"Nearly half of S.C. voters say Clyburn's endorsement was important, exit polls show"
Well that can't be good.
Polling data summarized elsewhere (e.g. Kevin Drum) said Biden's numbers had a surge and he was back up to his previous high. I voted for Bernie, and so did all three members of my next-door neighbor's household. Kid's Mom voted for Warren. Polls were very quiet when I got there soon after opening. Kid's Mom voted probably 45 minutes after they opened, and she was about the 8th voter. We're in a pretty red area...
I thought it was about time I finally tried to understand delegate math.
Takeaway: Holy crap do we need IRV or ranked choice.
3: My theory is that politicians like electoral math to be complicated enough so that mostly nobody understands it, but not so complicated that their staff can't understand it well enough to capitalize on it. See also regulatory capture.
3: Yes. I wonder how Warren would be doing with ranked choice. I think she's a lot of people's second choice.
WTF do usb-c wifi dongle not exist? There are hundreds of regular usb wifi dongles on newegg, but I can't find a single usb-c wifi dongle.
6: they exist, probably lost in the sea of older ones. e.g.: https://www.amazon.com/Kanex-Gigabit-Ethernet-Adapter-Inches/dp/B00VBNSXKO/, or https://www.amazon.com/Anker-Ethernet-Portable-1-Gigabit-Chromebook/dp/B00ZZ6NW5E
5: You need not wonder! Basically, Bernie's surge in the national polls, combined with him actually having a long of second-choice support among lots of people besides Warren supporters, mean if things stay as they are now he would also win a hypothetical RCV vote. (Over Biden.)
||
publisher and editor of The Milkweed, a monthly dairy newspaper based in Brooklyn, Wisconsin|>
|| Did y'all see the confusion about Garth Brooks repping Barry Sanders? AJ just told me about it, and I'm so amused. https://www.clickondetroit.com/entertainment/2020/02/28/barry-not-bernie-garth-brooks-fans-mistake-lions-sanders-jersey-for-political-statement/ |>
Thx but those are Ethernet, not wifi though.
It's time for everyone who isn't Biden or Bernie to drop out and pick a side.
Kinda, he should endorse one of them (presumably Biden).
Uncle Joe just won big in South Carolina. Does this even matter? does this even change the race at all?
Still voting for Warren on Tuesday. I'm not voting based on who I think other people would support in the general election. After this month we'll all see how it shakes out. That's okay.
17 Looks like he's back in it but we'll see how everything shakes out on Tuesday. I've been a Warren supporter who would also be delighted by Bernie but if she doesn't pull something out on Tuesday I think she should drop out and support Bernie. Hopefully she can turn it around.
Paul Campos is feeling very unhappy about the primary right now.
I have two thoughts: first that the two people in the lead right now Sanders & Biden are the two who have been running the longest. They have the best claims to being, "next in line." Stereotypically, Republican's have been more likely to nominate "next in line" candidates (Dole, McCain, Romney) with GWB a dynastic candidate and Trump a clear break from the pattern while Democrats have been more inclined to nominate fresher faces -- though Clinton in 2016 and Kerry in 2004 were both older establishment figures. I'm not quite sure what it means that, at this moment, being an already-known national figure is such an advantage in the Democratic primary.
Secondly, this feels like the first time in my politically conscious life that I have a strong preference in the primary for somebody who seemed to have a good shot at the nomination who is going to lose. I didn't feel that way in 2016 (though I know many people here did) and in other contested primaries -- 2008 / 2004 / 1992 I was perfectly happy with the nominee (there were other people I liked but I was never invested in thinking that they had a chance). So it's an unfamiliar feeling.
I think that the fact that the winner will likely either be the clear preference for voters of color or the clear preference for voters under 30 are reasons for me to feel comfortable with the outcome (even if it wouldn't be my choice). Both of those are groups that do and should matter, and if one or the other unifies around a specific candidate that should be enough to win in a divided field.
But it is hard to shake the feeling that more people should remember that Elizabeth Warren exists.
Semi related I'm sure this is nothing to worry about .
22. Am I misreading this sentence? It seems to cast this as two different people.
"I think that the fact that the winner will likely either be the clear preference for voters of color or the clear preference for voters under 30"
But both of those are descriptions of Sanders. He is leading with the youth vote and black vote. Way ahead with the Latino vote, of course.
24: I am making the assumption that, in a scenario in which Biden wins the nomination he will have done so as the plurality (or majority) preference among voters of color.
24: I think Biden is leading among African Americans. Sanders gets the Latino/Latinx vote.
26. The African American vote is tied between Sanders and Biden, as explained in my link. Sanders is winning the Latino vote by about ten points.
Just for the record, of course, I have my preference but I will willingly support whoever wins the nomination.
Only a good Republican billionaire oligarch with a gun can defeat a bad Republican billionaire oligarch with a gun.
I will forever blame Warren's loss on the fact that her campaign never took my advice when I told them on two separate occasions to buy radio advertising in New Hampshire because it was being overlooked by other candidates.
Deepening my conviction, I just found out from my friend in radio that the only candidate who advertised on the radio locally was Amy Klaubacher. Who did very well in this region and likely took a bunch of Elizabeth's votes.
National campaigns would do better to listen to my advice, is what I'm saying.
31: But Klobuchar isn't exactly riding high now.
But Klobuchar isn't exactly riding high now.
Nope. She peaked at just the right time to sink Liz, though.
I'm scared it's going to be Biden. Meh to Klobuchar. Paul Campos wasn't entirely wrong. If we had to have a moderate, I would have preferred Bullock or Hickenlooper. Even Bennet would have been better - not old, not a plagiarist etc.
Apparently he (Pete) has scheduled his announcement to conflict with Bloomberg's 3 min air buy today. Good for him.
I'm finding it very difficult to avoid shitposting about Pete on social media right now. He was terrible! But all my feeds are full of bland moderates thanking him for his service.
I have a social media policy of never, ever admitting that the state of Indiana exists.
I know too many people who live in Kansas.
Is Kansas like the farm where urple's dogs went to live?
Kansas is just this place they wrote a movie about one time that had munchkins and stuff. It's not real.
||
"God is good. He remembered the poor people in Kenya who have nothing but their donkeys"|>
FFS: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1108931
47. Interesting. We were just speculating that Buttigieg (sp???) had dropped out because Biden had offered him the VP slot. Must just have run out of money, then.
47: If I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'd point out that "The answer is I would, but I can't think of one now," is not actually a strong commitment to seeking out a Republican, and that article is two months old. But he's my fourth choice at best so I don't feel too obligated to give him that.
47: More likely he was offered a cabinet position.
It's not that surprising to me that he dropped out. He would have been under a lot of pressure from the DNC and he's put himself in a good position to run in the future -- lord knows he's got plenty of time. I imagine he'll also get a prominent speaking spot at the Dem convention.
lord knows he's got plenty of time
Someone pointed out that he could run again in 2052 and still be younger than most of the candidates running this year.
47: Biden is worryingly Republican-curious, but I think a Democratic moderate has to gesture toward national unity, and (as Cyrus suggests) I think this is the right way for him to answer a question like this:
"The answer is I would, but I can't think of one now," he said, which prompted some laughter in the room. "There is some really decent Republicans that are out there still, but here's the problem right now, of the well-known ones, they've got to step up."
He's saying that Republicans are okay, except for all of the existing ones. Still too tolerant for me, but moderates gonna moderate.
I am resigned to the fact that the dumb fucker is going to make a Republican Secretary of Defense, if he gets a chance. He really doesn't seem to have learned anything from Obama's experience. (It's not clear Obama did, either.)
53.last and even dumber, probably a Republican director of the FBI
49. It sounds to me more like calling on a never-Trump Republican (for example, Romney) to step up and say they'd be happy to run as Biden's VP. Not sure who they have for women or minority never-Trumpers that anyone has heard of.
53. Doh. Pwned by not reading the whole article. Sigh.
What the hell? Heebie, what's being done to fight this?
It seems unreasonable to blame her.
