Categories
open thread

Super Tuesday 2: Open Thread Boogaloo

Roughly 50% of these people will be the next president of the United States
Roughly 50% of these people will be the next president of the United States

Today’s another big political day here in the US — lots of primaries, including some that look like they’ll be pretty close. So have a thread to talk politics. Feel free to keep discussing Der Trump in the Trump threads, or here, it’s all good. And feel free to discuss non-US politics here as well. But please, no one use the phrase “Feel the Bern.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

156 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Skiriki
Skiriki
4 years ago

Johanna:

@Skiriki She’s just waiting to see where you leave your wallet. For the sushi.

If that’s the case, then we sadly have to file her into the queue “not too smart”, since it has been within her reach for five days 😉 😀

Ah what the heck, she is the cuddliest and cutest anyway. And purrs like 18-wheeler idling.

WeirwoodTreeHugger
WeirwoodTreeHugger
4 years ago

I’d actually love it if Hillary Clinton picked Julian Castro as her running mate. Although winning Texas would be a stretch, I think it would help push it towards becoming a purple state. He’s young, energetic, attractive, and likeable so he makes up for what the pundit types have labelled her flaws. He’s not experienced in national politics, but that doesn’t matter because Clinton ranks high in experience and competence. Plus, he’s non-white Latino so if they won, the racist and misogynist tears would be flowing extra hard.

Admittedly, I haven’t been following his career the last couple of years but I remember him well from the 2012 convention and had the same reaction I had to Obama at the 2004 convention. Which was “there’s a future president.”

opium4themasses
opium4themasses
4 years ago

Katz: Using foreign to mean European is definitely fraught. I was thinking of EU, Australia, Canada, and Japan. (Plus etc others I am leaving out.) So … Ya. I used an inartful and vague word.
The VP nod is interesting mostly because VT is unlikely to flip.

What the DNC needs is an update of the 50-state strategy. The census is upcoming and I fear it may be too late to really fix the district maps.

Getting a majority Democratic vote only to be a Republican majority Congress angers me greatly.

brooked
brooked
4 years ago

@Veternias

She might know where the party’s bodies are buried, which might be why the establishment is reluctant to get in her way

If by “establishment” you mean the Democratic party, party officials prefer her because Sanders is a terrible Democrat. There is no great mystery or conspiracy behind the party’s support of Clinton.

Sanders and his supporters see the party support for Clinton as evidence that “the establishment” is against him. But there are two other interpretations. What party leaders necessarily care about is winning the next election. They look at the electability of the presidential candidate as it affects the electoral prospects of candidates at all levels, including their own. The endorsement primary is a symptom of deep anxiety about what Sanders would do to the entire party’s fortunes in November.

The lack of support for Sanders among elected Democrats may also reflect his lack of support for them. During 2015, Clinton raised $18 million for other Democratic candidates, while Sanders did no fundraising for them at all. Those are just last year’s numbers. The difference in party fundraising between them going back decades would surely be even more dramatic. After all, before this campaign began, Sanders was emphatic that he was not a Democrat.

Sanders has left a long trail of denunciations of the Democratic Party. He began on the revolutionary left; in 1980, he served as an elector for the Socialist Workers’ Party, founded by Leon Trotsky and committed to nationalizing major industries. In 1989 he said the Democrats and Republicans were “in reality, one party—the party of the ruling class.” That year he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times describing the two parties as “tweedle-dee” and “tweedle-dum” since both subscribed to what he called an “ideology of greed and vulgarity.” As the Republican Party has moved to the right, Sanders has said the Democrats are better, but he has refused to run as a Democrat and continued to insist—as late as the 2012 election—that he is not a Democrat because the party fails to support the interests of workers.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
4 years ago

Honestly, with Trump, I’ve been trying to distance myself from U.S. politics. It leaves me both bitter and weary, plus – given how the Obama administration turned out – I’m cautious in becoming excited over the next Democratic presidential candidate. While I prefer Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton, as the latter has a lot of special interests attached to her, I don’t think his administration would cause some massive sea change in how the government is run. There’s always a process attached to policy and that process means most of the loftiest promises remain empty and unfulfilled.

That said: whether it is Bernie or Hillary that wins, we’d have either our first Jewish president or our fist female president and – right after having our first black president – it’s great to simply know that’s possible. It’s certainly preferable to Joseph Lieberman or Carly Fiorina…

As far as non-political stuff…

After a really terrible beginning of the year, with February being one prolonged depressive episode where I spent a good deal of the time in bed due to intense lethargy due to a number of personal factors, things have surprisingly turned around for me.

I had spent the last two years endlessly applying for one job after another, most in walking distance from where I lived, without success and with an increase in rent as well as having a diminishing budget – I applied to a warehouse and delivery position at a furniture store and was hired. Had a wonderful first day and actually looking forward to the next one tomorrow.

I’m glad it happened, because I was pretty much losing all hope at that point. I like where I live and the idea of having to move back down to SoCal, in an area that’s basically in the middle of nowhere, to live with my dad was something I dreaded vehemently.

brooked
brooked
4 years ago

Congrats on the job Nick.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

Congrats, Nick!

