making people hate her and the party and then not hate her. But the evidence of that aside from wishful thinking is small.
The most likely outcome of the Sanders thing is a small but ultimately unimportant bit of harm in the general election, but that ultimately it won't have mattered at all. Still egregious dumbassery from people who should have known better, though.
I wonder how long it will take people to apologize for being egregious dumbasses
I'm sorry Clinton sucks. (Let's all have a huge, nasty, blog-exploding fight. The Grim Reaper has recently been active among my friends and acquaintances, and I'm in the mood to burn shit down.)
I'm amazed how people talk about how important it is to move the Democratic Party to the left. Then, when someone comes along to actually do it, they just can't hate on the guy hard enough.
44 - We all should be more like this dog.
39 - Appallingly, the guy they found to primary the egregiously terrible Debbie Wasserman Schultz decided to attack her from the right on the Iranian nuclear accord (including the claim that she had been tricked by Ben Rhodes). If anyone was thinking of sending him money, I'd suggest sending it to her 2018 opponent and funding Zephyr Teachout instead.
He's still a US Senator, after all.
And in line to be head of the Budget Committee if the Democrats take the Senate.
People have stopped talking about lunch, but I had a Arby's coupon for 3 roast beef sandwiches for $5. I knew it wasn't a good idea, but I ate all three anyhow.
I knew it wasn't a good idea, but I ate all three anyhow.
It's alright - you had no choice. Free will is a hell of an illusion.
50
It's ok, I had a shitty sausage-egg croissant for breakfast. Three cheers for consulting trips! At least the hotel bar is nice.
On the far-off chance that anyone is 1) in Austin 2) has literally nothing to do right now and and 3) wants to grab a drink at a hotel bar I'd be happy to meet up. I'd have said something sooner but I was feeling a bit under the day before I got into town so didn't expect to have any energy.
I'm now a good mile and a quarter from the Arby's so I never go.
It's okay as long as you had the horsey sauce.
I'm old enough to remember when it was 5 sandwiches for $5.
53: Sadly, I only meet condition No. 3.
My kids are obsessed with goddamn Arbys because of some commercial that's been running- "Arby's, we have the meats." My kids repeat it over and over and think it's the most hilarious thing ever. Fortunately the closest Arby's is 40 miles from here.
Me too. Glad I didn't have to eat five of them.
We can go to separate hotel bars and simultaneously liveblog our experiences. Also I actually linked an email I can be reached at in this post.
100% true: I drove six miles from my office to the nearest Arby's. I don't know what's wrong with me.
2 Big Macs for $2 used to be a problem for me.
Right. How could you keep that job when the location is so untenable?
Maybe he should quit and work at Arby's instead.
61: a coupon like that is a powerful motivator.
this is honestly making me want Arby's, the only area where reading stuff on this blog doesn't provoke a directly contrary impulse.
Now I'm craving Arby's. And I don't haves coupon.
Yup, just saw on Twitter Sanders is starting to lay staff off tomorrow (MSNBC).
I'm having beer and potato chips while reading Deluge. It's very tranquil.
What an phony asshole! Costing Americans jobs! Talks the talk but can't walk the walk. Probably the campaign involved moving money through banks too.
63: Hardee's is one street over. And we have lunch trucks there four days a week. Golden handcuffs.
I was excited to hear there was an Arby's in Barbados, but really it was a chicken place called RB's.
I know a guy who used to own a Carribean Arby's, but I'm pretty sure they sold it.
There's a team of straight (AFAIK) guys who play trivia at the local gay bar as [NextTownOver] Arby's and it was such a horrible letdown to learn that they were just fans and not employees.
The idea of a group of guys proudly identifying as fans of a particular Arby's is still pretty great.
I'm editing specifications for a small but profitable flooring job at a university near MH. One of the sections includes the phrase, "including but limited to". Uhh....
Hey Teo, what is up with the NM primary results. No Santa Fe in yet but it looks to me based on not too much knowledge that Clinton did well with Hispanics and Bernie did well with rural whites and maybe Indians.
Clinton definitely looks like she did very well with Hispanics and Sanders with rural whites (not that many of them vote in Democratic primaries in NM). Sanders actually did surprisingly poorly in heavily Native areas, given how much Native outreach he's done.
15 made me happy.
In other California news, a) we are successfully watering our stupid lawn and beloved delicate shrubs with bathwater, thanks to a pump and lucky floor plan; b) I finally can't decide whether the fumes wafting in the window are from skunk or stoner. (I'm sure the internet has fifty thousand cartoons of a stoned skunk for me, thank you but no.)
Although, actually, looking more closely at the percentages of precincts reporting it looks like the heavily Native counties in the northwestern part of the state still have a lot left to report, so Sanders could still make up ground there. I expect the same will happen with Santa Fe.
lurid was just reprimanding me for involving the 4-year-old in watering the lawn with bathwater, because having her run outside right after bathing does somewhat defeat the purpose. "First you jump around to X-Ray Spex, then the pagan plant dance. You are not settling her down for bedtime."
I voted Sanchez because of the top two strategy.
Yglesias calling for Sanders to endorse Clinton in a column that is both good and very Yglesian in style -- using a bit of unnecessary cleverness to make a fairly straightforward point.
I think Gilmore could still pull this out. He's got almost 5,000 votes in CA!
84:
Bernie Sanders launched a long-shot presidential campaign, drastically overperformed expectations, fell insurmountably far behind in the delegate race, and then decided he wanted to stay in it all the way until the end so his supporters in every state had a chance to vote. Traditional insurgent campaigns haven't done that, but Hillary Clinton's non-insurgent campaign in 2008 did, and Sanders's success meant that he had the cash he needed to run a full campaign through California.
The "insurgent" thing is the kind of thing that annoys me about Yglesias, Klein, and the Vox crew. Sure, Bernie has always been an independent, but something tells me that if Michael Bloomberg had chosen to run as a Democrat that we wouldn't be hearing him called an "insurgent". This only reinforces the narrative that some politicians are flatly entitled to the power they have and should be accepted by default -- a line that I think is self-serving for a journalist to push.
24- If you've ever apologized for your frequent egregious dumbassery I haven't seen it.
32- Is the really annoying one. It is hard for me to believe that you aren't self conscious enough to see that you of all people have no right to be talking about what the decent thing is and who ought to do it.
Calling for a revolution, an insurgency perhaps, can get that label hung on one. Calling for a middle path (ha!) restoration usually doesn't.
So, all signs are that Sanders will do the right thing soon, which means dumbassery without consequence, let's hope. See you in 8 years, losers!
The Agha Khan won in New Jersey! I had no idea he was eligible.
Well, Hillary's speech after the California win was really good. I think she's a lot more comfortable and a lot stronger running against an awful reactionary than she is running against someone to her left. I'm hoping it will be a relatively stress-free five months leading up to the election. She's up by four in the polls now, Trump looks to be actually having a melt-down with this Mexican judge that is making it hard for the Republicans to really get behind him.