I'd have thought an imaginative lawyer could do something with Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Isn't this a clear violation?
57: The thing in the article about moving to voting centers isn't complete b.s. In my bluest of blue TX counties (just north of heebie's purple county), where the county government keeps making it easier to vote (imagine!), having big voting centers and being able to vote at any polling place makes the precinct locations less important. (We also have a 95% voter registration rate.)
I'm entirely sure that the motivation, and certainly the effect, of closing locations in many, many cases is to disenfranchise brown and Black people, but sometimes counties are acting in good faith.
More on voting centers: https://www.texastribune.org/2019/07/25/texas-countywide-voting-rights-problems-solutions/
Isn't this a clear violation?
One of many.
Yeah, they dropped a lot of polling places here, but the many fewer voting centers are open for 11 days leading up to the election and you can do more things there (change registration, register that day, request a new ballot). They're better staffed.
That is separate from the fact that we have a lot more drop boxes as well (mostly in libraries or fire stations). Those were open for almost a month.
Using only the metric of closed precincts would not convey that we have more options over longer time.
41: I guess in the age of social media, it's not enough to just not go back there.
I would go back if I had good football tickets.
So now Warren is the only choice if you don't want to vote for a 78-year-old man?
I suppose I like the contrast, but I don't understand how we got here.
I canvassed this weekend and as always, saw two dozen middle-aged and older women doing the work. Making clipboards, assigning turfs, assembling packets, preparing snacks. All of them working, to support more of us out walking. Saw one (1) man. Can it truly be possible that I will be forced to vote for a man this fall? That all this work that women have been doing since 2016, will be for yet another dude?
It's mostly Biden's fault. All the other candidates besides Bernie and Elizabeth had millions of people who liked them a lot but nobody who liked them as the FIRST choice as long as Biden was around to be the default. Secondarily it's the fault of the super-wealthy people who decided to make Buttigieg the other extremely well-funded corporate-backed candidate for some reason instead of Kamala Harris or Cory Booker or Klobuchar or Steve Bullock or someone else who could also appeal to non-wealthy people.
I mean maybe, shit, all three of the dudes will get COVID-19, and she'll be the only one to show up to a debate because they're all old men, extra-susceptible, and all of a sudden we'll realize that it was fucking ridiculous to have three fucking old men in the race?
NMM to Amy Klobuchar's campaign either.
I don't believe in this kind of thinking, but it's almost like at some gut level people believe that only another old white guy can take down Trump.
I should give props to Jerry Brown for staying out. Given the dearth of sense in this race, I should acknowledge that his absence was a wise move.
He who tries to slay monsters must first become one. Something like that. Nietzsche was very smart.
I blame WI, OH, PA. People who don't read and also show up to the polls in those places will decide the election, and they run old, prefer to vote for someone who was a common name on TV 20 years ago.
Oh lord, they're finally consolidating around Biden. This is not going to be good. The man whose mental faculties are declining almost as fast as Trump's and is advised entirely by people who think it's still 1988, and is the most susceptible to the Republican effort to drive young people away from the polls by pointing out conservative things he did in the 90s, 80s or 70s that now look bizarre for a Democrat.
The two of those states I know best are just full of assholes.
Best campaign argument I can make: The Baby Boom is impacted feces in the history of America and Joe Biden is the necessary glass of gritty fiber that will ease its passing.
Lurkers who work on the Biden campaign can feel free to borrow that.
Cue the broken record: why on earth would anyone believe that Sanders could beat Trump if he can't beat Biden? His very explicit case is swamping the polls with young folks and non-voters. This next 2 months would be a good time to go ahead and do that.
64.1: Tulsi Gabbard is still in the race! One thing that troubles me about Bernie is that I've seen Gabbard mentioned as a serious possibility as his VP.
78 By anyone serious? Stupid people say all kinds of stupid shit, but I cannot imagine that Sanders would think even for a minute that TG brings in a single additional electoral college vote.
64 : Not saying it's equivalent, but Warren unfortunately no help with the choices that aren't solidly retirement age. What's with that, too?
79: Whenever the question is posed on social media, many of Sanders's most fervent supporters regularly offer two names: Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator who now co-chairs the Sanders campaign and has been one of his most prominent surrogates, and Representative Tulsi Gabbard, who, lest we forget, is still running for the nomination herself.
https://newrepublic.com/article/156576/hardest-decision-bernie-sanders-will-make-year
So, no, probably not anyone that should be taken seriously. But I really don't have any sense of who Sanders would even consider -- he's a movement candidate, I don't think he would pick a VP on the basis of bringing the party together.
Right. If he has 75% of the delegates because he's activated a movement that looks like it can win the election, he can do whatever he wants.
Tammy Baldwin has been suggested as a possible Sanders VP. She's probably an ideal "unity" pick for Biden for that matter. She strikes as a Warren-lane candidate, but, um, authentic, and with possibly some appeal beyond affluent whites.
83: That would be a great choice, I think -- the only downside I see is possibly losing the Senate seat. I think "establishment" would be happy with her it and she wouldn't infuriate Sanders' base too much.
I don't know what the exact rules are in Wisconsin for replacing senators, but they do have a Democratic governor these days.
Apparently Wisconsin requires a special election for a senate vacancy, so it doesn't matter who the governor is.
C Mathews out. Will he be joining the Biden campaign?
Yeah, I was thinking they'd put him on outreach to the youth.
Omigod. I got Tammy Baldwin confused with Tammy Duckworth, and now I want Duckworth to be selected just because I want to see Trump's reaction to running against a double-amputee war hero. Like the rest of my fellow citizens, it appears that my judgment has been taken over completely by the values reality television.
Duckworth has endorsed Biden, her voting record is in the Democratic mainstream, and she's got flyover-country credibility. Me, I'm rooting for Gillibrand no matter who the nominee is.
87:
Boy the way Michael Jackson played,
Songs that made the hit parade,
Guys like us we had it made,
Those were the days,
And you know where you were then,
Girls were girls and men were men,
Mister we could use guys like Tip and Ronnie again,
Didn't need no welfare states
Everybody pulled his weight,
Gee our old Chevette ran great,
Those were the days
Just realized that was longer ago than Hoover was from All in the Family.
Trump is going to eat "cognitive decline" Joe alive in the actual campaign, whichever Tammy is chosen. The hope has got to be to activate Obama for the remainder and have Biden stand quietly nearby and name the state correctly.
97: I do worry about his mental sharpness.
I gather it's not very effective to say, "Sure Joe voted for the Iraq war, sure he supported the bankruptcy bill and treated Anita Hill like dirt," but Trump threatens our freedom, so you have to vote for him.
I worry about everybody. It's been a long time (never?) since Bernie's won a tough race, and he believes his own bullshit. Biden thinks the Republicans are his friends. I love Warren, but she's not really a professional politician and it shows. I'm putting all my hopes in a brokered convention win for Al Franken's good twin.
Keeping in mind that Al Franken's political fantasy was to be succeeded by Lieberman.
Sanders literally just had a heat attack. His running mate should be credible not just as theoretical spare president, but for-real-actual-president, AND as presumptive candidate for 2024, AND possibly candidate for 2020. This whole thing is insane.
101:. It's even worse than that - he had a heart attack.
The heat of the moment shown in his eyes.
97: I keep meaning to quit. Probably after this election cycle.
99. You aren't sure if Bernie has ever won a tough race? He flipped a seat Republicans held for 144 years. As a democratic socialist.
I was just in Burlington and they love him there. They've got a head shop named the "Bern Gallery."
I mean, how many head shops does Biden have named after him? Probably not as many.
106: It wasn't a shot at Sanders, it's just that I can't remember a time when he didn't have a super safe seat and I don't know how he's going to perform when someone goes at him hard. There are a lot of guys like that.
Boy, the way the Bee Gees played
Movies John Travolta made
Guessing how much Elvis weighed
Those were the days.
And you know where you were then
Watching shows like Gentle Ben
Mister, we could use a man like Sheriff Lobo again!
