He also loans his campaign money ($43M), then spends some of that money (~$6M) on contracts with businesses he owns, and can then still repay himself the full amount of the loan should he raise enough.
I was briefly worried about Trump because I thought that, just maybe, he would somehow manage to take off the clown shoes for the general election.
Apparently not. I suppose I shouldn't get too complacent, though.
You shouldn't get too complacent in the sense that we will never get this kind of perfect storm ever again, but you sure as hell shouldn't fret your way through the best schadenfreude ever.
I have one last smidgen of worry; with the firing of the campaign manager, it seems barely possible that the new manager will be a serious person, and there's untapped money out there: the people who would normally give to a Republican candidate haven't given yet, so it's not impossible that a whole lot of money could come in fast.
But I don't really think this is plausibly going to happen.
I'm assuming there will be some kind of swing back towards Trump in the polls/general zeitgeist and people will spend another two weeks freaking out and blaming Hillary/Bernie for (whatever). Going to try to stay chilled out about it.
Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton are in a dead heat for Ohio's votes in the all-important swing state, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday.
This doesn't make me feel complacent.
And according to this it appears he has 1.3M cash on hand and $46M in outstanding debt (does that include his self loans?) I'm guessing if those are to him or his companies they'll be paid back first.
6:
Democrat Hillary Clinton opens an 8-point lead over Republican Donald Trump in Florida, the largest of the presidential swing states, and erases a small Trump lead to create a dead heat in Ohio, while Pennsylvania remains too close to call, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today.
Do breathe, dear.
8: I breathe calmly and check my email every few minutes and each time Hillary has sent me another message asking if I don't care about her or America anymore, because I haven't given her any money for a few hours, and so I break down and send her another dollar.
You shouldn't get too complacent in the sense that we will never get this kind of perfect storm ever again, but you sure as hell shouldn't fret your way through the best schadenfreude ever.
Sure we should. Why are we running our worst possible candidate against their worst possible candidate? We could win this election with Kucinich.
Actually, of all the people running this year or who talked about running, Clinton was and is my favorite.
What if social media really has rewritten the rules about money and electoral politics? What if the GOP voter suppression campaign against minorities works? What if there is a terrorist attack by someone who isn't a homophobic american citizen? What if the email scandal finally sticks?
Warren talked about running!
I mean, specifically she said that people needed to shut the hell up about her running because she wasn't running and was tired of talking about running (because she wasn't going to). But that's still talking about running!
What if Trump implodes so badly the Republicans switch to, say, Romney?
I'm weirded out that Warren is so enthusiastic about the vice-presidency.
As my mom pointed out, it would mean she's next in line for the presidency.
Unless your mom means 8 years from now.
Wait, has Hillary tapped Warren?
I think the dilemma is that Warren is signaling enthusiastically that she wants it, and Clinton can't turn her down without alienating the Bernie supporters further.
18: Yes, that's what she means.
I didn't know she was signaling that. It all depends on where we get our news from I guess.
I don't know - there have been a lot of high profile Democrats openly speculating about it, not just Warren. I think her signaling came mostly around the same time or a little afterwards, and Clinton has met with her more than once now.
Really as long as they can work together at all it's a really good pick for Clinton, as far as campaigning goes. It reaches out to the other faction in the party, gets her a potent attacker, and does a lot to mitigate worries about her Wallstreet connections. Plus two women on the ticket would be a plus. I'm more curious about what Warren gets from it, given how the vice presidency is typically a nothing position.
Clinton -Warren would be like the female version of Clinton-Gore. That ties in with the female Ghostbusters movie. Could be in the zeitgeist.
I'm more curious about what Warren gets from it, given how the vice presidency is typically a nothing position.
Just means she wants to be President eventually.
Another goddamn special election in MA. We suck at doing those right.
Surely the third time's the charm for Martha Coakley.
zeitgeist
Was that was the pink ooze under NYC? It's been a while.
Here's reason to hope. The Wall Street boys are trying to put word out that picking Warren as VP would be bad for HRC, which of course means it sounds good to me.
Honestly, I think that's a bad spot for her--she doesn't need to be VP to be the next nominee, the party* freaking loves her, she does much more good as SecTreas or (Pierce's idea) AAG for the Civil Division or in her current seat--but it's not as if I'd be unhappy about it.
Also, I've been saying forever that IMO polls understate HRC's support among white women; I think that, with Warren at her side against Trump of all people, she'd win women in every single demographic, even conservative-leaning ones.
*not the Party, obvs, and I suspect she's weak among African-Americans (and Latin@s?), but she's so strong on core Dem issues, and she's gotten so good on the stump that I think she could unite the party like few others
Oh yeah, 28 is the other reason I don't want Warren going anywhere.
The main danger that appears from the top of the stands at the moment is that Trump will implode too soon either by collapsing financially before the convention, or by going to jail soon enough after it for the Republicans to put up someone semi-serious in his place.
27: I'd be reluctant to assume that Warren would be in place for the presidency in 2024. I think it seems like she might because she comes off as younger than she actually is - younger than Clinton, sure, but not by enough that it would matter. She turns 67 this year (tomorrow, now that I checked), so she'd be 75 and that's awfully old for running for a first term. Unless Clinton has some kind of secret medical condition where it's likely that her VP would be president within eight years, which seems unlikely, I doubt Warren would be well placed to run.
28, 29, 32: I'm of the opinion Clinton should take one for the team and nominate Coakley, thus allowing Mass Dems to win statewide races again.
Would bankruptcy or imprisonment actually debar you from running for president? IIRC, even actually being dead isn't enough to take you off the ballot in the US - there are several cases of someone dying between nomination and election, and at least one, I think, of them actually getting elected.
Yeah, I feel really ageist bringing that up, but she's too old to be a veep, particularly for an old president. If the presidential candidate were in her 40s/50s, fine, but not both of them.
16-18: LBJ calculated that he had better odds of reaching the presidency from the VP slot than from the Senate.
Heebie says it perfectly in 3. If you are wasting this glorious, glorious election by fretting, well, then, that's a shame.
The Establishment was rubbing their thighs for Grandpa Joe to run and he'd have been 74 when he took office. So Warren's in the same place Joe was 8 years ago and but for Hillary being next in line as the 2008 close runner up, he'd have been the default candidate this year. Certainly Bernie is not lined up for 2024 the way Hillary was for 2016 so Warren would have a clear path if she becomes VP.
IIRC, even actually being dead isn't enough to take you off the ballot in the US - there are several cases of someone dying between nomination and election, and at least one, I think, of them actually getting elected.
Yes, Mel Carnahan won the 2000 Missouri Senate election after dying. The late Carnahan defeated the INCUMBENT John Ashcroft. Ashcroft could then make a smooth transition from despised Senator to despised Attorney General.