I was getting a haircut the other day in the heart DFW-burbia, and a middle aged Republican was practically having a therapy session with his barber over Trump and the current state of the party. And he seemed to even be slowly, as if waking up from a bad dream, realizing that the Democratic party is not actually that bad for business, pointing out "Castro is a bastard, but these Republicans don't get that at least Obama got them to trade with us". Hell, every Republican I know has told me that they can't bring themselves to vote for him. If this is what it looks like deep in the Republicans' home turf, what are Republicans in swing states thinking? Maybe the insanity is finally going to wind down.
Also, to JMcQ in 44, I'm sorry for your losses. Rage is usually warranted.
Lastly, all through this Democratic race, Hillary supporters that were at least sympathetic with Bernie's aims but annoyed by him said things like that they hoped Bernie would push Hillary to the left but mostly stay out of the way. I don't know if they realized that he really couldn't do both. There's no pushing anyone left unless someone to the left runs a seriously fucking competitive campaign. I think we'll all be better for it in both this cycle and in the long run.
I don't know if they realized that he really couldn't do both. There's no pushing anyone left unless someone to the left runs a seriously fucking competitive campaign.
I have no idea why this seemingly obvious point was so obscure to so many.
Let's hope you're right! I don't see it, but hope you're right.
Hillary's speech is more a general victory speech - I believe it started before the polls closed in CA. She has a big early lead but that was expected.
Guys, Clinton won more popular votes than Obama*. Sanders was ~3M behind before tonight, on a smaller basis. It's really embarrassing that Sanders supporters think they're in the same category. Before tonight, Sanders had ±39% of the vote. Depending how you count*, Clinton ended up with ±50% of the vote in 2008. Is there no one to the left of John Kerry who can handle that math?
*I have zero--less than zero--interest in relitigating this. All I did was look at wikipedia. If she wasn't at 50.1+%, she was really, really close. Bernie is not.
Clinton was always already as left a Democrat could be in this, the best of all possible election worlds, and no candidate could have changed that. I, for one, was glad to bow to her inevitability and pay almost no attention to the primary.
The comments Trump made about his judge being biased because he is a Mexican are really, really bad -- so bad that I think it might actually tank his numbers to actual zero amongst Latinos. He explicitly called into question the judge's ability to do his job simply because he was of Mexican descent and because he was a member of some Mexican lawyer society. Even the most ardently and loyally Republican is going to be completely sickened by this.
Paul Ryan described them as "textbook racism", but went on to say that it wasn't really that big a deal and so he was still endorsing Trump.
She has a big early lead but that was expected.
No, I was assured by countless FB dumbasses that she was going to get crushed, at least until the AP destroyed the very concept of journalistic integrity.
I know, I know, I shouldn't care. When people to my left (or even somewhat to my right, but stupider, I guess) say asinine things, I shouldn't react. People 1% to my right are evil whatever they say, but people to my left who are morons are esteemed colleagues.
I only want Bernie to concede to fix my FB feed.
Even the most ardently and loyally Republican is going to be completely sickened by this.
Except of course for the significant number who agree 100% and voted for Trump on that basis.
101:
Fucking Nyquil.
That should be "the most ardent and loyal *latino* republican". I'm going to bed. I agree with 100, though. I'm tired of all of this and it's time to focus on beating the forces of reaction.
Paul Ryan described them as "textbook racism", but went on to say that it wasn't really that big a deal and so he was still endorsing Trump.
There's been some doubt about how a monstrous candidate could hurt the party downtick, but this sort of rhetoric is suggestive. I really, really don't think that mainstream* Republicans have handled this well.
*caveats. His politics aren't mainstream, but he can codeswitch mainstream. At this point, "mainstream" Republican means "non-drooling". Or, perhaps, more circumspect than Brock Turner's father.
Kasich is at 11% - isn't that one of his better performances?
I don't really understand why autocorrect was ok with "downtick" but not with "downticket". I'm pretty sure the former isn't a word in any context.
Well, "uptick" is definitely a word, so.
104:
They really haven't. Everyone should have held out a lot longer, or even simply refused to endorse like Lindsay Graham.
I really hope we don't see the saner ones switching affiliations, and I think we should probably not be very welcoming if they try to unless they're willing to make some really fucking big concessions.
Machine learning, ladies and gentlemen! The engine of our dystopian future.
Rarely is the question asked: Is our machines learning?
Everyone should have held out a lot longer, or even simply refused to endorse like Lindsay Graham.
I'm loving the schadenfreude of the Republicans who hastily endorsed Trump during his brief bump in the polls suddenly having to grapple with who he is and the campaign he's running. It's going to be a long five months for those folks.
I really hope we don't see the saner ones switching affiliations, and I think we should probably not be very welcoming if they try to unless they're willing to make some really fucking big concessions.
Yeah, it's interesting to see this potential realignment happening at the same time the Democrats are moving sharply further left. I'm not sure there's any historical precedent for this situation.
Looks like the Republicans won't even have a Senate candidate on the ballot in California come November. That is amusing.
loving the schadenfreude
So so much. NO REFUNDS NO RETURNS
109: I mean, I get why they would cave in the end. But why the rush to cave? How many voters are they going to lose in November because they got on the Fascist train in August instead of Memorial Day?
It just makes me think they're shitty politicians.
It just makes me think they're shitty politicians people.
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/8/11881130/bernie-sanders-politico
I suspect a lot of Trump voters, including Republican officeholders, are racists pretending to be tolerant people who are pretending to be racist. Or dogs pretending to be people blowing dog whistles.
I suspect 118 is particularly true of Republican officeholders relative to other Trump voters.
Thanks for 92, lk. Death's scythe mows the best and leaves the worst still standing, which is why I'm bracing myself for President Trump. Best-case scenario, we get a President Clinton less dislikable than the other one.
I'm thinking "Get disappointed by someone old" for the bumper stickers this time.
Would you buy a used war from this party?
Based on twitter, it appears that Sanders is a Tigre fan and wants to prove him right on all counts.
And here I thought it was the other way around.
117: Bernie doesn't know how to 'play nice' with others, and is fundamentally not a team player. Which is all well and good, and which is perhaps even quintessentially American; except when you're trying to hold yourself up as a socialist/social democrat alternative to the American system. There's something a little bit bizarre about a self-styled 'socialist' going all libertarian against any and all instances of social organization, social cooperation, and so forth (it's all 'corrupt,' and the system is rigged!). You're not going to get even halfway to a Swedish-style social welfare system with that attitude, is what I'm saying).
It appears that with all precincts reporting Sanders has not quite made up the deficit in any of the three counties I mentioned in 81, though he came very close in two.
This whole process has been a farce, but at least it's been an interesting farce this time around. Remember 1996? As if dowdy old vampire Bob Dole was going to unseat booming economy Bill Clinton. The fix has been in from the start, just like last time and the time before that.
This is an interesting result and I'm not sure what to make of it. It seems at odds with his generally good performance in other Native-dominated constituencies in other states, including the Dakotas which also voted today.