"Disco Duck" and Fleetwood Mac
Coming out of my 8-track
Michael Jackson still looked black
Those were the daays!
106: You aren't sure if Bernie has ever won a tough race? He flipped a seat Republicans held for 144 years. As a democratic socialist.
Jim Jeffords, Bernie's immediate predecessor was elected as a Republican and in May 2001, just a few months into the new Congress, left that party to become an independent who would caucus with the Democrats. When Jeffords was eight years younger than Bernie is today, he announced he would not run for re-election, citing health issues. In the election that followed (2006), Vermont replace an independent who would caucus with the Democrats with ... an independent who would caucus with the Democrats.
By that time, Bernie had run as a statewide candidate eight times, so he was hardly an insurgent, underdog, or unknown quantity. Wikipedia adds, "Sanders won the Democratic primary, but declined the nomination, leaving no Democratic nominee on the ballot. This victory ensured that no Democrat would appear on the general election ballot to split the vote with Sanders, an ally of the Democrats, who has been supported by leaders in the Democratic Party." That dreaded establishment!
Back in 1990, Bernie did turf out a one-term representative to win a seat in the US House by a margin of 56% to 39%. Finding out whether this was a tough race would require more time than I am currently willing to spend, but the margin suggests it was not.
||
The building belonged to 'Azm, and the Embassy was his tenant. After the coup, to cover himself legally, 'Azm 'rented' his own flat to the Embassy but continued to live there.|>
||
he had been relegated by the secessionist government to what must surely be the world's most useless sinecure, the post of Syrian military attaché in Buenos Aires.|>
I hope it's useless because my first thought about sending a military attache to Argentina is that you want to recruit a torture consultant.
I guess I keep forgetting there's LinkedIn now.
||
"The result would be silence, followed by coffee-drinking."|>
That dreaded establishment!
The overheated response to Bernie's one comment about fighting the Republican establishment AND the Democratic establishment has been embarrassing, I think. All Republican politicians do is bad-mouth the Republican establishment. At CPAC mentions of Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan get reliable boos for their insufficient zeal in fighting the sicko libs. They just ignore it. For whatever reason there is nobody who identifies as the "Republican establishment" and tons of people who proudly claim to be, or whose dream is to be, the "Democratic establishment". Goes along with us being the people who follow the rules.
And, on this Super day, what has the US Supreme Court done to destroy civilization? Ruled 5-4 that although federal immigration law precludes state prosecution of employees that put false information (eg someone else's SSN) on their I-9 forms, it does not preclude state prosecution of employees who put false information (eg someone else's SSN) on their W-4 or state analogue which they are require to submit at the same time.
Notes for Mossy: immigration law requires that everyone submit to their employer proof of eligibility for employment in the US on or about their first day of work. That's an I-9 form. Tax law requires that everyone also submit a tax form to their employer -- form W-4 -- which instructs the employer how/where to withhold taxes. Many people not legally in the country -- including the restaurant workers in today's case -- use SSNs assigned to other people on these forms.
Why can't states prosecute you for a fake number on an I-9? I would say that there are more or less two reasons: (a) field preemption is a real thing and (b) to get the deal done, Congress had to disavow the creation of a federal panopticon.
I've often wondered about the whole fake SSN thing. Is some restaurant worker in Texas, Florida, or NYC using my SSN? Odds are not too bad that the answer is yes: millions of people are using false SSNs, and it's only a 9 digit number. In any event, the feds know perfectly well (or could know with the push of a button) that the same number is being used for a lawyer in Montana with the name under which the account was opened and by a restaurant worker in Florida with a different name who was not yet born when the account was opened. It's seemed to me that the feds have been happy to look the other way, to let that other guy put money into the system which, presumably, gets paid out immediately to some retiree. (Does it show up in the system as an increase in my contributions, and thus eventually enhance my retirement benefit? If so, great! If not, segregating it out as we go would seem to be a pretty explicit recognition that one of us is fake.)
||
Scientists have recorded an "unprecedented" number of blue whales around the coastal waters of the sub-Antarctic island of South Georgia. Just two individuals of the critically endangered species, and largest animal ever to have lived on our planet, were recorded in the area during a survey in 2018. But this year, during a more extensive survey, an extraordinary 36 separate sightings meant a total of 55 blue whales were spotted by the scientists.|>
(Thanks Charley, but I'm not feeling piscine today.)
119. Is there any risk that in 25 years' time, when you're basking in the sunset of your golden years, you will suddenly find that your SS payments have dried up because they're now going to a recently retired waiter in Florida?
Last I heard, the only employer charged in abetting fasle SSNs was a man in my hometown Edo was an immigrant from Mexico and some of his partners. Among the employers not arrested but clearly guilty you can include the president.
Why can't my phone spell "false"?
124: wherein lies the rub. Nobody really wants to pursue ways that would actually impact this too much, because they are afraid of the economic consequences. So, much like the "war" on drugs, ever once in a while you need a photo op to say you are doing something, but nobody really wants or lets the investigations follow the money too much.
Fuck em. Arrest them both. Better than the status quo.
If the whales can employ people such that if the whale calls the police for a crime in which the whale and the employee are both are complicit and the whale will escape punishment, that's much worse for workers than if both risked arrest.
||
Oh dear. I just asked our (newish) admin assistant for a big list of emails. She brought me a paper printout of a spreadsheet. I said that I needed to send a big email to everyone. She said, 'Hmm. I could get rid of these extra columns so that it's just their names, to make it easier to type in?' I asked if she could just send me the spreadsheet, and then I could just grab the column with the email addresses. She said, "no problem! you can do that? I love learning new things." 100% sincere.
|>
Would you like a better-trained replacement? Just don't run the SSN.
This never ends well.
I had no idea Moby was from Edo. Undocumented shamisen players are the worst.
In Super Tuesday news, the states that start with a "V" have split, one for Sander and one for Biden. I'll call that a tie.
I voted for Warren in MA but I might have made a different calculation if I lived somewhere else.
If Biden won North Carolina but Sanders won Nevada and tied New Hampshire, Sanders is ahead in the Ns.
Bloomberg won American Samoa, which I think is a good way to show that he'll be the best at getting the votes of people who aren't even able to vote in the general election.
I feel like I should have a better eye for this, but is Botox the reason Mike Bloomberg looks so odd?
It's probably rude to blame his parents.
Bloomberg won American Samoa, which I think is a good way to show that he'll be the best at getting the votes of people who aren't even able to vote in the general election.
A strong challenge to Sanders's longstanding polling lead among people not registered to vote.
I've often wondered about the whole fake SSN thing. Is some restaurant worker in Texas, Florida, or NYC using my SSN? Odds are not too bad that the answer is yes: millions of people are using false SSNs, and it's only a 9 digit number. In any event, the feds know perfectly well (or could know with the push of a button) that the same number is being used for a lawyer in Montana with the name under which the account was opened and by a restaurant worker in Florida with a different name who was not yet born when the account was opened. It's seemed to me that the feds have been happy to look the other way, to let that other guy put money into the system which, presumably, gets paid out immediately to some retiree. (Does it show up in the system as an increase in my contributions, and thus eventually enhance my retirement benefit? If so, great! If not, segregating it out as we go would seem to be a pretty explicit recognition that one of us is fake.)
Earnings submitted to SSA that don't match with any known SSN go into something called the Earnings Suspense File, an accounting mechanism that basically acknowledges that it represents contributions they can't connect with any identifiable person. There are billions of dollars a year going into this fund -- by some estimates as much as $10-12 billion.
(There's a funny story in Ted Conover's 1990s book Coyote about how some big chain store like Kmart was selling a wallet for a while that had an obviously-fake SS card in the vinyl creditcard slot, just to show customers what you COULD carry in your wallet, and word got around to undocumented workers, and an ungodly amount of "earnings" started showing up linked to that one number. Hard to know for sure if that was true or just myth.)