I don't think there's anything wrong with someone her age being VP, but only if it's in the Biden/Cheney style rather than the HW Bush/Gore one. Having her on hand to step in in case anything happened to Clinton doesn't seem that worrying to me. And it's not impossible that she'd have clout in a Clinton administration, though I don't know why she would. After all if she kicks the bucket replacing a VP isn't particularly difficult at all - not like a legislator or anything. And even if they're both pretty old the chances of them both going at the same time as a result of natural causes isn't enough to be worried about.
And, I mean, it's true that they were all about Biden running (once they saw the alternatives). But, well, he didn't. And I'm not sure that there was any reason to think he was going to either.
But Biden ran for president for real, many times before. I think I voted for him in the 2008 primary, unless it was Dodd. They did similarly well that year.
And this would be Warren's only shot!
Clinton -Warren would be like the female version of Clinton-Gore. That ties in with the female Ghostbusters movie. Could be in the zeitgeist.
Idea for a campaign ad: Warren at the controls of the Statue of Liberty as it stomps on Trump. And Wall Street.
After the bigger-and-faster-than-expected recent meltdown by Trump, my biggest concern is that he somehow won't last until the convention. At this point, in terms of his future public stature, the establishment "conspiring" to "steal" the nomination from him is the best thing that could happen to him, and he surely knows it. I'm worried that he may knowingly help bring about that outcome.
(I see that others have beat me to this comment, but I won't let that deter me.)
33: That's my big remaining worry about Trump. He needs to hold off imploding until it's too late to get a viable* replacement.
*"viable" by the standards of today's GOP, that is.
I'm a little surprised that, with Trump really letting his freak flag fly, he's only behind by five points or so.
But yeah, Megan/heebie are right. One ought not fret about the presidential race because Hillary has it in the bag.
Unless, that is, Satan chooses to hold me to the terms of the deal that I made in exchange for letting the Cavs win the championship.
Why would he want to drop out when the campaign pays such a great salary?
Doesn't a whole lot of public funding kick in after the convention? Or did all that get changed somehow?
The last several cycles both candidates have rejected public funding because it limits how much you can raise/spend and everyone went way beyond what they would have gotten. But Trump's best play might be to accept that- yet another case where he can pay himself out of government funds, and he gets to pretend to be the non-corrupt candidate- "Look at Crooked Hillary, taking all those corporate donations while I'm funded by The People!"
49.1: I don't think you all understand how popular Trump is still.
She's not going to waste throw away her shot.
52: If you're stuck with public funding, you're a big ol' loser. Plus, the public funding is matching funding - you still have to raise money.
Walking back from lunch, I say some students at a table with a sign reading "Hillel". I assume this means the kids are for Hillary/Elizabeth. I was going to try to convince them that not using last names was a bit sexist, but decided against on the grounds that enthusiasm should count for something.
55: I can't believe I messed up that lyric.
57. Can you be sure they weren't recruiting for a Talmudic studies class?
I only mention it because it's a pun with such great payoff.
The Establishment was rubbing their thighs for Grandpa Joe to run
Just to clarify, it was the media/DC Establishment, not the Dem Establishment, which was perfectly happy with Biden. And, frankly, it was pretty obvious that the media/DC people were ABC, as they have been for 24 years now.
I'm concerned about the dumping of Lewandowski, who reputedly (if this is not spin) was the bigger enabler of clowning and non-management, whereas the remaining Manafort is the elevator of strongmen.
I was trying to make that very pun. After being subjected to the whole sound track not more than a week ago.
57, 59: They were probably giving away charoset and horseradish on matzoh sandwiches.
I'd like to see four more years of Onion articles about Joe Biden so I hope against hope that she'll pick him as VP.
"Once they have established eligibility for matching payments, Presidential candidates may receive public funds to match contributions from individual contributors, up to $250 per individual. "
So publi financing won't necessarily help him that much.
65: The only position more ridiculously avuncular than Vice President is Vice President Emeritus. Hopefully, he'll follow The Gore and grow a wicked beard.
64: Kids today are confusing. With their Justin Bieber, their horseradish, and all those MySpace pages.
When Obama gave up public financing, it was a victory for popular government because small donors would swamp large donors and prevent candidates from becoming beholden to big money supporters. Mark Schmitt said so!
So is the idea that by limiting ourselves to ancient Democratic candidates, we can fool other ancient voters into voting for them? Can't we get anyone in their 40s and 50s?
I'm willing to run for vice president. Who do I email about it?
I'm more curious about what Warren gets from it, given how the vice presidency is typically a nothing position.
That was my assumption, but after seeing the Atlantic article about how important Joe Biden was in the Obama White House, I'm beginning to change my thinking. The last three VPs (Biden, Cheney, Gore) have all had significant policy responsibilities -- that may be the new normal. There's just too many things for the President to handle everything personally, so it's helpful to be able to delegate some of it to the VP.
What the VP doesn't get is credit. For example, I wasn't aware of Biden's role in any of these issues prior to reading that article:
But in terms of the sheer number of issues Biden has influenced in a short time, the current vice president is bidding to surpass even Cheney. Fiscal issues and guns are only a small sampling of this vice president's portfolio. Back in 2010 it was Biden's office that, in the main, orchestrated the handover to the Iraqis. It is Biden's view of Afghanistan that has, bit by bit, come to dominate thinking inside the 2014 withdrawal plan. On financial reform it was Biden who prodded an indecisive Obama to embrace, at long last, Paul Volcker's idea of barring banks from risky trading, according to Austan Goolsbee, formerly the head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. The VP also tilted the discussion in favor of a bailout of the Big Three auto companies, according to Jared Bernstein, Biden's former economic adviser. "I think he made a difference in president's thinking," Bernstein said. "He understood the importance of the auto companies to their communities, and throughout the country."
That's what made me curious. There have certainly been powerful VPs recently. It's a prominent position in the executive branch and one that can be a bully pulpit as well if used aggressively (which I suspect Warren would). The trick is that they can't just do that for themselves, the president needs to effectively set them up for it (except for the "influences the president" one). So what I'm wondering is what Warren could/would get out of the VP position given that I'm still pretty sure she brings a boost to Clinton's campaign.
Separately, is it wrong that I really want one of those Soviet red "Make America Great Again" hats?
Walking back from lunch, I say some students at a table with a sign reading "Hillel". I assume this means the kids are for Hillary/Elizabeth.
Clearly it means Clinton's from Krypton and part of the DC establishment.
Obviously I wouldn't wear the hat until after the election.
That's what made me curious. There have certainly been powerful VPs recently.
I think there's only been one powerful VP recently.
63: There's a Hillel soundtrack?
76: And you'd wear it ironically.