Those counties do tend to have significant Hispanic populations as well, so maybe that's it.
I'm not convinced that 117 is accurate, but 125 is a really good point.
Good morning. This turned out unexpectedly decisive.
And yet, he hasn't conceded. I would have voted for him yesterday had I been in a position to do so, but his plan to continue until July seems to be a poor one.
I am still with and for Sanders, whatever he chooses to do.
I am not with the war-mongering plutocrat.
U am very sad tonight, not because Sanders is losing or lost, but because political discourse is so unproductive.
Alright, here we go. Via TPM, here's the end of the White House statement about last night (the start is just "congrats everyone for a great campaign"; it does explicitly credit HRC with having the delegates to win):
In addition, at Senator Sanders' request, the President and Senator Sanders will meet at the White House on Thursday to continue their conversation about the significant issues at stake in this election that matter most to America's working families. The President looks forward to continuing the conversation with Senator Sanders about how to build on the extraordinary work he has done to engage millions of Democratic voters, and to build on that enthusiasm in the weeks and months ahead.So Bernie leverages his position into a one-on-one with Obama, after which he will presumably concede while talking about concessions and assurances he's received from BHO. Reasonable endgame IMO.
Anyway, I, personally, ann glad she kicked the crap out of Sanders last night, and look forward to never seeing another fucking word about him after Thursday. The idiocy surrounding the AP story would have made even a close Sanders loss last night intolerable.
The system is rigged because it doesn't allow old white guys to overrule the popular vote and steal the nomination!
Well, I guess Bernie is staying on the campaign trail. As long as he uses this to wind down the anger against Clinton and channel it all towards Trump and into down-ballot races I'm not worried. We will see what the next few days look like. It sounds like he's taking a more conciliatory tone, which is good.
So Bernie leverages his position into a one-on-one with Obama, after which he will presumably concede while talking about concessions and assurances he's received from BHO
I dunno, he just made a speech saying something quite different:
The senator from Vermont, his voice hoarse, struggled to be heard above screaming supporters in Santa Monica. "We are going to fight hard to win the primary in Washington DC," he said, referring to the caucus that is last in line to vote next week. Promising to continue all the way to the July convention, he added: "And then we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to Philadelphia."
He probably just heard that Philadelphia has lots of very good restaurants.
128: My little rotten borough, home to part of the largest urban Native community in the country, went solidly for Sanders.
As happy as I am to think that the primary contest is effectively over, I do take some umbrage about all of this Bernie Bros/"will you not denounce" stuff. So a couple of internet assholes got worked up enough to leave empty threats on voicemails or the twitter? As part of a larger context of misogyny on the internet, I think it's fucked up and deserves to be militated against, but we're talking about less than 1% of Sanders supporters engaging in anything even sorta questionable. The vast majority of his campaign was run cleaner and more democratically than any major presidential campaign in recent history. It certainly would have been nice if both camps could have refrained from going so negative, saving the vitriol for Trump and the Repugs, the likelihood of that happening was probably always pretty minimal.
At roughly this stage of the campaign in 2008, Hillary was invoking RFK's assassination as a reason to stay in the race.
It seemed a bit rude at the time, but let's face it, people were legitimately afraid of violence against Obama. (For all the criticism of the Secret Service during Obama's tenure, the fact that he's still alive is a big point in that organization's favor.)
Bernie has, overall, run a much gentler campaign than Hillary did in 2008, and there are more differences between Bernie and Hillary than there were between Hillary and Obama.
If Bernie stays in the race for a few more days or another week, we will just have to buck up and stay off the fainting couch. And maybe use the Facebook "Hide" feature a bit more liberally (so to speak).
we're talking about less than 1% of Sanders supporters engaging in anything even sorta questionable
#notallbros
141 ISTM that the sad losers leaving messages on Roberta Lange's voicemail probably aren't nearly as big a turnoff to the supers as Sanders' own statement that 'no they shouldn't do that, but, well, you know, she kind of deserved it, a little.'
I just question who these "bros" even are. If I show up at a Sanders rally, do I get counted as one just because I'm a cis-gendered white guy? Do they ice each other? I'm not crying in my beer at the thought of some white guys being mischarahterized in the corporate media, but it seems like sloppy reporting. A lot of the white guys I know who were/are really into the Sanders campaign are queer theater artists and that sort of thing. Bros? Not really. And every Bernie supporter I've seen on my FB is, by mainstream US standards, a hair-on-fire feminist and anti-racist.
The alternative being 'hey cut that shit out, we need her vote and that of her friends.'
Well, you shouldn't be having bros in your FB anyway, and it should be full of hair-on-fire feminists and anti-racists. #Kaelchips
144: Why hasn't Hillary repudiated the Hawley-Smoot Tariff then?
'no they shouldn't do that, but, well, you know, she kind of deserved it, a little.'
I missed this part of his statement. What a terrible thing for him to have done!
VW, last time we talked about this, you convinced me that it was all going to be ok. I remain convinced.
I also remain convinced that Sanderismo is the future, but only if competently managed.
I do think that as it stands Hillary Clinton (along with the economic advisors she brings on) is actually a reasonable hope for competently managed Sandersissimo. Anyone read DeLong's book yet? It has an interesting perspective on the Roosevelts and paints a picture of them as really very similar to the Clintons today.
I believe the children are our future.
Hold them close and let them lead the way, so long as the way doesn't lead to Dave and Buster's on a school night.
It seemed a bit rude at the time, but let's face it, people were legitimately afraid of violence against Obama. (For all the criticism of the Secret Service during Obama's tenure, the fact that he's still alive is a big point in that organization's favor.)
I breathed a sigh of relief after he became a total lame duck president that the wingnuts would probably be less driven to assassinate him now that there was a light at the end of the tunnel.
Political killing has rather died away as a hazard for elected officials in the US. You actually have to go back to 1980 to find even a former Congressman being murdered. The last elected federal official to be assassinated while serving was Leo Ryan in 1978.
I beg to differ with 155.
155: HEY, I TRIED.
When I'm president, assassins will do better than just try.
Donald Trump will make sure schumpy white guys have many non-violent opportunities to impress Jodi Foster.
I genuinely think (contra ajay) that modern presidential candidates don't get sufficient credit for physical courage.
We've had 43 presidents, and four of them have been assassinated. Wikipedia informs us that there have been more than 20 attempts on people who have been elected president.
Sure, it's been quiet on the assassination front for a few decades, but that's anecdata. The health hazard associated with the presidency appears to be huge.
160: And that's not even counting the assassinations and attempts for candidates prior to election.
I'd forgotten about the guy who threw a grenade at Bush.
Plus the person who brought him some pretzels.
Nobody knows what neo-liberal means.
If Bernie stays in the race for a few more days or another week, we will just have to buck up and stay off the fainting couch.