Earnings submitted to SSA that DO match with a known SSN, on the other hand, stay credited to that number. If that number is linked to a real live human in Montana, for example, he'll get a periodic statement from SSA about his projected retirement benefit. He could, at that point, spot that his reported earnings are much higher than reality, and let SSA know. Alternatively, the IRS could figure it out and come after him for under-reporting his earnings, and it would be on him to prove that not all of the money was actually earned by him. Or -- and it is my general understanding that this is the most likely option -- everyone involved practices a sort of don't-ask, don't-tell.
140: I guess I sort of assume these days that anyone who has $$ and an intentional media presence has had some work done.
The few times I've seen Biden or one of his family members on campus (they're giving us $$$ for naming rights), all of the faculty just kind of roll their eyes and hope some else is stuck listening to his long-ass rambling. At least some of the college kids seem to treat him like "Unclle Joe," so who knows?
Is Super Tuesday going to end Bloomberg? And Warren?
132 I guarantee you she has "proficient at all Microsoft Office programs" on her CV.
Biden is going to be the candidate and he's going to lose to Trump. I'm so terrified.
Dude. I need to get to sleep tonight.
It all went bad because Bernie didn't drop out and endorse Warren.
I feel like we were all mad about Biden, but then we all got REALLY mad about Bloomberg, and Biden snuck in as stealth candidate.
Also San Antonio declared a state of emergency over COVID.
Biden is such an actually shitty candidate.
You all assured me Clinton would win, so I'm counting on you to get this one wrong too.
I wasn't even blogging in 1992, but he did win.
I knew it. All the mainstream Democrats have just spent the last 18 months desperately saying "All these candidates are fine, please will the party elites please just tell us which one to vote for already". Why didn't they do it for someone who can think or speak good, back in April of last year or so? Our only hope is Trump refuses to debate so Biden can keep avoiding public events with the party elites continuing to vouch for him, plus a recession.
It's going to be horrible for the Ukrainians.
Was anybody asking party elites who to vote for? I wanted somebody else to make a decision, but I didn't want it top down. Anyway, it's pretty clear that thinking and speaking good don't matter in the least.
148: Biden is going to be the candidate and he's going to lose to Trump. I'm so terrified.
X is going to be the candidate and he's going to lose to Trump. I'm so terrifie is my view.
But yeah, Joe Fucking Biden. My major annoyance was that no one got a chanve to vote for Harris, Castro, or Booker. (Not blaming *anyone*, but sucks how that came out.)
158. last I keep people saying that about the debated, but Holy Fuck did you see the 2016 ones--about the best thing for Clinton by far*... but did not matter in the end. Sure it would be an overall horrorshow by objective standards but welcome to the whole campaign.
*In my opinion because she was relatively unfiltered by our media overlords.
So it's now down to a 78-year old man against a 77-year old man, with another 78-year old man as a potential spoiler (whether against the 78-year old or the 77-year old is no longer clear...)? Dear God, when did America, the land of hopes and dreams, and of youthful optimism, become the last stand of this tired old gerontocracy?
Who is the Yuri Andropov of the Americans?
Boy with all these old candidates sure glad there isn't a virus expected to infect half the population that kills 15% of infected 80-year-olds.
Weirdly enough, Tolstoy is the Yuri Andropov of the Americans.
164: As long as they don't shake anybody's hands.
Heebie, Bitecofer says it doesn't matter who the candidate is. But yeah, I am pretty appalled as well.
At least all the proto-serial killers are being caught on the other side of the river.
162: I'm going to speak in my oracular voice. Hang on, let me roll my eyes back in my head... okay:
There has been, roughly speaking, a power structure in place since the 1960s that is constantly being pressured by demands from below for justice -- racial justice, gender justice, equity for minorities of all sorts -- and from above/adjacent, by attempts at capture by various (economic/religious/both) right-wing interests. In the last twenty years, it has reached a point of crisis. There's no way to militarize the conflict, so it's all politics, and the only international structures available to bolster either side are a) capital and the "global elite," b) ad hoc cooperation among rightists, possibly, and c) I have no idea but surely there's a c). Because neither side (right/left) can easily gain the upper hand by numbers, each side is borrowing icons of past stability, in the hope that past stability still somehow has enough life in it to postpone the arrival of the power vacuum. Because twenty years passed in the blink of an eye, these icons are now ancient.
Because that power vacuum can be postponed but not avoided, we're headed for either entrenched authoritarianism (more likely) or some form of social and political transformation (less likely because less straightforward). I really think there's a capital-C Crisis making it impossible for the Democrats to find an ideal figurehead. It's what drove gswift to say the other day that he's tired of wokeness interfering with "his" party. Tons of people feel that way! (The million-dollar question is exactly how many and where?)
These are the "interesting times" of the proverb. Periods of transition and instability are not new; the sheer volume of misinformation and misdirection available to every waking mind 24/7, though, I personally believe that's big enough to matter.
Any other questions before I roll my eyes forward again without touching my face? (I'm sorry about San Antonio, heebie! What's up there, other than this?)
I keep touching my face. Can't stop.
They probably don't really expect anyone to totally stop touching their face. It's like the 55 mph speed limit or something.
170: Sidelight, argument for the ROC boomer nostalgia equivalent which I think convicing.
164: Call for speculation! This is how the Incas went down.
I get that Warren is still playing for the win in a deadlocked convention, but for that to work she'll need more actual delegates than she's been getting. It would be one thing for a strong-third place finisher to come out on top, but it would be hard to justify picking her if she can't demonstrate an ability to attract votes.
Geez, you guys. Yes, Biden had a good night, generally consistent with what polls since South Carolina had been showing but ultimately outperforming the polls a bit in most places. It does reshape the race into something resembling a Bernie-Biden showdown, but neither is a lock for the nomination at this point and the ultimate outcome is still very uncertain. One of them is most likely going to be the nominee, and regardless of who it is he'll have a reasonable chance of beating Trump but a fair chance of losing as well.
I would much prefer Harris or one of the western moderates like Hickenlooper or even Bennet to Biden. Biden was probably my last choice (well maybe that was Mayor Pete). Warren probably needs to withdraw.
Bloomberg was my last choice. Or Gabbard or Williamson if they count.
Anyway, off to short malarkey futures.
Paul Campos is feeling very unhappy about the primary right now.
Good.
I have two thoughts: first that the two people in the lead right now Sanders & Biden are the two who have been running the longest. They have the best claims to being, "next in line." Stereotypically, Republican's have been more likely to nominate "next in line" candidates (Dole, McCain, Romney) with GWB a dynastic candidate and Trump a clear break from the pattern while Democrats have been more inclined to nominate fresher faces -- though Clinton in 2016 and Kerry in 2004 were both older establishment figures.
Again, not wanting to be that guy, but: those are patterns based on a very few data points, and some of those are exceptions. Both sides seem to follow the rule that presidents get renominated and VPs get nominated once the president terms out. That leaves very few cases where you had a clearly open nomination since 1980. The Democrats nominated a "next in line" with Mondale in 1984; 1988 and 1992 and 2008 are "fresh faces", 2004 is "establishment" and so is 2016 (though it's an exception to the "nominate VP" rule). On the Republican side you have, since 1980, only 1996, 2000, 2008 (Cheney didn't want the nomination), 2012 and 2016. And in two of those five they didn't nominate the "next in line".
So Democrats nominate fresh faces three times out of six, and Democrats nominate "establishment" two times out of five.
2 Iranian cabinet members, 23 MPs infected.
That's because the Iranian government all uses the same glass.
||
Are the Taliban just straight-up trolling?
|>
I'm all in on Bernie now and think Warren should drop out of the race. I have no idea why her campaign hasn't gotten any traction. Ok, a little thing like sexism.
I'm also beginning to reconcile myself to Biden. I hates it.
181: the sacred shrine in Qom that will heal any illnesses you have if you lick it does seem like a bad idea.
Haven't they heard of dental dams?
Barry it HEALS ANY ILLNESSES YOU HAVE why would you need one?
(This reminds me of the joke about "why do I need to wash towels? When I get out of the shower, I am the cleanest thing in my house. The towel should be getting cleaner every time it touches me.")