If I hadn't just posted this post, I'd immediately post about this:
The most bizarre expenditure in the FEC data, as first noted by ThinkProgress editor Judd Legum, is a $30,000 payout to a New Hampshire-based advertising firm called Draper Sterling.
which appears to be a firm that got invented in March by a guy who dabbles in Xeno-therapy.
Gift that keeps on giving!
The VP's office is as powerful as the president wants it to be. Cactus Jack Garner said it wasn't worth a bucket of warm piss, but that's because FDR was shutting him out of decision making and while trying to use him to appease southern voters by having someone named "Cactus" on the ticket. Al Gore got a seat at the table because he and Bill were basically sympatico.
I think Hillary would give Warren a seat at the table. They are both reasonable people.
Having a ruptured xeno is the worst.
They invented a firm from a TV show. I mean, it's like they truly didn't understand that reporters are going to be vetting every last detail and trying to find all the ridiculous shit associated with Trump. This was in March! Not years ago!
I think if Trump implodes fast enough to give #NeverTrump a resuscitation, that would put Trump back in firm primary footing, where he's competing against the Republican establishment again. There's no way the establishment can boot Trump without invigorating his base.
83: This is why Trump doesn't need any TV ads. His scandals keep him in the news all the time!
Whatevs, all kinds of nutso libertarians have started companies with names from Rand novels. AIHMHB a recruiting company called John Galt tried to contact me, their motto was something like "all the best people."
Not sure I would use a recruiter named after someone whose most notable achievement was persuAding a lot of people to stop doing any work. c.f. Icarus Removals. ("You named your company after the first bad pilot in history?? ")
8: I breathe calmly and check my email every few minutes and each time Hillary has sent me another message asking if I don't care about her or America anymore, because I haven't given her any money for a few hours, and so I break down and send her another dollar.
Opinionated Hillary: I'm not angry with you, young lady. I'm...disappointed.
Heebie: *makes it $50*
I kind of like the idea of Warren declaring an Economic Fourth Branch of Government. "No, you can't appeal to the Supreme Court, because the new student loan regs were issued by an authority beyond the mere constitution."
If you are inclined to fret, I apologize for linking this: https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/hillary-clinton/
Interesting but probably not that big a deal.
I think the Warren VP possibility sounds good, it seems like there is a non-zero chance HRC will have to resign in disgrace at some point. There are some health rumors as well.
90: Just for the record, heebie is all cool and confident about this election, it's me, peep, who is anxiously handing over his retirement savings to the Clinton campaign.
It doesn't even mention Vince Foster or the reptilians.
The recent John Rodgers tweets about Trump's scampaign is the best stuff I've ever seen on twitter. https://twitter.com/jonrog1
93: I'm cool and confident in general, and the topic du jour is the election.
Clinton is getting indicted after the convention and will withdraw. They are waiting to let her get at least a little further than 2008, and to stop Bernie.
Uh duh, Warren, being much closer to the center than Castro etc and knowing above, is like really pretty fucking excited about being nominated VP at the convention, cause, she will be the first woman President.
Warren is probably also the only person in the country who could keep the Berneristas onboard after Clinton withdraws.
b) Alternative: Warren is insurance to keep Clinton from being indicted? Nah, Wall Street doesn't control FBI or Justice.
Bob is literally parroting Trump campaign lines now. I say ajay wins his bet.
98: You don't understand bob. He predicts the worst things, because he knows his predictions are always wrong, so this way he prevents the worst from happening.
97 is very very very far from being a "worst thing."
And really about the only scenario that explains the Warren boomlet, and her own change in enthusiasm. Unless 97 is true, Warren as VP is a fucking terrible idea, cause it likely means Dems don't get Senate, among other things.
I'm sticking by my prediction that neither Trump or Clinton are on the ballot in November.
What Warren vs Kasich or Jeb!! looks like, fck if I know.
Still unknown unknowns.
I'm sticking by my prediction that neither Trump or Clinton are on the ballot in November.
Maybe Michelle Obama will replace Hillary, and Mitt will replace Trump and 2016 will be Obama v. Romney again. Could happen!
Warren as VP is still carrying the bucket of warm piss.
Clinton is not Bush, and would not give Warren actual fucking power, especially over finance. Clinton's economic team would have their own egos.
Gore was a pr position, chairing conferences and meetings. Warm piss.
Bush was a lazy prince, and enabled Cheney. Clinton is a control freak.
Warren would be so much more powerful and useful in a Dem Senate.
Maybe, maybe, Warren in Treasury or Justice would be attractive to her, but not VP.
So what is going on? 1st woman President.
Seeing as VP is a nothing position, I can't help but wonder if "anonymous Wall Street sources" are "leaking" that they won't allow Hillary to pick Warren as VP so that when she does pigeonhole Warren into this position where she has less power to hurt the banks than she does as a Senator she'll look like she has populist cred to people.
Foolproof planning.
You put
a) Sec State approved overseas arm sales by date
b) donations to Clinton Foundation by date
c) Bill C million dollar overseas speeches by date
d) pertinent emails
e) don't even need the security secrecy crimes
in front of a fair jury and Clinton and subordinates will die in prison. Only the cesspool that is DC "can't prove quid pro quo" cause motherfucking lawyers
She is rotten. They might let her withdraw for health reasons, followed by a blanket pardon, but Clinton will not be President.
I might work for Warren. I would donate to her.
I might work for Warren. I would donate to her.
There's the proof bob knows this isn't going to happen.
Guys, candidates are totally allowed to pay themselves a salary. Alan Keyes did it so it must be legit.
The main danger that appears from the top of the stands at the moment is that Trump will implode too soon
After the bigger-and-faster-than-expected recent meltdown by Trump, my biggest concern is that he somehow won't last until the convention.
He needs to hold off imploding until it's too late to get a viable* replacement.
I was worried about something like this before he had the nomination clinched, but I don't think it's realistic at this point.
If Trump is alive, not in jail, and yet not the Republican nominee at any point between now and Election Day, then his strong supporters will probably literally riot. Even his weak supporters and party-before-country Republicans would be dispirited and disillusioned after seeing the presumptive nominee displaced like that. Whoever the not-Trump nominee is, they'd have their own problems. No recognition until the day they became the nominee, Trump attacking them more than Clinton, dealing with his baggage and their own... plus, who is it? If it's another primary candidate, there's a reason most of them lost. If it's Romney, the riots would be even bigger. If it's anyone else, basic name recognition would be an issue. With Trump as the Republican nominee, there's a slight chance of him winning just because we have a two-party system, but he'll probably continue his Hindenberg impression. With a not-Trump nominee, the chance of them winning is even slighter at this point.
I mean, if by "danger" and "concerned" you mean "a risk of missing out on the circus and schadenfreude of the worst Republican presidential candidate of our lifetimes," I agree, missing that would be disappointing. And Clinton could flame out somehow - unlikely but it's worth mentioning. But if the danger you're concerned about is another Republican nominee who would do better in the general election than Trump, I'm not seeing it.