No kidding: the goddamned fainting couch enjoyed by far too many these days is exhausting, to say the least. Of course Sanders is going to endorse Clinton; of course he's going to do so with sincerity as well as urgency, sounding the alarm against Trump, etc. etc.
How so many people have worked themselves into a state of purported alarm over his alleged treachery is a mystery to me. I blame the press, I guess.
Also in full agreement with 166. It's been tiresome to watch. And here more than at other places even (I'm not on FB).
I agree with 166 (and expressed that sentiment in the last primary thread) but, regarding this:
Of course Sanders is going to endorse Clinton; of course he's going to do so with sincerity as well as urgency,
It was interesting to see the following in politico story that CC referenced (at 117) includes this:
They debate whether Sanders' role in the fall should be a full vote-for-Clinton campaign, or whether he should just campaign hard against Trump without signing up to do much for her directly.
There's nothing wrong with that; it's completely natural that they would be having that conversation, but that's why it's also completely natural for people on the outside to wonder about the same thing. It's not just a creation of the press.
OK, well, moreover, I find the seeming schadenfreude of, e.g., Kevin Drum, to be dismaying. Bernie Sanders is "bitter"? Perhaps he's annoyed; I would be too, but I have a feeling he's used to that. Is Drum the one who declared that Sanders is a con man, or was that Jonathan Chait? I believe it was Drum.
At any rate. This degree of flogging the losing primary candidate is unseemly. Also: buncha drama queens. Also: Debbie Wasserman Schultz should go, the Democratic party should revisit the concept of superdelegates*, and caucus vs. primary states should consider themselves.
* I'm on the fence here: there are certainly reasonable arguments in favor of superdelegates, given that there are no winner-take-all states for Democrats.
170 before seeing 169.
169.last: It's not just a creation of the press.
That's from a Politico article. I don't trust their slant(s). They live for heightening the contradictions.
I am in basic agreement with you.
I find the seeming schadenfreude of, e.g., Kevin Drum, to be dismaying. Bernie Sanders is "bitter"?
I didn't take this as schadenfreude; it seemed fairly sympathetic to me:
I find Sanders' bitterness very sad. It's not that it's unusual: presidential primaries often get pretty nasty, and the losers frequently take it personally. But Bernie accomplished a helluva lot. He wanted to move the Democratic Party to the left, and every hack in the party is now keenly aware that young voters bought Bernie's message en masse--young voters who, in a few years, will be middle-aged voters that form the core of the party's base. Sanders has taught the hacks not only that it's safe for the Democratic Party to move to the left, but that it's going to whether they like it or not. How many losing candidates can say they accomplished that? Reagan in 1976? Who else? Bernie may have lost the primary, but he won the more important battle. He should be proud as hell.
FWIW, I do think John Scalzi's comments strike the right tone. No shots at Sandrers, just getting ready for the general.
Online journalism is about clicks which reduces them to outright trolling sometimes so that people can share it with a note of disgust on Facebook. That's a lot of what has made the election coverage online so insufferable.
Given that superdelegates appear to reinforce the state outcomes, I'm not sure what their role is other than to make the winner win by a more convincing margin. I suppose their real purpose is to give the establishment candidate more of an air of inevitability early on in the race, although that didn't work so well for Clinton in 2008. Certainly it didn't help Bernie that Clinton had 3 million super delegates to his 1, but I doubt it materially shaped the outcome of the race, and I imagine if he had somehow managed to win a majority of the pledged delegates they also would have switched. Bill Clinton of all people said as much.
Oh god I am so tired of people on Facebook whining about super delegates. If Bernie had actually won a majority of delegates I would be right there with them but they are just embarrassing themselves at this point.
young voters who, in a few years, will be middle-aged voters
God, don't remind me.
I think the real role of the superdelegate is to make sure that Donald Trump-style candidates can't win. The system works. No superdelegates and open primaries would mean all of those people who voted Trump in the Republican primaries could have done the same in the Democratic ones.
And sure it might be worth rethinking them, but that's a conversation to have once everyone's heads have cooled. Somehow I expect it will all be forgotten like it was after '08.
I'm not even sure why we need to rethink superdelegates. Clinton won and has pretty much always been winning, although not by as much as was expected, and she's a powerful Democratic Party player. She's won more states and more votes (although comparing raw voting numbers in caucus vs primary states is problematic), and would be convincingly beating Sanders without superdelegates. If they were tied in pledged delegates and the super delegates swung it towards Clinton it might be worth rethinking (although, this is a party election, not a state one, and parties aren't obliged to let the rank and file choose their candidate), but even then, one person would have to be picked, and while I'd prefer Sanders, it wouldn't be unfair if Clinton were chosen over him.
If they were tied in pledged delegates and the super delegates swung it towards Clinton it might be worth rethinking
Seems like that's exactly the case where superdelegates would be most useful. I'd rather have party insiders break a tie than have the outcome hinge on a coin toss or a game of rock-paper-scissors.
180: I think Bernie's people were insisting on a game of HORSE.
Even though I voted for Sanders, I still welled up with joy when Clinton crossed the delegate threshold. My grandma was basically fired for getting married, and now a woman is on track to being elected the most powerful person in the world.
It's going to be delicious to see Clinton eviscerate Trump.
136.2: your choice of words is getting dangerously close to evoking some ugly tropes -- Sanders scheming to "steal" the nomination via an underhanded plot to subvert the will of the people. Let's not go there.
Since the Democratic party has no winner take all states, superdelegates provide a means to counter proportional assignment of delegates. That is, even if Bernie Sanders, say, won the majority of the popular vote in a given state, its superdelegates can go for Clinton -- and vice versa.
The question is whether the party needs or should have such a counter. There are good arguments on either side. It's possible that the number of superdelegates should be reduced, retaining the concept but reducing its influence. Don't forget that the number of superdelegates endorsing Clinton even before the first vote was cast in any primary was a discouragement to any candidate considering a Democratic primary run in the first place.
This has all been rehearsed and gone over in much greater detail by commentators more keen than I.
Let me add another "so much this" to 166.
I think that most of the people hatching preemptive conspiracy theories about how Sanders is going to somehow try to sabotage Clinton's campaign are just trying to keep their outrage high going for little bit longer, now that the end is in sight.
Internet rageaholics are a plague of our times.
In other news: CIA officer with dual citizenship in Portugal sentenced to jail time in Italy for her part in extrajudicial renditions, to be deported. I did not know about any piece of this.
Rageohol is the primary fuel source of the Internet.
185: I wouldn't be surprised if this CIA officer turns out to have been behind the whole Amanda Knox thing somehow or other.
In my little universe, people complaining about Sanders' potential perfidy are far far outnumbered by Sanders supporters claiming they will never, ever, not for anything vote for Clinton. As I've said above, on reflection and the advice of smart people, I'm really heavily discounting that kind of talk, and especially that Sanders will be encouraging it after the convention. But it's not as if there isn't a whole lot of it out there.
In my little universe, people complaining about Sanders' potential perfidy are far far outnumbered by Sanders supporters claiming they will never, ever, not for anything vote for Clinton.