You aren't as clean as the towel unless you washed yourself with water as hot, detergent as strong, and agitation as great as was used to clean the towel.
188 is a startup waiting to happen.
After the Juicero-Fleshlight merger is done.
184: I'm in for Bernie now though I voted for Warren yesterday.
So has Sanders gotten more than 30%-ish anywhere but his home turf in VT? He got a lot fewer votes even in VT than he did in 2016. His "huge turnout" wasn't, anywhere.
Biden is winning due to familiarity and being the closest to a centrist among the Democratic candidates. Next week there is Michigan; I'd guess a Biden-friendly state.
Warren couldn't even win her home state. Sigh. I know a lot of Warren supporters who are very unhappy this morning.
Bloomberg? Who he? He should just drop out now, or offer himself as King of Samoa.
Reluctantly, it looks like Biden at this point. Warren for VP, perhaps, as a sop to the left.
Let's look for someone under 75 on the ticket.
You can't have two people from Indiana in a row.
Are they mutually repulsive? Like when you try to push magnets together?
Warren is doing poorly because Bernie took over her base on the left. "Left, but not quite as left" is a tough selling point, and you can't outleft Bernie.
But he clearly scares too many people and doesn't have enough juice to close the deal. The only way we avoid Biden now is if Bernie drops out and endorses Warren.
What's Biden's heart attack score?
197: My dream. But that's not going to happen and it might not be enough even if it did. Warren might have been too far to the left for a lot of people. Plus sexism.
But seriously, this is the best we can get? Out of that whole field? None of the other, slightly younger people was an option.
Now I can't remember where I saw this headline: "Democratic primary voters want a president they don't have to think about 5 or 6 days of the week." I know Biden is uninspiring, but maybe, re beating Trump, that will turn out okay. Maybe people are tired of being screamed at by the news. Trump is an unusual incumbent in that, from the office, he does not project stability, but anxious resentment and belligerence, and so the peace and stability vote may want a way to reject him. The Sanders campaign has never been at its best appealing to people who don't want to be yelled at. In my one experience living somewhere where people were actively campaigning in a presidential election I heard more than one Sanders volunteer *literally* screaming or choosing some other manner of making a ton of noise on street corners in Harlem and I was all, holy crap, far be it from me to claim I have my finger on the pulse of the older black community but it is not my impression that this is a good way of appealing to them. (Clinton canvassers were scrupulously polite, even once when I talked about the virtues of Sanders to one of them.) Maybe there will be a majority for wanting things to feel normal, and maybe Sanders is just wrong that "revolution" talk is broadly appealing. Maybe people don't believe that a revolution can be delivered (and they're not wrong), and want to vote for leadership that expresses something about what they feel. Sometimes that's a bare majority in some Midwestern/mid-Atlantic states for racial resentment, but maybe now it will be a majority in the necessary places for longing for a feeling of normalcy. If Sanders can't really deliver on his promise to bring new voters, then making middle class suburbanites feel like they have a safe, white, male, gentile refuge from drama might be an advantage. I don't have the impression the media, writ large, has any particular antipathy for Biden, and that would be an advantage.
I don't know anything, obviously.
If Biden loses as the consensus "electability" safe choice all the pundits who said that will quit and we'll never hear that argument again right hahaha I kid.
I don't have the impression the media, writ large, has any particular antipathy for Biden, and that would be an advantage.
The Burisma stories started back up literally the day after he won SC. Inspired by a shameless Senate R subpoena but that's the way it works- oh, we're just reporting what's being investigated, can't expect us to ignore the news, can you?
I wasn't trying to say Burisma isn't in the news or that Both Sides-sim is non-issue, only that they do not hate him the way they hated HRC or are freaked out by Sanders. Again, I don't know anything.
203: But that will be balanced by the House Democrats holding constant hearings on Trump's corrupt dealings with Iranian Revolutionary Guard front companies, mental health, links with organised crime, rape accusations and so on.
Won't it?
I mean, that's such an obvious thing to do.
Surely they won't miss an open goal like that.
Maybe- I feel like Hillary was in the same situation until she was the nominee. The press loved her as Secretary of State! Remember her "cool" image texting with sunglasses on? I have no doubt the same will happen to Biden, it's just a question of whether it's Burisma, his mental agility, or some other made up shiny object.
The press loved her as Secretary of State! Remember her "cool" image texting with sunglasses on?
That image was a popular meme because she was popular online. She was also extremely popular in the country - a poll in 2011 found she had the highest favourability rating of any government official at 64% to Obama's 50% - but I am not sure that she was a particularly popular Secretary of State with the press. Open to be convinced either way though.
206: I don't think that image was popularized by the press -- I think it was really the internets, particularly the "Texts from Hillary" Tumblr that made that a thing. The media had a decades-long grudge against her.
Anyway, I'm sure coverage of Burisma will fail to appropriately scale it to Trump's behavior. As of a couple months ago CNN was consistently putting "There is no evidence that Biden or his son broke the law" or some such sentence in all its stories. It's something. Or maybe Both Sides ism will swamp even their lack of personal antipathy.
187.2 reminds me of this of labor history https://twitter.com/ErikLoomis/status/1193904986943631362
The only way we avoid Biden now is if Bernie drops out and endorses Warren
I've supported Warren but she's gotten pitifully poor support in the primaries/caucuses that this is entirely unrealistic. Besides, Bernie is still very much a contender. Warren should drop out and endorse Bernie.
209 +bit
I think the revolution rhetoric really appeals to the young and whips them up. Unfortunately not enough to actually get out there and vote.
Surely they won't miss an open goal like that.
Please stop, you're killing me here.
Besides, Bernie is still very much a contender.
I'm not sure that he is? We already saw how this played out four years ago and he's in a worse position now.
214 gets it exactly right. Biden has it unless a health problem makes him drop out.
Wow is vice president going to be a super important selection this time around.
214 is correct. Bernie motivating and mobilizing some people in some places (e.g. Texas) is not enough to overcome A) people also being motivated and mobilized who just want a default "anyone but Trump", B) no longer getting the votes of people who just wanted to vote for anyone who wasn't Hillary Clinton, C) not getting the votes of anyone over age 55 (this is closely related to A)
Well, mea culpa - I thought Biden would be gone by now. At least Bloomberg is out.
If Biden continues to win, maybe we should have a thread where we vent all the nasty things we want to say about him, before buckling down.
There was a good column in the Washington Post by Walsh about how both Sanders and Biden are risky choices as nominees for different reasons. Biden could get pummeled on Burisma once he locks up the nomination or make number of verbal gaffes.
This has probably already been noted above, but if Bernie continues to do this badly, it certainly puts the nail in the coffin of his "only my movement can turn out millions of new voters" proposition. Though I still think he'd be a better bet on conventional terms.
Also Bernie lost Texas.
Well, he got a lot more votes in Texas than he did in 2016, unlike most places.
There was a good column in the Washington Post by Walsh about how both Sanders and Biden are risky choices as nominees for different reasons. Biden could get pummeled on Burisma once he locks up the nomination or make number of verbal gaffes.
Biden, Sanders and Warren are all risky choices as nominees. Biden didn't help the party by entering the race - as Obama's VP he was obviously the default candidate for many people, making sure none of the other mainstream candidates had a chance.
Policy=wise, I find the primary results dispiriting, but I'm not sure how, if he can't beat Joe Biden (or Hillary Clinton!), Sanders would be an improvement in electoral terms. The central conceit of his campaign, expanding the electorate, doesn't seem to be happening and "Democrats are terrible" isn't the greatest message to run in a Democratic primary. So, we were always fucked.
Right. This whole process has been a gigantic waste of time and money. The centrists could have congealed around a candidate a year ago, instead of taking all these donations from people that could have gone to people running for something other than president and then doing it at the last minute.
That's my thought also. I was willing and eager to support a candidate with a youth wave, but I don't see one.
we should have a thread where we vent all the nasty things we want to say about him
I'm a little surprised, now that things seem pretty well decided, that I'm not tempted by this. Godspeed, Joe Biden. I won't vote for him in the primary, but he is now in my Top 3 among the active candidates.