At this point, in terms of his future public stature, the establishment "conspiring" to "steal" the nomination from him is the best thing that could happen to him, and he surely knows it. I'm worried that he may knowingly help bring about that outcome.
First, I'm not sure of that. He seems to genuinely believe his own press releases. But admittedly it's uncertain. That being said, I'd question the assumption about what's the best thing to happen to him. The establishment keeping him from getting nominated would be the best way to launch a Palinesque wingnut welfare career. But he's not a partisan loyalist and he's not an ideologue. He's a reality show star and real estate mogul. The best thing to happen to him would be winning the presidency. The best realistic thing would be to keep the reality show going until Election Day, and if it ends badly, eh, he's still a real estate mogul.
100.2: Depending on when exactly she declares/does whatever the "special" election could just be the, well, normal election. Reid actually went out of his way to explain this to people - seriously. It's one of the big reasons to think that it's not just idle talk.
The best thing to happen to him would be winning the presidency. The best realistic thing would be to keep the reality show going until Election Day, and if it ends badly, eh, he's still a real estate mogul.
If I knew how to do the crossing out trick I would have crossed out the "real estate mogul" and replaced it with "reality-TV star".
If I kneow how to do the crossing out trick I would havedid crossed out the "real estate mogul" reality-TV star and replaced it with "reality-TV star".
The first time I ever encountered the phrase "cut [his/her/their] teeth", meaning of course "learned the ropes" or less colloquially, initially gained experience, it was in a magazine article profiling some punk band (who "cut their teeth," IIRC, at some underground nightclub in LA). And I didn't realize it was a turn of phrase, and I thought it meant the band members literally cut their teeth at some underground nightclub in L.A. And I thought: "Wow, that's fucking punk."
109: will Trump do something reckless in desperation if it becomes obvious that he's losing?
I figured everybody but me would have just tested in preview.
114: How would we notice the difference? Has he been playing it safe so far?
I figured everybody but me would have just tested in preview.
Thanks, everyone! An old peep can learn new tricks!
117-119: I mean, if you care, technically it was deprecated since it implies style instead of semantics, and overly favors visual browsers. Compare <b> and <strong>. But then it was un-deprecated with new semantics, where it's understood to mean infomation that's no longer relevant. This is different from <del>, which probably has the same visual effect, which is designed for showing information that has been deleted. However, Unfogged doesn't support it.
Point is, the people behind the HTML standard have a lot of time.
HTML tags that work here but I rarely see used are <small> for teeny tiny text, <q> for when you want to put more effort into quoting text
, and <ul> with <li> to make:
(ol has the same effect as ul.)
and the whole thing with the <q> tag is that it's seven keystrokes instead of two to wrap something in double quotes. What is the "point"?
There is a certain precedent for having two people of the same gender on the presidential ticket.
Hillary is going to paint Trump as the past, and position her campaign as the future. Choosing a running mate in her 40s or 50s would reinforce that image, and continue the work of building the Democratic Party. Demographically, I would say that her ideal VP pick is a woman of color somewhere between her late 40s to mid-50s.
Female Democrats are governors in New Hampshire, Oregon, and Rhode Island. NH and RI are too small, and too northeastern. Oregon would mean someone from the West, but she moved up to the governorship when the previous governor resigned in scandal; I think not.
Senators: Mikulski (MD), Feinstein (CA), Boxer (CA), Murray (WA), probably too old for the job. Cantwell (WA) western!, Stabenow (MI), Klobuchar (MN), McCaskill (MO) too conservative, Shaheen (NH) again with the Northeast, Gillibrand (NY) same state as Clinton, Hirono (HI), Warren (MA) as discussed above, Heitkamp (ND) too conservative, Baldwin (WI). All of the Senators and governors are white, except Hirono.
There are 84 women currently serving in the US House of Representatives; 62 of them are Democrats. The congresswomen include 32 women of color: 18 African-American women, 5 Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 9 Latinas. I haven't looked through their ranks comprehensively, so there might be some surprises. Alma Adams looked interesting: African-American, NC is a swing state, great name - Clinton/Adams would be like a throwback to the Constitutional Convention. But she's 70. Donna Edwards just lost a tough Senate primary, but seems to have significant progressive support. Michelle Lujan Grisham looks very interesting: NM, so both western and a swing state, Hispanic, mid-50s.
What about mayors? I looked for women among mayors of the 100 largest US cities and came up with some rough and ready observations. The biggest obstacle for most of them is that they have not been in office very long.
Ivy Taylor, Mayor of San Antonio, one of the 10 largest cities in the US. Black, age 46, second woman to be elected Mayor of San Antonio, first African-American elected to the position. Officially non-partisan, only in office since 2014.
Jennifer W. Roberts, Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina. Major city in a potential swing state. Career includes time as a US diplomat. Only in office since 2015.
Megan Barry, Mayor of Nashville. First woman to hold the post. MBA, professional work in healthcare and ethics. Only in office since 2015.
Betsy Hodges, Mayor of Minneapolis. Only in office since 2014.
Nelda Martinez, Mayor of Corpus Christi, Texas. Hispanic. Only in office since 2012.
Nancy Vaughan, Mayor of Greensboro, North Carolina. Potential swing state. Only in office since 2013.
Hillary Schieve, Mayor of Reno, Nevada. Swing state, age 46. Officially non-partisan but endorsed by Nevada Democratic Party, only in office since 2014.
126: It's for the semantic markup. You're taking quotation and moving it out of the object language of English and into the meta-language of HTML. This has various uses:
If you want to be old-school coo^H^H^Hdorky you can also use "^H" to represent "delete previous letter" and "^W" to represent "delete previous word".
it's seven keystrokes instead of two to wrap something in double quotes.
The display engine can choose whether to use double or single quotes depending on your environment! And nesting should
.just work
, which is neat
Like, for me, in 130, there are single quotes inside double quotes. But theoretically, someone whose locale was set to, like, "britsh english" (if that's even a thing) could have double quotes inside single quotes, and someone whose locale was German could have crazy German quotation marks!!!
I guess dalriata basically addressed that already
124: There's also s<sup>s for when you want to do superscripts or Brandom-style quotation marks.
It would be great if Hillary chose the mayor of Greensboro, North Carolina as her VP. Sure, why not?
132: I knew there was some difference between en-uk and en-us was that would be reflected in changing the locale, but I couldn't remember what it was. Thanks! And I forgot about sup; and subsub works, too!