Just to give credit to Kevin Drum again, I thought this post was good and hopefully (and presumably) correct.
I happen to have had a pretty good look during this election at the way both Bernie and Hillary supporters attack anything critical of their hero, and I have to call it a draw. I'll confess that initially I thought the Berniebros were worse, but they're not. The Hillarybots are every bit as obnoxious, and the condescension and contempt seem about equal on both sides. Bernie's most avid supporters are convinced that Hillary fans are establishment shills, warmongers, and hate young people. ...
Hillary's most avid supporters are convinced that Bernie fans are naive, sexist, and in thrall to a cult leader. And they are tired of being attacked as corrupt, patronizing boomers who can't stand the thought that no one cares what they think anymore.
But here's the good news: As near as I can tell, this only describes, at most, about 5 percent of the Democratic electorate even if they get the lion's share of the attention. The other 95 percent has an ordinary preference but that's all.
Hardly anybody I know talks about this stuff, so I just assume nearly everybody here is pro-Clinton.
From the Scalzi comment section, will go back there to see if it gets pushback. I expect these results to be totally denied.
This is what drives me nuts, the reality denial, the delusion about just how far fucking right Obama and Clinton actually are because of the soul-destroying choices lesser-evilism force us into.
For eight more years, we on anything that pretends to be a left will again find it absolutely impossible to sanely or usefully discuss for instance defense spending and global military strategy except in compromising complicitous undertones of despair.
And then at very best eventually Democrats will lose, and the madmen will once again get their hands on the machines and tools that Democrats have built up on their watch.
Huh, interesting how different all our bubbles are. Mine is a mixture of slighted Clinton fans annoyed by over-the-top Bernie Bros / Sander's staying in so long, and slighted Bernie fans who feel their views are being discounted by the party apparatus. I'm tempted to be-pox both houses, but I need a roof and it's a big tent.
174 - Recently I saw someone point out that one of the positive benefits of having superdelegates is that if something goes wrong (e.g., Clinton unexpectedly has a stroke in mid July) there's a system there to help deal with it that isn't just "Ok, well people who bothered to show up to the state convention (or however they're picked), you guys just figure it out amongst yourselves", which could have all kinds of strange/bad consequences. In this election they'd probably just default to the (close-ish) second place candidate, I mean, but there's no reason to think that all primaries would look like that.
In an election where the voters had indicated a significant preference for someone the general party establishment didn't like changing the results to someone they did like would be such a horrible idea for everyone involved that I can't imagine they would go through with it unless it was a genuine "if they're the candidate I think this party might be over" situation like the Republicans are worrying about right now. And in that case it probably would be a good thing.
The problem with them, given that in normal circumstances they just ratify the popular vote anyway, is the way they're reported on. Having the press treat them as bound delegates when they express a preference can shape the race in ways that it shouldn't.* So if there is something that needs to be fixed it would have more to do with finding a way to either make the press stop doing that or to tell off any superdelegates who publicly endorse candidates before the convention, and I don't know how either of those could work.
*Do I think Sanders would have been able to do better if "Clinton has an insurmountable lead" hadn't been the running storyline for most of the primary? Absolutely. Do I think he would have won? Ehh....no.
I run into many more annoying Sanders supporters than I do irritating Clinton supporters. Most of the ridiculous pro-Clinton stuff I see is here, in fact.
But Clinton and Sanders themselves haven't bought in to the stupid shit that is being said on their behalf. They can't be reasonably blamed.
Those "Real progressives will refuse to vote for Clinton/vote for Stein/vote for Trump!" articles must have proven to be pure clickbait gold for Salon. They seem to have been running at least 1 a day for a while now.
Salon's decline into irrelevancy has been long and regrettable, but they totally deserve it for giving the execrable Camille Paglia a platform.
My Own Political Compass Results though I doubt you'll believe these either
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92
I didn't stop reading because of that. I stopped because the site became a browser trap.
I expect (still) that Bernie will endorse and will do so immediately following the meeting with Obama, but if he doesn't there's not really a parallel with 2008, and he will be actively hurting both the party, its downticket races, and the Presidential campaign. That's already happened to date with coordinated campaigns, which is why Obama wants him out (which, again, I think he will do). Money and time and volunteers are key in politics and Bernie is costing the party all of those right now. How big a deal is this? Hard to say, right now, not much of one, if it keeps going for weeks or longer and the convention is disrupted, it's a bigger deal. The prize here is Congress, not just the Presidency.
In 2008 Clinton endorsed Obama enthusiastically (not just perfunctorily) within 4 days of it being clear that she'd lost the superdelegate+pledged delegate count, and in a much closer primary, where she had won the majority of the "popular" primary vote and there was at least some question about the way in which the rules for the Florida/Michigan primaries were working. It's reasonably to expect that as a bare minimum of cooperation, and to call the guy as an asshole if he doesn't play along. But, as expected, the usual sources are sticking with their guy, because emotional investment.
I think superdelegates are fine, but if you're going to have a primary system there should be a trigger for when they get votes -- say candidates within 2% of one another, no clear majority winner, plus some catch-all for "candidate with the most pledged delegates has become incompetent/unelectable in the interim." And maybe prohibit them from announcing pledges until after primary voting is over.
Also, no more caucuses, anywhere, and a single national primary election day. One and we're done, and if you're going to organize as a primary candidate, organize for that.
If the Rs had superdelegates and proportional allocation, they probably wouldn't have Trump as their nominee. So there's that. (It would be a hell of a lot more on the up-and-up than having Ted Cruz co-opt the county and state conventions too. So there's also that.)
I mean, this stuff is setting the tone and Sanders will agree with it, and concede soon, no doubt. But it's not crazy for people to worry about him being a giant dick, because he has said "I plan to be a giant dick."
I'm happy Bernie is waiting for DC to vote. DC gets to vote, dammit.
What about the delegates at the convention? They worked so hard to be there! Why shouldn't Sanders keep the campaign going until then, so that they can have a chance to cast a meaningful ballot?
What's wrong with keeping going after the convention? As long as he opposes Trump, and keeps telling his supporters to begrudgingly vote for Hillary (at least in close states) what's the problem with running a completely separate operation outside of the party elite!
Just want to get a sense of where we'll be going next.
Maybe there's still time to achieve the all-important goal of keeping Barney Frank off of the Rules Committee?!? Let's do this.
You know, if it was Idaho or something I wouldn't give a shit. But DC's been screwed out of its Congressional representation, and its important to remind people of that. So making a big deal of elections they do get to participate in is a nice thing. And maybe it will force Hillary to give a sop to the DC statehood movement.
I mean, this is literally what the campaign's own press release says:
SANTA MONICA, Calif. - To chants of "Bernie or Bust," U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders told a roaring crowd of supporters on Tuesday that he will carry his White House campaign and their fight for a political revolution to this summer's Democratic National Convention.