There was some disappointing local and statewide news too, as usual, but some positives:
* Somewhat contested parks-and-homelessness city tax measure appears to be winning (Q)
* A friend I did a little campaigning for for Dem party central committee currently stands at #5 in an at-large race electing 11 members - surprising everyone in fact; usually the winners are in well-endorsed and -funded slates! First election she ever stood for. (A local freelance reporter tweeted last week about some of her donors being employees of tech firms, deniably-shittily implying she was their candidate, and the backlash to that tweet created a surprising, large fundraising influx.)
I'm pretty pleased about local council elections. Two women won their races, bringing the number of women on our city council from 1 to 3 (of nine). That feels good.
Hotness is irrelevant. Borg units maintain constant temperature at all times.
Without Seven of Nine and Republican perversion, no President Obama.
Meh. He was always overrated.
235 I think Jeri Ryan's pronouns are she/her.
When we have our venting thread, it would be good to talk about however can go out and get Biden elected and try to promote more progressive change at the same time.
Here's an interesting thought: if Trump loses in November, does he run again in 2024? Does he get the nomination?
When Trump is out of office, he'll probably go to jail. Only presidential privilege protects him now.
242: He will pardon himself before he leaves office.
He could probably get elected from jail.
Biden will pardon him. Got to have goodwill with Republicans, you know.
244: Trump isn't going to jail. Worst-case scenario he'll flee to Moscow.
And get elected from there.
Actually, I think that as soon as he's out of office Republicans will forget they ever knew him.
I think they'll try, but it's Trump's party now.
241 Will he even be alive then? I think he'll stroke out rage tweeting on his golden crapper.
248: There may be some truth to that, but I also think that even after he dies there will be sightings of him in unexpected places as happened with Elvis Presley.
A bot trained on his tweets could probably get elected.
I am a bear of very little brain, but Bloomberg joined the party late, faffed about for a few weeks and then quit early.
My question is, "Why did he bother?"
I get why you say that. But hey, why not? You never know how these things will turn out.
Will he even be alive then?
Oh, yes. Almost definitely. He'll only be 77, he's a non smoker and a teetotaler and he doesn't have diabetes. He's got an actuarial life expectancy of 86 and a 75% chance of living to 80.
And I will be utterly amazed if he goes to prison.
My question is, "Why did he bother?"
He got in it to tank Elizabeth Warren, but Bernie ended up tanking her instead.
253 Same reasons everyone else in the moderate lane tried for it: you don't know whether/when Biden's weaknesses as a candidate will catch up to him, and you don't know who will/won't catch fire.
Thinking about Warren -- does she stay in and withstand a lot of ire, on the bet that if it becomes clear to Sanders' supporters that he's not going to be the nominee, maybe they prefer her to Biden? Or does she take the L, and get on with writing legislation to implement her plans.
If SC Black voters under 30 had gone 80/20 for Sanders, instead of an even split, everything would be different, including for Bloomberg.
In Bloomberg's case, I have to assume it was mostly ego, as well as "stop Sanders". Remember he once toyed with running as an independent.
In Bloomberg's case, I have to assume it was mostly ego, as well as "stop Sanders".
The ego part for sure, but he must have realized early on that he was mostly going to help Sanders by splitting up the moderate vote.
I have no idea why my computer has stopped remembering my name. 257 and 258 are me.
Well, I thought Warren's candidacy would at worst help Sanders by having delegates to throw to him - I didn't think she'd fall below viability in so many places. Perhaps Bloomberg had the same worst case in mind, gleaning delegates to throw to Biden.
In Bloomberg's case, I have to assume it was mostly ego, as well as "stop Sanders". Remember he once toyed with running as an independent.
I think it was 95% "stop Sanders/Warren". Running for the Democratic nomination to prepare people in case one of them won and he needed to run as an independent to make sure they lose.
263.2: That makes so little sense though. (Not that I'm saying you're wrong as far as Bloomberg's motivation). If Bloomberg wasn't in the race then Biden's win yesterday would have been much more decisive.
Maybe not. I wonder about people voting Biden to stop Bloomberg.
If Bloomberg wasn't in the race but Butt, Klob, and Stey were still in the race, then Biden's win would have been much LESS decisive!
265 Rather than Sanders or Warren? It's a big country and there are plenty of people who go for pretty much any fool thing.
266: Yes, but if Mayo, Amy, Steyer, and Bloomberg had all been running on Super Tuesday, than Bernie would probably be well on his way to clinching the nomination.
Anyway, my point is that all Bloomberg could do was split up the moderate vote. I can't believe that he took more than a few handful of confused votes away from Sanders or Warren.
Warren basically collapsed. It looks like that support went to Biden and I'm speculating as to why.
I thought this was interesting on Bloomberg. Basically argues that a stronger Biden is what Bloomberg wanted in the first place, so the way things turned out is fine from his perspective even though he's out a bit of money
In other words, heebie was right in 152.
MAybe American Samoa become's Bloomberg's Blennerhassett Island.
Pretty much, yeah. Though it's not over yet.
You people have priors I cannot comprehend. At this point, Warren's campaign clearly designs to fragment the progressive vote. She's running for a cabinet position in Biden admin.
You people have priors I cannot comprehend. At this point, Warren's campaign clearly designs to fragment the progressive vote. She's running for a cabinet position in Biden admin.
You assume more ideological coherence in the electorate than I do. I am inclined to to agree with this
Warren supporters who really like Bernie (or Biden) will probably go to to Bernie (or Biden) *whether or not she drops out*. Many of them likely already have, in fact.
I don't think it's obvious that the people who are supporting Warren now would necessarily switch to Sanders if she dropped out.
271: Biden always was the status quo, DNC candidate. Which means he sucks - but Bloomberg probably did raise a distraction of the "shit, it could be worse".
275: Yea, I don't believe the surveys that show Sanders as 2nd choice for Warren voters either. I suspect actual ranked voting would result in all kinds of unanticipated goofiness to be interpreted. Endorsement would make the surveyed ranking more substantial tho. Anyway, it's clearly the play they're running.
Furthermore, Warren's campaign performs a kind of general signaling function that Sanders is not for responsible adults. It could be less that Warren voters are erstwhile Sanders voters than that she converts timid Sanders voters to the responsible consensus candidate.
Furthermore, Warren's campaign performs a kind of general signaling function that Sanders is not for responsible adults. It could be less that Warren voters are erstwhile Sanders voters than that she converts timid Sanders voters to the responsible consensus candidate.
I am now having the feeling that you clearly have priors that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around. I think it's true that what you describe is one way that people could react to the Warren campaign, but I think it's secondary -- I don't think that's the intention of the Warren and I don't think that's a primary reason why people support Warren or the primary way that the campaign engages people.
Of course it's secondary. Primary was for Warren to become president. What would persuade you of a more cynical view at this point? If Warren drops out and endorses Biden, does that change your view of what Warren campaign aspired to, or not at all?
Bloomberg ads are still running on the TV.
Apparently, Steve Bullock has been talked into running for the Senate. This is a complete game changer for all our races: lots of money for GOTV etc.
The senate races are all I've been sending money to.
If I were to send money to Montana races I'd focus on the Senate too.
What would persuade you of a more cynical view at this point? If Warren drops out and endorses Biden, does that change your view of what Warren campaign aspired to, or not at all?
Interesting question. Yes, if Warren endorsed Biden that would change my sense of her aspirations (my read of the primary is that she was more committed to her non-aggression pact with Bernie than was strictly good for her chances of winning the nomination, so my interpretation is that she a sense of shared aspirations with Sanders -- if she endorsed Biden that would make me re-think that).
If Warren accepted a cabinet position in a Biden administration (as you suggested upthread) that wouldn't necessarily change my sense of her -- but perhaps it should. Perhaps that would imply that I needed to be more cynical.
But I'd ask you the opposite question, what would make you think that she's running (and trying to accumulate delegates) as a way to influence policy (rather than as a spoiler). Consider this story.