Facts about presumptive 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Nancy Vaughan
- One of four people elected mayor of Greensboro, North Carolina since 2007
- Father was the most successful basketball coach in Fairfield College history
- Executive director of the Guilford Green Foundation
- Embroiled in bitter controversy over an $8,150 legal bill that the city paid her attorney as part of a lawsuit over promises made to a developer planning to remodel a downtown flour mill
Greensboro is just an hour west of here and this is the first time I have ever heard Nancy Vaughn's name. In any context.
How many contexts have you been in lately?
VP, the one high-profile job as a politician you can get just by applying. Hillary should do a nationwide search. Get a bunch of headhunters involved to pick the most promising young Democratic politician in the country. Might as well turn it into a reality show.
"I'm sorry, Nancy. I'm sorry, Matt. America's Next Top Democrat is... Erica!"
The Democrats need a woman who talks about castrating hogs. By the "both sides are doing it" theory, we should have one.
I am encouraged contra my own 62 that Trump's latest move is to tout hard-evangelical support (Dobson, Falwell Jr.) and call Clinton a secret Muslim.
I'm becoming a political junkie even by my own standards.
Sadly, it appears the OP is probably wrong about Trump being on the campaign payroll.
Otherwise, though, this story is delightful.
139: You'll hear a lot more from her after her stirring convention keynote address, and the ensuing 16 years of her Vice Presidency and Presidency!
This seems like a pretty good explanation of Trump.
At least until it descends into pointless squabbling in the usual Twitter fashion.
149: That looks like a really good explanation of Trump.
I'd be interested to hear JRoth's take, or that of anyone else who regularly deals with real estate developers in a professional context.
Speaking of mayors, sure, "100 largest cities" is a fairly large pool to draw from, but why not? Hillary's campaign certainly has the resources to look beyond the two or three names that bloviators in the national press can hold in their brains at any given moment.
Whoever she chooses is going to be an instant star; it's not like she needs to add name recognition or gravitas. The reality-show analogy example above is actually pretty good, except nobody outside the campaign is going to see anything apart from the end of the season finale. This campaign is both disciplined and relentless.
Demographically, where can Clinton gain the most? Hispanic turnout, and white women over, say, 35 would be my two initial guesses. Trump is doing a great job with the latter by reminding them of every asshole blowhard they've encountered as an adult. To the extent that a VP pick helps motivate a demographic group (and post-2000, maybe even post-1992, the jury seems to be out on that question), drawing from a lengthier long list seems like a good way to meet that challenge.
The reality-show analogy example above is actually pretty good, except nobody outside the campaign is going to see anything apart from the end of the season finale.
Indeed, 141 appears to be Trump's actual plan for the Republican convention. Assuming he somehow manages to scrounge up enough money to put it on, of course.
And I think the mere presence of Trump is massively boosting Clinton's margins with the Hispanic vote. People are seriously terrified, with good reason. It's likely to be a similar story with UMC white women, I think, although I don't know if there's any solid evidence for that in the polls yet.
156 is great. She needs to pick a prime time interview in the next couple of days and make the offer. Make a point that she needs it back when Trump has lined up a few supporters.
[s] works here but on some sites you need to spell out [strike] in full. Who knows why. Also, I can't be bothered to look up the code for lt.
What would be a huge improvement in HTML would be an accepted one or two character abbreviation for "blockquote".
Whoever she chooses is going to be an instant star; it's not like she needs to add name recognition or gravitas.
How did that strategy work out for John McCain?
How did that strategy work out for John McCain?
About as well as the rest of his campaign.
How did that strategy work out for John McCain?
Less flippantly, it's in things like the VP choice that McCain's maverickiness proved to be a problem, whereas Hillary's reputation for caution and thoroughness will pay dividends. I am sure that there will be thorough vetting, whereas I have to hope (although I would expect it to be the case) that the team is working from a fairly large selection pool.
Democrats don't seem to be able to do the the Agnew/Quayle thing successfully. I mean, yeah, you've got Ferraro, Edwards and Lieberman in my lifetime, and they were all clowns in their own ways, but they were also people of some kind of genuine stature and substance, and they all lost.
Democrats are angling for the non-idiot vote, which constrains their actions somewhat.
Agnew was former governor. Quayle a Senator.
I think the party can pull somebody up very quickly, but I don't see how somebody whose highest former position is mayor get to be a vice presidential nominee.
Right. My point is even the candidates people think of as light-weight fluff have been a governor or in Congress.
My point is that having been a governor or in congress doesn't mean someone isn't light-weight fluff.
There are lots of really stupid, deeply pointless people in Congress and state government. I'm not going to dispute that.
Last week I spent a few hours wandering around the corridors and streets where the Constitution and Declaration and all that were written. I was possessed of a sense of optimism for my country and a bunch of pennies smashed by a machine that embossed designs upon them. I still have the pennies.
The skills required to win elections are not the same as those required to govern. A lot of intellectual lightweights are very charismatic. You just have to hope they get halfway decent advisers.
A lot of intellectual lightweights are very charismatic.
I don't think I've ever seen video of him, but I doubt that described Spiro Agnew.
Of course, Nixon had the charisma there.
Miller was a congressman and head of the RNC. A precedent for selecting DWS.
171: What are you talking about? I oozed charisma! Nattering nabob of negativism!
I see Maciej from Pinboard had the same idea: https://twitter.com/baconmeteor/status/745355721294782465
174: Upon further reflection I realized that it is inconceivable that you could be doubting my charisma. You must just have been pointing out that it is absurd to refer to a man of my gravitas as an "intellectual lightweight". I concur!
Okay, it's downright parodic that there was an assassination attempt on Trump - half-assed, perhaps, but still, by an _illegal immigrant_ technically - and it's barely an issue, he hasn't tweeted, been asked about it, etc., certainly because the guy was white.
You should write a book called "How the English Became White."
163-168: urp speaks for me. I'll just add that if you don't see the difference in gravity and stature between Ferraro/Lieberman/Edwards and Agnew/Quayle/Palin, then I don't suppose I can explain it.
To 171: Wikipedia describes Agnew this way:
Agnew was considered something of a political joke at first. One Democratic television commercial featured the sounds of a man's hearty laughter as the camera panned to a TV with the words "Agnew for Vice President?" on the screen.And, of course, things went downhill for Agnew from there.
When John Ehrlichman, the President's counsel and assistant, asked Nixon why he kept Agnew on the ticket in the 1972 election, Nixon replied that "No assassin in his right mind would kill me" because they would get Agnew (as President).And, of course, things went downhill for Agnew from there, too.
Palin I see as different. But, for example, I don't see much difference between Edwards and Quayle in terms of stature.
Nixon replied that "No assassin in his right mind would kill me" because they would get Agnew (as President).
No Fury yet may seize on Nixon's head
While Agnew breathes out poison to entice her!
180 is perversely brilliant, like guarding a chess piece.