I mean, sure, my strong prediction is that he will use the meeting with Obama as coevr to get out, and that's fine. But it's really not crazy to worry a little when his own official campaign press operation is using the phrase "Bernie or Bust" and explicitly saying that they're going until the convention.
Maybe there's still time to achieve the all-important goal of keeping Barney Frank off of the Rules Committee?!?
If Bernie is planning on using his delegates to cause a ruckus on the convention floor around various platform votes, I'm all for that. And if part of that plan entails keeping Barnie Frank out of the mix, I'm for that too.
So that is where we're going. Good to know!
I forget. Why all the hating of Frank?
Just want to get a sense of where we'll be going next.
So we are left with what will Sanders do at and after the convention. And there the choice is stark. If he wishes to remain true to his supporters, he cannot in any way, shape, or how endorse Clinton. He could either release his supporters without formally endorsing Clinton, making clear he does NOT support Clinton, he could come out openly against her and advise his supporters to do likewise, or he could start a third party run. All these options are important because Clinton cannot win the Presidency without Sanders' voters*, no matter how much she wished she could.On the other hand, if Sanders endorses Clinton, no matter what the rationale, lesser evil whatever, this would be a betrayal of his supporters and validate the Black Agenda Report and Ron's view of Sanders as sheepdog.
*The leverage, the political capital accumulated must be used to its maximum, til it hurts, til Clinton and the Party (and y'all) and screaming approaching violence. The primaries have been lightweight so far. Clinton absolutely can get my vote, but it will motherfucking cost her.
Won't happen. Bernie's the sheepdog.
Back in the day Sanders used to deal weed out of the House cloakroom, and one time Frank called him out for selling eights that were under three grams. I don't know if it was true or not, but Sanders took it as a slight upon his honor. They haven't gotten along since, and Frank's endorsement of Hillary was the last straw.
Shows how loyal a lifelong blue-dog Democrat I am that I am still willing to give Clinton this one last chance.
Hell no, Bernie shouldn't concede and withdraw. He should threaten to walk out with his delegates in Philadelphia.
If y'all think Sanders and Clinton are so close on policy that the difference doesn't matter, then you shouldn't mind Bernie getting to appoint the entire economic team.
Not asking for much at all.
Its a good thing that Hillary will have to put some effort into winning over Bernie supporters, instead of only focusing on how to appeal to Republicans dissatisfied with Trump. Because fuck those guys.
Y'all are vastly underestimating how much Clinton got in 2008-09.
She not only got the high-profile Sec of State
She got the default shot in 2016, control of the party apparatus, and probably the choice or veto of the VP pick. Do you think Clinton would allow Obama to pick a VP that was young, charismatic, and competition for 2016 (or earlier, she did mention RFK)?
And probably much more, maybe including the bank bailout and no prosecutions.
I forget. Why all the hating of Frank?
Sanders and Frank hate each other for some reason. Probably not the reason in 212, but you never know.
Goes way back: Two Barney Frank quotes from two different articles from 1991:
"Bernie alienates his natural allies," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "His holier-than-thou attitude--saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else --really undercuts his effectiveness."
I think he has unduly denigrated the institution and a lot of the members," said Representative Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts. "It does not help leftist causes to make people think government is full of poltroons and charlatans."
Both articles are short profiles of Sanders during his first term in Congress. Potentially worth a read.
212. So great. This is basically the unreasonable reason why I can't stand media images of a high-school classmate who makes objectively very nice movies and seems like a pretty good adult. J0hn Cu5ack still owes me a negligible amount of money because there was this one night at aparty. Fucker stopped showing up for regular classes, family home was roughly speaking a fortress that faced the lake. Bygones.
The thing people who complain about the last quarter being not atht great or a little short never pick up on, sourcing is not that easy and honestly not always totally safe.
Note that when it comes to actually accomplishing liberal policy in Congress in the past 25-30 years, Barney Frank is surely in the top 5, if not number 1. Other plausible candidates for that crown are Henry Waxman, who also hates Sanders, and Ted Kennedy and who knows what he thought about Sanders. I'm not sure who the other candidates would be.
If Bernie getting out is so important, surely Hillary should offer him Frank's head on a platter, and Wasserman Schultz for dessert. If not, it's kinda ludicrous to claim it's super important that Sanders quit Right Now.
(And actually I do think that "your guys fucked me, I'm gonna fuck them back" is a legitimate goal of negotiations. If the norm becomes "DNC chair can't even look like screwing the scrum for the establishment" then that's a huge win for the left in the long run.)
Yes, "Barney Frank's head" is a totally legitimate, reasonable thing for him to ask for and Hillary to grant. Good thoughts!
I haven't been following the race closely this year and it does seem like time for Sanders to drop out, but I did follow closely in 2008 and it was clear by March of that year that Clinton wasn't going to win, but also that it was going to take a long time to reach the mathematical loss point.
I don't know why the Democratic Party has a nomination system that makes this possible, but then I'm not a member of that party.*
*Just noting this to piss off Tigre.
Yes, 223 is certainly true, but we're now past "mathematically near certain but still maybe some bad but kinda you can see them (popular vote)) arguments, and into "actually over."
222 -- keeping Frank off the rules committee doesn't seem particularly important to me, although I can see why Bernie wants it, but that's the point! It's not important either way -- if Hillary wants Sanders out, but not if it means giving him a minor thing, it seems to me that she doesn't really want him out that bad. Make the deal if you want the deal, if you don't Sanders has leverage and he's gonna use it. This is what transactional machine politics looks like.
Dude you have no idea what machine politics looks like, aren't you from some island in the South Seas? In this country we expect our pols to be on board at the time of the convention or they get frozen out. Sanders still has a bit of a grace period but in no fucking way whatsoever does it help Clinton (or liberalism, or anything) to remove Barney Frank, and if Sanders insists on that kind of thing (which he almost certainly won't) he's so off the reservation that the only thing that will work is freezing him out.
I'm guessing Bernie doesn't like Barney Frank because he proudly admits to having solicited donations from the financial sector and now sits on a bank board.
I think this one's silly on Bernie's part. We ought to have people around like Bernie, but I agree with just about everything Barney Frank says in the article I linked.
227 -- for some depressing reason half the people I was at uni with now work for the ALP, and trust me, compared to the way people in the ALP act, Bernie's being a complete saint.
If Sanders isn't getting anything, why should he play along? Why shouldn't he just stay in, push for what he can at the convention, and then stay at home in Vermont over the summer? Sanders has a mandate to push an agenda and it's not clear why he shouldn't use what leverage he has to get concessions for his wing of the party. And fucking over people who fucked you over is like, a legitimate use of power! In the future, progressive figures will think twice about letting personal and geographic ties override ideological ones, if it means consequences. That's fair enough.
Eh, I think Sanders is an old git and if I was him I'd be acting a lot different, but his job isn't to act morally and saintly, it's to be a politician and fight for his people and what they voted for.
Huh, interesting how different all our bubbles are.
Yeah, it's kind of fascinating. My FB feed has way, way more people calling for unity than obnoxious supporters of either Clinton or Sanders (though there are a few of both of those too).