She leveraged that reputation in 2014, when the Hillary Clinton campaign saw her as a potential challenger for the Democratic nomination. It's hard to remember that era now, but Warren, not Sanders, was the populist left's next great hope. There were multiple Draft Warren organizations, and though Clinton was seen as a much stronger candidate than is now remembered, Warren was the entrant her team most feared. That gave Warren power, and as recently reported documents show, she used it, repeatedly, to push Clinton on personnel.
During a meeting at Clinton's home in Washington, Warren caught Clinton "off-guard" by pushing hard on appointments, and followed up with a list of people she wanted Clinton to hire, or at least consult:The list, recompiled by POLITICO based on the accounts of those involved, included a hodgepodge of sometimes obscure liberal academics and economists including MIT's Simon Johnson, UConn's James Kwak, Columbia's Joseph Stiglitz, Vanderbilt's Ganesh Sitaraman (policy director for Warren's 2012 campaign), University of Chicago's Amir Sufi, U.C. Irvine's Katie Porter and Vermont Law School's Jennifer Taub. The progressive think-tank types included Demos' Heather McGhee; public servants who had clashed with the Obama administration included former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila Bair and longtime Senate aide Elise Bean. AFL-CIO policy director Damon Silvers represented unions.
The common thread among most of the names: They had been critical of the Obama administration's response to the financial crisis, as Warren had.
There was also, Politico reported, "an informal blacklist of Clinton allies that Warren and outside partners would resist if nominated for jobs in the Clinton administration, which included BlackRock Chairman Larry Fink and Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg."
How plausible would you find it that she might want to do something similar between now and the convention?
282 is the best news of the season.
If Bloomberg throws lots of money at the Democrat, as the 538 piece suggests he will, Trump would presumably spend a lot of his bandwidth attacking Bloomberg rather than the actual nominee. Considering Bloomberg is the real version of what Trump pretends to be.
I'm mostly just counting the three more years until I can vote against Pat Toomey.
There's so many Bloomberg commercials. I'm starting to think I should go to "Mike". It just sounds friendly and straightforward and healthcare-reformy.
I'd be surprised if Biden nominated Warren for a cabinet position. Obama didn't even do that.
The Democratic primary in Virginia last night went almost exactly as the Bernie Sanders campaign had long planned: The candidate of the multiracial working class beat the polls -- and overcame his rival's massive financial advantage -- by achieving record turnout through the mobilization of first-time primary voters.
But that candidate turned out to be Joe Biden.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/why-bernie-sanders-lost-super-tuesday-results-joe-biden.html
Bloomberg is the real version of what Trump pretends to be.
And more. Bloomberg is more than an order of magnitude richer than Trump pretends to be and at least two orders of magnitude richer than Trump actually is. And he's the polar opposite of Trump in one way: he has built a huge fortune by building a very strong and entirely deserved reputation for telling people the truth. (In the sense of his company providing accurate news and data.)
I'm Trump envies the TV channel more than its truth content.
It occurs to me that people here might like the opportunity to start work on tearing this apart early.
http://tdmsresearch.com/2020/03/02/south-carolina-2020-democratic-party-primary/
Ms. Warren has told associates that she does not plan to offer an endorsement when she drops out later on Thursday, according to a person close to her. She had what this person called "cordial" conversations with her former rivals but is still weighing whether to take a side.
294 it was the right thing to do even though it still feels awful.
294 it was the right thing to do even though it still feels awful.
Seconded.
It strikes me that the "electability" argument worked against Warren in an interesting way. When the race settled into Biden/Sanders as the leaders (after Sanders recovered from the drop post-heart attack) the Warren campaign was making the argument that she was the best possible "consensus" candidate who could be more appealing to Biden supporters than Sanders and more appealing to Sanders supporters than Biden.
That argument didn't work for a couple of reasons (not least of which, it's a tough argument to make and will fail more often than it will succeed) but one of them was that the Biden supporters thought Warren was clearly less electable than Biden and the Sanders supporters thought Warren was clearly less electable than Sanders. So even if they would have been tempted, on ideological grounds, by a consensus candidate they didn't want to compromise on the issues and take (what looked to them like) an electability hit in the process.
Sanders supporters thought Warren was clearly less electable than Sanders
I think Sanders is the best candidate left in the race, and I'm voting for him, and I'm not attributing this to Sanders himself or to his official campaign.
But to the extent that's what Sanders supporters thought, I think they're wildly mistaken, and while I can't attribute this to any specific Sanders supporter without more, I can't see how a broad group of people could have come to that conclusion without sexism.
They are straightforwardly very very close on policy. I'm not saying there's no policy basis to prefer one to the other, but there's not a whole lot. At which point -- he's seventy-eight and has just had a heart attack. He's personally abrasive in a way she isn't. She's set up and staffed a federal agency. And so on. How could you look at the two of them and say he's more electable than she is unless you're giving him a whole lot of points for being a man?
Because none of those things are what people mean by "electability".
To be less glib, those are reasons why people might say, "She'd be a better president, but he's more electable." Meaning they think he'll be better able to connect, fire up, GOTV, mobilize, etc.
Which I, in my heart of hearts, think is wrong, wrong, wrong. If she were the candidate and there was no 11-dimensional chess of electability that there is during the primary season, I think she'd be incredibly compelling and fire everyone up and deliver the votes.
(And to the rest of your point, I agree that there's a ton of sexism baked into how they think he can mobilize voters better than she can.)
(And to the rest of your point, I agree that there's a ton of sexism baked into how they think he can mobilize voters better than she can.)
Seconding this, (and I'll note that Warren gave a good answer when asked about sexism), and for all of the ways that sexism was baked in, there were reasons why people could be concerned about her electability.
Personally, I think there are reasons for concern, but I think that's true of any of the candidates. I don't think Biden or Sanders are bulletproof, so I don't see concerns about Warren as a comparative weakness -- but I understand why that might not satisfy everybody.
I think of "electable" as "good on TV". Maybe that's not right, but I'd be interested in the argument for a different meaning.
I'm pretty dismayed by the US trend to electing TV figures. CA got lucky with Schwarzenegger, but that's a lousy way to pick people. IMO it's a recipe for figureheads with real power even more opaque than currently. Also I am dismayed by 24hour TV news, punditocracy, and unimaginative fast-casual food.
Also I am dismayed by 24hour TV news, punditocracy, and unimaginative fast-casual food.
All of this. AND convention centers.
307: Thanks. It should be this: https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/1235624225924358151
Warren on how gender played out in this race:
"You know that is the trap question for every woman. If you say, yea there was sexism in this race, everyone says 'whiner,' and if you say 'no, there was no sexism,' about a bazillion women think 'what planet do you live on?"
Are you willing to delete the gmail link for me?
They are straightforwardly very very close on policy. I'm not saying there's no policy basis to prefer one to the other, but there's not a whole lot. At which point -- he's seventy-eight and has just had a heart attack. He's personally abrasive in a way she isn't. She's set up and staffed a federal agency. And so on. How could you look at the two of them and say he's more electable than she is unless you're giving him a whole lot of points for being a man?
Regarding electability (competence being unrelated), one reason would be that some think she does worse than "average Democrat" in Massachusetts elections. And in general the question of being "a skilled politician", whatever that means to people. She didn't become a politician at all until 2012. Sanders seems to have good responses to controversies and tough questions while Warren sometimes makes things worse. His mind isn't deteriorating like Biden's. She fits slightly better into unfair stereotypes of elitist academic liberals. Wall Street and billionaires hate her just as much so she won't get the benefit from money or establishment backing. All of this is unfair obviously, but any of us would lose an election too, except maybe Megan.
I am usually the first to dispute narratives of cultural decline/decay, but I really think Biden's rise (his whole career, even) is indicative of elite culture decaying and rewarding power for its own sake. Previous Democratic nominees, whatever else you might have said about them, tried really hard their whole careers. Biden, by contrast, managed to become Senator at 29, stayed there for 36 years accumulating power by seniority, made some embarrassing presidential runs, became a blah VP, and keeps getting rewarded for this blah career, even as every time he talks to voters he comes off like a textbook case of the Peter Principle.