Thinking about this, Nixon himself was one of the least experienced people put up for vice president that I can think of. Two terms in the House.
That's wrong. I forgot that he got to the Senate also. Californians are worse than I recall.
Californians are a great argument for keeping the Senate the way it is.
181 is wrong, I think. Quayle and Edwards were both U.S. Senators, but Quayle was about as unknown as a U.S. Senator can be, while Edwards had been a legitimate candidate for the Democratic nomination.
I think Gerald Ford was intended to serve the same purpose as Agnew, but by that point Nixon's crazy was scarier than Ford's dumb.
Quayle was about as unknown as a U.S. Senator can be
My actual point was only partly about credentials. Quayle was an unambiguous buffoon, as were Palin and Agnew. The Democrats haven't put anybody like those three in that slot.
I don't thing there's much ground between Edwards and Quayle on the Buffoon Scale.
190: Well, Edwards seems like a buffoon and worse now, but at the time he seemed like a charismatic rising star.
He always bugged me, even when everybody else said he was charismatic.
Before his buffoonery was exposed, Edwards kept things like health care on the agenda that other candidates probably would have taken less seriously.
192: Yes, he always did have a bit of the used-car salesman about him. But as I recall he was the darling of the left-wing in 2008 at first. And remember how everyone loved Elizabeth Edwards!
193: I don't think showing that he had some good political impact (which I don't doubt) is the same as showing that he was ever not a buffoon.
I meant that more as a Quayle comparison, although I u
guess Quayle might have had an impact too. I wasn't paying attention back then.
196: His strong stand against Murphy Brown having a baby helped that TV show stay popular for a while after it had jumped the shark.
I still think we should start a campaign for Nancy Vaughan as VP. Or Erica Thomas.
Or Matt Moonen. Can we make this an orange post?
The main premise is two women on the ticket. I think it's a good idea, and it certainly stands in contrast to the image of Hillary as overly cautious. Plus it makes the parlor game more interesting.
So I went through Senators and serving governors, and I got what you see in 127. What's next? US Reps, and then what? Lt. Govs, maybe, cabinet secretaries, maybe.
Why not mayors? Realistically, top-ten cities is probably the limit for making the case of mayor as a top-level political job. Maybe top 20, so of course I looked at the top 100 just for fun. Germany got Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt as former mayors; we could certainly do worse.
The main premise is two women on the ticket. I think it's a good idea
Is it, actually? This is a very closed bubble most of us are living in, and there have to be some male left-leaning voters that aren't super-enthused about Hillary.
199: There was a recent rundown of "who are these guys?" regarding VP possibilities, and at least 2 mayors were mentioned: The Castro who's mayor of San Antonio, and Garcetti of LA. It made the important point that cities have very different systems, and in some (like LA) mayor is a pretty big deal, high responsibility position, and in others (like SA), it's basically Council President.
So you need both a large city and a strong mayor system, with extra points for longevity and/or civic turnaround. Like, Chattanooga's a smallish city, but its turnaround story is pretty great, and IIRC the mayor had a lot to do with it (although maybe it's been a couple mayors by now).
Yes. I'm not saying Clinton shouldn't pick a woman if she wants, but I don't see why it has to be a woman. I'd prefer a male with some political experience over a woman without much.
I also think that without the whole Hitler thing happening in the middle of his career, Adenauer would have had a more typical path to chancellor if he were to get there.
Yes. I'm not saying Clinton shouldn't pick a woman if she wants, but I don't see why it has to be a woman. I'd prefer a male with some political experience over a woman without much.
I guess it would be good insurance against a misogynist assassin, in a twist on the Nixon/Agnew thing above. But I think the "fuck you, patriarchy" reason is enough.
Also nothing wrong with mayors. Here the mayor of Roc North is basically the number two job in the country.
On the basis of recent initiatives, endorsed by both the future and past Presidents Clinton on social media, what about John Lewis for VP?
205: Seems like he should be worthy of consideration, but he is 76 years old.
Wikipedia helpfully lists the office each VP held before VP. Going back: Senator, cabinet member, Senator, Senator, CIA director, Senator, Governor, House Representative, Governor, Senator, Senator, Senator, Senator, Senator, cabinet member, House Representative, Senator, "Director of the Bureau of the Budget" (part of the president's staff, I guess), Governor, Governor, House Representative, Senator, and Governor. That takes us back to Teddy Roosevelt, whose VPcy started in 1901. (1899, in fact, since the office was vacant for over a year.) The CIA director and one of the cabinet members had been in Congress before, and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget had been a general.
Is it fair to accuse Clinton of being a conventional politician? Because a VP candidate who had held no office higher than mayor before would be unconventional.
An unconventional choice for VP is nearly always going to be a bad choice. The person has to be ready to face an insane level of media scrutiny immediately. That is why someone who has run for the Presidency is usually the best choice (George H.W. Bush, Al Gore, Joe Biden --- John Edwards is the exception that proves the rule, and anyway, I don't think he did anything to hurt Kerry's chances in 2004).
Omigod, leave it to the fine people of Japan to make the greatest Trump 2016 video of all time.
I am speechless.
209: It's about as authentically Japanese as the opening chapter of Neuromancer.
202: It was be useful for the same reason that a latino candidate would be useful, in that it would prompt an even bigger and louder freakout from the bigots that make up the conservative movement (and are politically engaged at all). And the less the party can keep that under wraps the more low information voters who mostly just run on a vague tribalism tend to jump ship, and the more members of whichever group is involved take on board the idea that the Republican party is the party of people who want to hurt them. A nation-wide version of the Todd Akin thing in 2012 would be absolutely wonderful, and the worse for the Republicans the better.
Republican elites have a way to "shut that whole thing down" is they didn't want it to happen.
Counterpoint: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
What about Annise Parker, former (term-limited out) mayor of Houston until 2016? She seems popular in Houston. Also, she's an out lesbian, which would make for some pretty great pearl-clutching on the right.
Hmm. Aren't the lesbians already sufficiently freaked out to vote, though?
It's interesting that a common "takeaway" from Trump's success seems to have been a belief that openly racist appeals will win over a significant number of Republican voters. And yet, a TN congressional candidate is catching nothing but flack for his Trump-inspired billboard proclaiming "Make America White Again", even from other Trump supporters. I guess there's a line that people still think it's unacceptable to cross, although I admit--like this congressional candidate--I'm personally a little confused about where exactly that line is or why exactly this billboard is categorically more offensive than a lot of Trump's statements and messages.
218: But remember, part of Trump's schtick is to say something horribly racist and then immediately follow up with a claim about how much he loves X people, and they love him too. It's the exact same dynamic as "I'm not a racist but...", which racist white people seem to sincerely believe gets you a pass. Same deal with "some of my best friends are..." "Make America White Again" doesn't have any "but", no counterbalance of claimed non-bigotry.