I mean, the fact that so many people feel the need to call for unity does indicate that the obnoxious types are out there and very loud. I'm just not seeing much of them personally.
Weird thing about the CA top two primary: every state and federal race is either uncontested or Dem v. Dem where I live -- Senate, House, State Assembly, State Senate.
And only the House race is uncontested.
You Californians and your supermajorities.
Somewhat relatedly, I'm going to an event tomorrow for a primary challenger to a longtime incumbent Democratic state representative in a rural district that is so solidly Democratic that I don't think the Republicans are even bothering to run a candidate. Interestingly, the challenger switched his registration from Independent to Democrat for this race and is running an explicitly ideological campaign claiming the incumbent is too conservative for the district.
Oh, wait. I got confused. The primary for the House race was uncontested because there were only two candidates. It will be Dem v. Rep, but the Dem is a 20 year incumbent who is likely to win at least 75% of the votes.
Kinda disappointed at Halford's restraint in the face of blatant trolling. Said ALP hacks are all mega Hillary fans so I have a well-developed, field-tested line of pro-sanders content which I need to offload pretty swiftly.
After some thinking I figured out that "ALP" must mean "Australian Labor Party" (and not some kind of antipodean ALF spinoff). But isn't the other party, the Liberals (right? not actually sure) also an "L" and hence also the ALP? Is it ALP v ALP in Australia? Is this like in Canada where there were two football teams in the same league both named the Rough Riders?
Right but is there also a New Zealand ALP? The Amazingly Lucky tohavereceivedsomuchmoneyfromhollywood Party?
I know nothing of antipodean politics, so I guess we'll have to wait for him to show up to clarify.
Well, I guess I know that the Australian Liberal Party is evil. But that seems kind of trivial in context.
Australia is pretty much the only country in the world where Labor are the venerable party of tradition, regularly in government from the beginning of Australian federal politics. The Liberals are comparative Johnny-come-latelys, only founded in the 1940s. So I guess ALP stands for Labor because they got there first.
Three more ekranoplan stories today from the Vietnamese media. The people of Vietnam appear keenly interested in ekranoplans - another praiseworthy feature of the country, along with their food, their coffee, their interesting jungles and their beaches.
243 - Also, the Liberals are generally in a permanent coalition between themselves and the National Party, which is often referred to as the Coalition, which I think militates against using ALP to refer to them. Plus as you say Labor got there first.
There is an NZLP but in contrast to the faceless men of the ALP it is kinda soft, cuddly, quite inept, and couldn't win a raffle if it bought all the tickets. This is why all the people I knew at uni who were horrible soulless hacks moved to Sydney or Melbourne to practice horrible soulless politics, in the big leagues as it were.
(The New Zealand Labour Party also predates the NZ National Party, which is a 1930s construct.)
This is why all the people I knew at uni who were horrible soulless hacks moved to Sydney or Melbourne to practice horrible soulless politics, in the big leagues as it were.
A fortiori, this also explains the horrible Lynton Crosby. He left his country for his country's good!
Australia always kind of feels like a bigger more important country than it is. The whole damn thing has basically the population of Southern California.
It's complicated by irregular censuses, varying methodologies and rapid population growth, but there are at least some cities with larger populations than Australia, and several cities have similarly sized populations.
Larger populations of people, sure. But not larger populations of kangaroos.
to worry a little
As I've said all along, sure, worry a little. To be a Democrat is to worry. But maybe don't worry so much or with such overt hostility. It can't be good for your health.
I never finished the book, but didn't overt hostility work out well for Inspector Javert?
244 Links?
I've got to get my ass to Vietnam.
That's what I was always telling people to do.
Here you go:
http://kienthuc.net.vn/vu-khi/kho-do-kho-vu-khi-khong-giong-ai-cua-lien-xo-693571.html
Unforgivably, though, the headline translates as "The preposterous and unique arsenal of the USSR".
PREPOSTEROUS? My ekranoplans, preposterous? You may expect to receive a strongly worded letter to the editor, Kien Thuc.net!
254.last should be read in the style of Gerard Depardieu delivering the "tirad du nez".
"Petit? Mon nez, petit? Hein? ENORME mon nez!"
his job isn't to act morally and saintly, it's to be a politician and fight for his people and what they voted for.
Well, I voted for him to act kinda saintly - to not be a demagogue on e-mails or Benghazi, for instance. To make it clear that while Hillary is wrong on some issues, there's no conceivable comparison between her and whatever asshole the Republicans were going to put up. To run as a Democrat.
Tigre's hysterics notwithstanding, Bernie hasn't meaningfully disappointed so far.
But he might! It could happen! Maybe as we speak, he's planning a third party candidacy!
I kinda doubt it, though, and whatever beef he has with Barney, I think it's pretty likely to be resolved without any damage being done.
I mean, he'll probably drop out today and we can all celebrate, but I don't see why quoting the guy's promises in his own press release counts as hysteria.
I mean, the fact that so many people feel the need to call for unity does indicate that the obnoxious types are out there and very loud. I'm just not seeing much of them personally.
Same here. I see a couple obnoxious people on Facebook saying "Welp, Guess I don't have an option to vote for this year. Sigh, look at me I am so great." and a bunch of obnoxious people gloating who spent the last 3 months going "Fuck these people who want the most qualified woman to ever live to have her turn taken yet again by some random charismatic guy with no qualificationst, yet again, I see that every day at work and it fills me with rage".
Meanwhile we're still at the point where in 2008 Hillary voters were much less likely to tell pollsters they would vote for Obama than Bernie voters are now, right? With every journalist in America now writing their "Bernie, call off your dogs, these emails I am getting from random bozos are upsetting me" piece.
I blame the AP story that came out the day before the primary announcing that Hillary had officially lined up enough anonymous secret delegates and there was no longer any need to vote. Seriously, WTF was that?
246 - I would say that Lynton Crosby is perhaps not even very horrible by Australian political standards. I mean, he's awful, but not a stand out awful figure.
Pauline Hansen! Howard! The Pacific Solution! (It really is as awful as it sounds).
A grad school acquaintance who I watched a Dem debate with has not been a Bernie or Buster in any overt way but has been making some concerning retweets recently.
Sigh, look at me I am so great.
I have successfully restrained myself from scornfully reminding such acquaintances of mine that 1) their compromise-clean hands and a buck will get them one item at the dollar store, and 2) they live in fucking North Carolina which ought to be the clearest example of the knee-buckling stupidity of that particular moral preening.
Isn't the fantasy that these people will meet an Earnest World Citizen who will ask them how they could possibly vote for Hillary, and they will be able to proudly state that they voted for Bernie and then abstained, and also turned their FB picture to the Lebanese flag instead of the French one, and the grateful approbation of the World Citizen will crown one of the finest moments of their lives?
At least that's what I remember from my misspent 20s. Also the buck not buying much at the euro store.