He's like the Dems' GWB - possibly worse as Bush looked better on paper in 2000.
His mind isn't deteriorating like Biden's
I'm not sure if that was your intention, but it read to me like this is a negative for Warren in terms of electability, and that may very well be true.
313.2: This doesn't seem fair to Biden as he wasn't born into the elite.
Are we sure Biden's mind is deteriorating? He's always said stupid shit. I don't think that is a problem in an election.
313: Honestly, I feel that way about Newsom too. I still don't understand how he got elected. He called dibs and apparently everyone just said 'he has dibs'.
312: Me, Megan?! HAH! I actually do think I have a good public speaking mode and could get elected, but people who screened me do not agree. I interviewed with EMERGE, who train women to run for elected office. They interviewed 16 women for 20 slots and took the other 15. Which stung for a bit. Now I just feel petty and vengeful and I want to run against one of their candidates for pure spite (which only works if I win).
This doesn't seem fair to Biden as he wasn't born into the elite.
I suppose that's true, but I still think he's being rewarded more for less than even GWB was. And Biden seems to have elbowed his way into an elite mindset pretty fast, carrying water for all the financial lobbies.
Biden, by contrast, managed to become Senator at 29, stayed there for 36 years accumulating power by seniority, made some embarrassing presidential runs, became a blah VP, and keeps getting rewarded for this blah career, even as every time he talks to voters he comes off like a textbook case of the Peter Principle.
I have a half-baked theory that voters want to contradictory things in terms of presidential competence.
On one hand they want somebody invincible who can rise to any occasion and solve any problem. On the other hand they don't want somebody who makes them feel inadequate.
By that theory Bill Clinton and Trump (and possibly Regan) hit the sweet spot of appearing successful without making people feel inferior.
Sexism hurts female candidates on both halves of the equation: there are fewer women-as-superhero archetypes available and successful women are more likely to trigger feelings of jealousy and inadequacy.
"to" s/b "two"
Obama was good at appearing competent but was a little bit threatening. GWB was less good as appearing competent but was completely non-threatening and (as Molly Ivins put it) "affable."
314, I just mean that saying "He's 78 and she's 70" isn't necessarily a point in her favor since he doesn't seem to be declining.
People say "Oh I wouldn't like a candidate like this" but then when one comes along they make an exception, like Obama. Bernie Sanders is sui generis in a number of ways. Nobody seems to be attacking him for writing those weird articles about sexuality 50 years ago or not having a steady job for most of his 20s and 30s. These things (any evidence of lack of ambition, really) are so bizarre for a politician that nobody knows what to make of them. Like Trump, it seems like because he isn't trying to be a typical politician things bounce off him.
Instead the attacks are the same attacks on every leftist for the last 150 years, "This supposed man of the people actually has a $2.3 million net worth and a vacation home and an overcoat", which may work on John Edwards but doesn't work here either since, you know, just look at him.
I just mean that saying "He's 78 and she's 70" isn't necessarily a point in her favor since he doesn't seem to be declining.
There's not declining, and not declining yet. The odds that he finishes even his first term healthy and able are way, way lower than for her. His VP selection is extremely high stakes. (Which constrains him in an unusual way -- usually you don't have to agree with your VP about everything, you can just pick them to strengthen the ticket. But if Bernie selects anyone he doesn't think would be a good president, he's being very irresponsible.)
||
Any Obies on here other than me and md 20/400? I want to draft you into supporting campus workers threatened with layoffs.
|>
317.2 is f'ed up. Did they know that the lurkers supported you in comments?
I am still not sure how to convey "I believe that a substantial number of internet strangers are fond of me and might even give me money for a run for office" without going into detail about how, exactly, I spend my time on the internet.
326: As long as you don't mention Motumbo or how we mark deaths around here, you should probably be ok. It's definitely not worse than how other people spend their time on the internet.
Fuck that! Megan, you'd be a great candidate and office-holder.
I think Megan would be crazy electable for the `do the scutwork, stay out of the limelight' positions and maybe not for the `make everybody feel good' ones. There's a version of 319 that thinks women are supposed to be Mom/the PA/helpmeet; always plan ahead and clean up, a little witty/plaintive remonstration, don't ever act as though you have any authority. (YMomMV.)
Historical precedent: administering the Poor Laws and Road Rates in early modern* England. So much more responsibility than reward that female landholders were not just allowed to do it, they were sometimes stuck with the job for several ticks of the rota because they couldn't force anyone else to pick it up. (From the Webbs.)
* my periodization is vague. 1700s with medieval precedents to somewhere surprisingly late in the 1800s, IIRC.
I've been nursing a fantasy for after I get off my Local Commission gig (which is term limited) which is to become a local blogger on city council issues.
Seems up my alley, right? What I want is the power to set the framing of issues if I can become widely read in town.
The drawback is that city council meetings can be insanely long and I think attending them is the key.
You have to attend them and actually listen.
Could you watch them after, sped up a little?
sort of - I can live blog! and say things like "I find myself tuning out because this part is really rambly..."
332: yes but I absolutely cannot imagine carving out time to do so. If I'm there in person, it works.
Our city council has a long tradition of councilmembers being yelled at in session, so they have to get very good at rolling with the punches.
I like the idea of being the support for women candidates. I've done that once so far, at least in being a designated campaign officer.
If you made a blog called "Local Issues and Extremely Bad Combovers" you'd have something to focus on when the meeting got dull.
328, 329: I think so too! But it will evidently not be through the auspices of EMERGE. Still looking for a path to a relevant office. I really, really don't want to go through school board.
328, 329: I think so too! But it will evidently not be through the auspices of EMERGE. Still looking for a path to a relevant office. I really, really don't want to go through school board.
Apparently, here you're supposed to knock on doors and circulate petitions and things like that before you run for office. So, I'm supporting women by not doing any of that.
Especially considering your down-home Midwestern electability.
I can't run for anything because my Midwestern good nature was replaced by fast-paced, Eastern sarcasm.
Getting appointed to a board or commission of some sort might be a good entry point for Megan. The extent to which those positions are appointed rather than elected varies a lot across the country, but in general the appointment process tends to reward relevant technical expertise more than the electoral process does. It also requires getting in the good graces of the local elected officials who make and approve the appointments, of course, but depending on the specifics of the position that may not be as difficult as it sounds. Low-profile positions requiring technical expertise can be hard to fill.
That's because they involve tedious work for little money.
Sometimes for no money! But it's a way to get your name out there and make the connections you need to run for something else later.
Hey, guys, we already identified the right federal appointment for Megan in another thread. Now everyone just needs to keep repeating what a great fit she'll be until it becomes conventional wisdom.
The wife was around Biden a lot in the 90s and 00s. She's pretty adamant that what we're seeing isn't decline, but just how he is.
I'm still planning to go Sanders, because, as Bobby sings it, someone got to turn the page, but if he continues to fail to expand his movement into the mainstream, I might end up writing in Megan instead.
NickS
You'll have to make your question terser. I truly don't know what the fuck your turnaround question is supposed to be.
I used to think something of this blog's groupthink, but now you cannot even groupthink out of Elizabeth Warren (perfect presidential candidate). Fuck you guys, I'm sorry, but have some balls and do something weird once...
324: I am Obie. Already "engaged" in the issue through several other connections but my email is in the name link if there is some specific response you would like us to participate in.
324: I am Obie. Already "engaged" in the issue through several other connections but my email is in the name link if there is some specific response you would like us to participate in.
The drawback is that city council meetings can be insanely long and I think attending them is the key.
Are your city council meetings not broadcast on local access television/livestreamed on the internet?
342: I did that! I am trying, and working the process anywhere I see leverage. It is sortof a slow build though, and for long stretches it feels like throwing effort into a bottomless sink.
345: Part of my sadness about Biden's big win is that he's going to appoint some pleasant banal manager to that position and I will die of boredom from the water headlines for another four years.