Racist Americans don't want to be racists, they just want to be able to do and say racist things without anyone calling them racist.
They want to do and say racist things while calling everybody else racists for things like wanting to put Tubman on the $20.
I don't really get it, but I think Trump is in a Ha-ha-only-serious place with the explicit racism that other candidates generally don't have access to? Like, when he says it, it's over-the-top entertainment, but honest, but not honest like he really means racist things in a bad way -- he's a walking zone of deniability? Other people without the same position as a professional clown still have to stick with the dog whistles.
I don't really know what I mean here, or if I'm right, but something like that.
So to be acceptable, the billboard should have said: "I'm Not Racist, But We Need To Make America White Again" ?
So to be acceptable, the billboard should have said: "I'm Not Racist, But We Need To Make America White Again" ?
So to be acceptable, the billboard should have said: "I'm Not Racist, But We Need To Make America White Again" ?
It's only acceptable if the billboard says it 3 times.
I think Trump is really good at the right wing hate radio style, including the ha-ha-only-serious part that makes up a huge part of it. That's what makes him so attractive to the Republican base, to the confusion of people who forgot that Limbaugh and other AM radio Limbaugh clones have owned the base of the party for at least twenty years now.
"Make America White Again" is someone who really can't do it (and isn't clear on how it's supposed to work) trying to do that but missing the mark and managing to repeat an attack on Trump's slogan rather than a reference to it. The guy did have a follow-up "what? pff. stupid liberals making everything about race" line - something about taking America back to the 1960s when there wasn't any of this violence or domestic turmoil - but it didn't matter because there wasn't any way to claim that people saying it was obviously racist were just sensitive liberal race baiters or something.
"Don't Get Me Wrong--I LOVE Minorities, But We Need To Make America White Again" ?
Or maybe he should just stick with "Make America White Again", but if asked about the billboard just insist that's not what it says.
Actually what I really want to hear are Donald Trump's thoughts on this billboard, noting that it was erected by an enthusiastic Trump supporter.
Other billboard ideas are posted on the site, with slogans like "Fight federal tyranny / Stop the Muslim invasion" and "Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be miscegenators." Another billboard idea depicts two hands of different races holding the other, with a circle and slash superimposed over it.
231; Something that I've been meaning to bring up -- with all the explicit racism of the Trump campaign, Trump's tv ads that ran before the Ohio primary, made a point of showing Trump supporters that were people of color. So I think Trump supporters like his more explicit racism, but they mostly still are in denial about being racist.
Being obviously and indisputably racist is political poison in America for any office that's higher than State Representative and has been for 30+ years now*. Racism is fine as long as there's a fig leaf of tolerance.
"Make America great again" has a tree's worth of fig leaves to hide behind. Maybe he's trying to get back to the economic boom of the 1990s**. Or the 1980s***. Maybe he's talking about the 50s and 60s, but he's not objecting to the racial and cultural change that became unavoidable after that, just the violence and "social unrest"****. Maybe he's yearning for an era much earlier than that, like when there was still an American frontier to be conquered and pioneers were carving out homesteads*****.
But there's really, really no fig leaf for "Make America white again."
* To be exact, that's the highest office David Duke has held.
** Which would be risible from any other Republican, but this is Trump.
*** Which would fit both Trump and his audience quite well, but there are three problems with it. First, pinning himself down to any particular era looks like being stuck in the past, in a way that generalized reactionism doesn't. Second, it looks like ignoring the ways the world has changed since then, like the lack of a USSR. And third, Trump can't pay homage to Reagan because he can't pay homage to anyone but himself.
**** Violence and social unrest happened before then but it was one-sided and sanctioned, but it takes several paragraphs to unpack that, and by that point you've lost anyone who was on the fence.
***** Which is probably not quite as morally bad as the previous undertone, but is even more stupid.
I'm guessing JRoth based on the asterisks.
Sorry, that was me. Did I mention that at my new job I have no fixed desk? Lots of moving around.
Moving around at work is good for you. I gave up my printer to make myself walk more that my ankle freezes up less.
236: Alex, what is "Something a stenographer played by Gabby Hayes would say?"
233 would make sense if Trump had actually stuck to empty platitudes about making America "great again", combined with dog whistles hinting at what he might really mean. But he's been pretty openly racist. I would even say he has been "obviously and indisputably racist", to borrow your phrase. I guess he is not explicitly and proudly racist, if that's the key difference.
237: Heh, unfortunately, not that much moving around. If I'm working, I'm working on a computer at a desk in a cubicle. It's just that which computer, desk, and cubicle changes from day to day. Twice so far I've taken standing desks and I might try to take them more often. I understand they're supposed to be good for you, but I'd have to build up more tolerance before they're comfortable.
I've been keeping my training materials and the office supplies I've personally claimed in a cubicle cabinet that the owner doesn't use. The moving around means two things: it would be awkward to settle in and leave too much personal stuff in any one place, and every day I have to set up e-mail signature and Unfogged info and stuff anew. (In theory, I'd have to set up my printers each time, but I haven't learned how to do that. Some computers have printers set up, some don't, and when I'm on one that doesn't, so far, I've just avoided printing.)
239: Eh, sure, "explicitly and proudly" makes more sense.
What is the rationale for the peripatetism?
I got the idea from Aristotle, the guy who runs the gyro stand.
I have a desk in a small office that I picked over much larger offices because this office has a window with a better view and because in the only place it is possible to put the desk, nobody passing in the hall can see my monitor if it is on that desk.
I understand they're supposed to be good for you
Apparently they're not. Or perhaps, all of the benefits of a standing desk you get from walking to get coffee or water once an hour, plus there are some downsides to being on your feet (but not moving) 8 straight hours.
I mean, I don't know for sure, and I doubt anyone else does, but there's been pushback. A standing desk is probably better than a shitty office chair and a desk with shitty ergonomics, though.
Nothing beats an architect's stool at an easel.
They'll shit anywhere. The bastards.
AIPMHOB, I worked at times in other office and large numbers of people there were dropping their regular office chairs to use large inflated balls to sit on. Management stepped in to forbid them on safety grounds.
243: All the desks I have to choose from are in a windowless basement office, so windows aren't a factor. Some desks are better lit and have screens that are more sheltered than others, which is nice when I can snag one of those. There's an element of first-come, first-served, though. I'd estimate that at least 10 people in this office float between desks, like me.
244: Good thing I'm not locked into a desk arrangement, then. As for getting up hourly, I hesitate to do that now because my ID card PIN can't get me into the office yet so I'd have to knock or call someone any time want to get back to my desk, but I'm told that should be fixed any day now.