Earnest World Citizen should get out into the world some more, all of my very international coterie of cow orkers are shocked and appalled* that Trump could have gotten so far and don't we take this shit seriously?
*The French guy is rather smugly bemused. Fuck him
265: Don't you benighted ones know that virtue is its own reward? You probably can't imagine the joy I feel when I look in the mirror.
267: Develop a cough that sounds like "Le Pen".
Is it safe to get up off the fainting couch yet?
270: Of course not. A few weeks from now he true dead enders will be analyzing every word of the speech in which Sanders endorses Clinton (as well as his body language and tone of voice), and concluding that they can just tell that he doesn't really mean it.
I dunno, if he gets time to keep being a slight asshole because he's butthurt, I get some time to keep thinking he's a monster. More seriously, a little more explicit attempt to talk the supporters into positive support for Hillary as opposed to just negative anti-Trump would be nice.
272: But he's staying in for one more primary, so can't explicitly endorse the person he's still running against.
If he continues to conspicuously avoid endorsing Clinton and instead just say "We must stop Trump" after the primaries are over, then I'll agree with the "monster" charge. But I very much doubt that will happen.
Sure, that's fine. If he explicitly endorses after DC I'm all good, especially if he does so with some enthusiasm. I mean there's not much reason for him to contest DC but if he wants that to be his story so be it.
I'm guessing he's relishing the opportunity to travel around the country highlighting issues that don't often get discussed and that the campaign allows him to do that. As far as I can tell he's going to give speeches in DC encouraging them to push for statehood.
Never mind, I misread. I was looking at a post with Sanders reacting to Obama's endorsement of Clinton.
There is a bat that has taken up residence in our apartment and won't leave. In Halford's honor, I've named him Bernie.
This is interesting: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mLpCEIGEYGYl9RZWFRcmpsZk0/view?pref=2&pli=1
In Halford's honor, bite the head off.
Oh good, a conspiracy theory. Let's hope they take the logical next steps of tracking down the conspirators. Conspirators are horrible teases, always leaving the key evidence in plain view and the actors impenetrably concealed, but surely in this age of transparency and smartphones and surveillance and Twitter and smartphones and data and programs and wires and satellites and democracy and insurgency we could find... two? (One is for obvious reasons insufficient.)
279: what about that is interesting?
282: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams
The Sanders campaign brought down the Twin Towers.
285: And has anyone noticed that Bernie Sanders is JEWISH?! He's probably a double agent, secretly working for Clinton, who is secretly working for Trump. Which makes Sanders either a double double agent? or a triple agent? but Jewish, in any case.
The hardcore Bernie or Bust French cheese guy/FN supporter on FB is claiming that Clinton plans to give the Presidency to her good friend Donald Trump after she is elected and indicted. Another guy is mocking anyone who claims to be progressive but who doesn't, unlike Bernie, support abolishing the death penalty everywhere and bringing all US troops home from foreign bases; if you support either of the latter two you are a "neoliberal." A third and fourth are sharing something saying that Google three the election by somehow favoring Hillary in its searches. In fairness, beyond that the consistent Sanders people seem to be taking the loss in stride and switching to anti-Trump.
You mean there are people who are wrong on the internet??? You keep on that, buddy.
I kind of want this French cheese vendor and Bob to meet. They have similar views and this guy has really excellent cheese.
It's not actually that difficult to get really excellent cheese, at least in retail quantities.
Has Bob expressed any opinions about cheese? I can't remember.
There's probably a California ballot initiative giving the polity the chance to express opinions about cheese.
291: Kraft slices in individual wraps. Cheez-wiz. Kroger extra-sharp blocks. Kraft blue dressing. These are my cheeses. Proletarian cheeses, anti-discriminatory cheeses, democratic cheeses. MNCs profit from me, but not much, certainly not at surplus values of boutique or craft or DIY rates.
Neoliberalism is about creating and overvaluing difference, identity formation, enhancement, and distribution is the new post-labor labor. Finding and submitting to whatever tiny pockets of mass-cult remain in our present anarchy is the new resistance.
Or whatever. Fact is, I have never found food or sex interesting enough to be worth any effort.
So, our county convention went really well. Everyone got along, and on both sides everyone who put their name in the hat ended up either a delegate or an alternate. Trophies for all!
There was plenty of dead time while votes were being counted, and so quite a few people from one side or the other went and mingled with friends on the opposite side.
I remain charmed by the enthusiasm shown by the folks planning to compete to go to Philadelphia. It's pretty tough: from the whole state, we're electing 5 men each for Sanders and Clinton, and 5 women for Clinton and 6 women for Sanders. Tough but doable -- I'm sure plenty of folks are busily trying to find out who got elected from other counties, and working to figure out how to pitch them. (We have the biggest delegation in the state, but to win one of those coveted seats, obviously broader appeal is needed.)
The event I mentioned in 235 also went well. The candidate seems to have a real shot in the primary, and it was interesting to hear the young political types talk. One of them is a delegate to the national convention who is crowdfunding her travel costs to Philadelphia (recently covered by the Inquirer, in fact). Apparently attending the convention is super-expensive and the party expects delegates to pay for it themselves.
Yeah, we tell people 3 or 4k. It's kind of a once in a lifetime thing for amateurs, and for the pros, it's very high quality networking.
Her GoFundMe page is here in case anyone wants to donate. I haven't really talked to her one-on-one at all, but she seems like a sweet kid.
she seems like a sweet kid
Are you 30 yet, whippersnapper?
Based on his comment in the other thread (early millennial), I'm guessing he's 30 or more.
I, on the other hand, can remember when lawn darts were still able to kill people.
I'm 31. One of the interesting thing about attending these events with lots of Young Dems has been how young a lot of them seem. They're only a few years younger than me, but clearly at a very different stage in their lives. There are also people around my age, but they're, like, running for office and stuff.
When Hitler was my age, he was already running a whole country. No very well, but still.
I really didn't come into this campaign liking Clinton very much, and in some sense I still don't, but I can already tell that by the end of the campaign she is going to have been subjected to so much ridiculously unfair criticism and abuse that I'm going to genuinely love her, basically just for surviving all of it.
(Not that she hasn't already been subjected to ridiculously unfair criticism and abuse, for decades, but it's about to get worse.)
(And then I'll be disappointed by her as soon as her presidency starts, I'm sure.)
By which I mean: during the primary we've heard a lot of valid criticisms of Clinton. I think we've heard just about the last of those for the time being. From here on out, it's going to be nonstop feverswamp asininity and misogyny. Against which all right-thinking people will naturally feel compelled to come to her defense.
Yeah, urp, were it not for the seemingly unrepentant warmongering, I might have voted for her. In any event, I can't help but admire her for her enemies, including some on the left, like this douchebag.
From 308:
Trump arsonist-progressives are mostly embarrassed to go on the record. An editor of a major progressive website tells me in an email that if I outed him/her as a Trump supporter, "We'd probably lose the last funders that we have!!!"
That's gotta be Salon, right?