I make the new job sound pretty bad here. I took it because the work itself seemed more interesting and it came with a raise (15%ish), the expectation that I'll telework at least once a week (that hasn't started yet and I don't know yet how much freedom that entails, but if nothing else, working at home is working at home), and I've been surprised by how much I appreciate 8-hour days for the first time in 10 years (at my old job, there was a culture of 9-hour days and a free day off every other week. I think teleworking weekly will be better than a totally free day every other week, and I already know an 8-hour day feels shorter and more relaxing than I'm used to). It's just that most of that stuff hasn't happened yet and/or doesn't come up in conversation so naturally.
plus there are some downsides to being on your feet (but not moving) 8 straight hours.
Of course. That's why you need a surfboard for your standing desk.
Is this thread dead? NYT says Trump and Clinton are essentially deadlocked in the polls. This despite Clinton massively outspending Trump in recent weeks. Are we sure there is no reason to be worried? Because I feel worried.
Clinton is still well ahead in polling averages.
I don't think I'm ever going to not be a little bit nervous about this race, but 251 is right.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
I'm worried too, though. There's a lot of anti-Hillary stupidity out there.
"Mr. Trump beats her on leadership and honesty"
Look at the states in 251 that are competitive- Georgia. South Carolina. Fucking Mississippi and Kansas. Those are so far behind the Republican firewall that Hillary's already burned their shit to the ground.
256: I think you mean 253, but yes. It even has Arizona leaning toward Clinton. Arizona!
251, 252, and 256 are right. But, the link in 253 gives Trump a 20% chance of winning. That feels maybe a bit high but still about right. Definitely Hillary is overwhelmingly more likely to win. But a 1/5 (or even 1/10) chance of political catastrophe on a scale that large is definitely *reason to worry.* If I said there's a 20% chance that your city will be hit with a nuclear bomb in November, you'd rightly be worried, even though it's much more likely not to happen than to happen.
Fortunately most of that 20% is just general "who knows what happens between now and November." Hopefully by September/October that chance will be reduced more still. But right now, 20% is way too high for actual calm.
We've already seen my prediction come true, that Trump is the one Republican candidate who would not be helped by terrorist attacks. Unless there's a terrorist attack on him himself. Maybe he'll stage one.
The biggest worry right now is that the implosion is big enough soon enough that Trump ducks out of the race or they don't nominate him.
Which of course would start whoever not-Trump is at a significant disadvantage, but objectively almost any not-Trump mainstream Republican is a better general election candidate than Trump.
Trump is like the anti-Schwarzenegger. I think it might have been difficult for Schwarzenegger to get through the CA Republican nomination process, but the recall meant he didn't have to.
I'LL BE FORWARD
GET YOUR ASS TO EARTH
I DON'T LIKE YOU WHICH IS WHY I WON'T KILL YOU LAST BUT RATHER WILL KILL YOU FIRST INSTEAD
DO NOT GET TO THE CHOPPER BUT GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION
Arizona went blue for Bill in 1996; it was the first time since Truman. (I guess it would have gone for LBJ in 1964 if it hadn't been Goldwater running.) The state really is getting less white, and seeing it colored pale blue on that map is thrilling though I have a hard time believing it will stay that way through November.
And 264 is definitely right. A FB friend of mine (middle-aged white guy, solid liberal politically) posted something a few weeks ago that was both politically encouraging and socially troubling. He and his wife stopped by a supermarket in a Hispanic part of Tucson, where they had often shopped before without any problem, and encountered a lot of gruffness and sideeyes from both employees and customers. This was around the time of the AZ primary, so they quickly came to understand what was going on; although their own politics were decidedly liberal, the people in the supermarket saw middle-aged white people and automatically associated them with Trump. This was inaccurate in my friends' case, but not unreasonable as a heuristic for Arizona these days.
But anyway, the point is that huge numbers of non-white people are seriously terrified and actively mobilizing to stop Trump. These are groups that have not historically had high electoral turnout, so the game really is changing dramatically in ways that can scramble the electoral map.
That is socially troubling. I haven't been back to Tucson much in the last few years, but background tension simply from looking white in a Hispanic part of town is something I don't remember at all.
Yeah, I haven't spent much time in Tucson specifically, but that's not a feeling I've ever had anywhere in the Southwest, including in heavily Hispanic areas. Fuck you, Donald Trump.
And I'm taking the kid to Albuquerque this weekend to visit lots of extended family. They are probably politically split and I hope they have the sense to keep mum about it! Except the one loudmouth uncle who is beyond hope!
||
Shitting fuck.
Boris Johnson has just ruled himself out for the Tory leadership.
>
Maybe it's a sign of growing self-awareness of his capabilities and limitations?
Maybe it's a sign of growing self-awareness of his capabilities and limitations idleness and cowardice?
Probably the latter, but just maybe he realizes he wouldn't be very good at it.
Not good at leading the Tories/U.K., not not good at cowardice.
So, happy to fuck up the UK for decades, doesn't want to own it. Thanks a lot Boris.
Remember David Cameron decided to be prime minister because he "thought he'd be good at it". Perhaps he just realised that he wouldn't be any better than Cameron.
Or he doesn't want to spend from here to 9th September being jeered by people who want to know where that £350 million got to. The Vote Leave gang said and did all sorts of shameful things during the campaign, and running for election is just the kind of thing that would bring them home to roost.
If nobody wants to do the job, goes it go back to the queen?
But if you were afraid this might make Labour look competent by comparison, don't worry: Cornyn just stood up at the launch of the report on antisemitism in the Labour party and compared Israel to ISIS. Well played!
So are you suggesting the NYT article linked in 250 is misleading about the polls? Or just that close national polling averages don't matter all that much if Clinton is winning decisively when you tally state-by-state?
The article linked in 250 is about a single poll. The article linked in 251 (and the one in 253) is about national polling averages. If the difference in polling averages (as opposed to in a single poll) were 2%, I would be much more worried.
Hmm. Just remembered something; Johnson literally walked out of his house and found an angry mob on his doorstep on Friday morning.
Rasmussen puts Trump up by four - but Rasmussen has always had strong pro-Republican house effects, and the RCP average still puts Hillary up comfortably.
Polls are always going to fluctuate. I'm not worried, except in the sensible fashion that Tigre proposes, and I think Silver's method significantly overstates Trump's actual chances.
It's not that Quinnipiac is a bad poll. A single poll has a margin of error (+/- 2% in the case of the Quinnipiac poll discussed. That margin means that there is a 95% chance that the real value is in that margin. In other words, one of twenty polls will have larger errors than that margin. That's why people like Silver average the polls and why I'm not as worried about a single poll looking bad when the average of polls looks much better.
282: That's why I always look out the window before I leave the house.
If 281 is right, I would call the NYT article misleading.
The article is fine. The headline is misleading but I don't think it is uncommon to have a headline over-hype an article to get people to click.