Valentine
Valentine
4 years ago

One thing people don’t really seem to say although someone almost had it earlier with saying that the Tramp supporters are mainly a loud minority, is tjat how many are actually old enough to vote. This whole neo fascist just for the lulz stuff strikes me as a trend the same way emo was a trend. Now it’s a bunch of teenagers with twitter and reddit just being yet another counter culture. This is supported by the fact that they don’t even seem to understand the most basic things about the country they live in nor anything at all about the rest of the world. Most couldn’t even tell you the capital of Poland let alone any other forien president apart from their lovely putin.
The same way they have those click bait website fotos of what emos look like now they grew out of it. As soon as these children get left home and into real self support situations their views will change very much and hopefully for the better.
As for Tramp himself I too am scare such a guy will be in charge of nuclear weapons so I hope with all my heart he doesn’t become in power because then the Us is basically fucked.

Vetarnias
Vetarnias
4 years ago

@brooked

I don’t disagree with The Atlantic’s assessment. But the Democratic Party should realize — just as the Republicans are realizing with Trump — that old party loyalties and yellowing IOUs might work internally to their organizations, but that they now mean nothing at best, and are an impediment at worst, to the general population.

Someone who hates the political establishment — and this is what this campaign will be played on — just obtains more respect for Sanders after reading that news report. The party might not like him, might even be right in questioning his loyalty, but it will either have to do with him, or risk losing the presidency, *especially* if Trump obtains the GOP nomination, because both are propelled by the same forces against which Clinton doesn’t stand a chance.

It’s the same reason why Trump (and, initially, Carson) did so well: voters are sick and tired of the establishment. Add to this a weak crop of candidates where the runner-up is a politician (Cruz) who is part of the establishment but thoroughly distrusted by it. The more establishmentarian candidates went nowhere. Jeb Bush is out. Rubio, barring a surprise surge, will probably call it quits after tonight. Kasich seems to play for leverage now, in case of a brokered convention or a splinter party. Ultimately Republicans will go with Trump, and “NeverTrump” will go nowhere, because they prefer to win the White House with Trump than to lose it with anyone else.

I’ve read about talks of a third party led by anti-Trump Republicans. Frankly, I can’t see that happening. They know they’ll just divide the vote and risk giving the White House to the Democrats (which is perhaps their hidden intent that they can’t state openly, just to save face). As for the National Review, it will have nicely painted itself in a corner, making obvious to everyone what a coterie of hacks it has become.

Nequam
Nequam
4 years ago

Since the California primary isn’t ’til June, I haven’t got a whole lot to say about politics.

Did go on the spur of the moment to Sac(ramento) Comic-Con so I could have a book signed by Bernie Wrightson (his illustrated version of Frankenstein). I made him smile when I told him I actually ended up selling my freshman college English teacher (who taught Frankenstein as one of the books that semester) on the book for the strength of its art.

Also been trying to figure out what hardware upgrades I’d like for a scanner and trying out the curious and complicated book stitch known as a caterpillar binding.

leftwingfox
leftwingfox
4 years ago

Congratulations, Nick!

bluecat
bluecat
4 years ago

@ Skiriki

Beautiful cats! They are elegant, even as cats go.

How odd, this is the third Bengal cat reference I’ve come across in less than a week.

First off, my husband swore he’d seen a leopard in our street. It was twilight and his eyesight is quite dodgy, especially in failing light, but he was adamant it wasn’t one of the numerous neighbouring cats we already know. He’s a believer in Alien Big Cats too.

Last night we were watching a QI re-run and there was a mention of Bengal cats with a picture. He said “THAT’s what I saw. See? It exists!” (It’s smaller than he thought but in twilight it’s hard to gauge distance, especially if bits of your retina are disintegrating – it was probably closer than he thought).

And now your handsome new employers.

It’s a sign!

loquora
loquora
4 years ago

@Vetarnias

You lost me the moment you referred to two male candidates by their full names and then called the third, female candidate “Ms. Clinton”. Can we not get trolls around here who at least TRY to hide their sexist biases?

hedin
hedin
4 years ago

@katz

I don’t suppose there’s any point in telling the “Clinton is a conservative” people that she’s in favor of clean energy, disability rights, gun control, health care reform, unions, gay rights, racial justice, Medicare, Social Security, voting rights, abortion, family leave, a path to citizenship, closing the pay gap, raising the minimum wage, and a boatload of other positions that American conservatives define themselves by their opposition to..

She’s a center right candidate, in a country where the Republicans have drifted to the far right. She believes in a certain degree of reform to keep the system stable because, unlike Republican far right ideologues, she’s sane. The minimum wage hasn’t been keeping up with inflation and people are destitute, which is bad for the economy. Social security and medicare were pretty uncontroversial until recently, and Obamacare was originally a conservative plan. She’s still consistently supported the prison system, has been a violent hawk in foreign policy, has fought for free trade programs that destroy American jobs and wages.

Few on the left are denying that she’s better than the Republicans, but she’s a wealthy technocrat who believes in small amounts of change to stabilize the system, while essentially preserving the existing power structure. If you talked to an average New York Republican, they’d agree with her on everything — including social issues. Overtly oppressing gays and women isn’t part of the neo-liberal game plan, but they have no gripe with the militarization of police or the growth of the prison system that institutionally oppresses minorities, or with military imperialism abroad.

You can’t overthrow democracies or send orphan children back to the hellish countries you helped ruin, and call yourself a progressive.

hugseverycat
hugseverycat
4 years ago

She’s a center right candidate, in a country where the Republicans have drifted to the far right.

Well, I mean, if you say so, but that would mean that pretty much every Democrat in office is “center right”.

Ms. Clinton is a woman […] But if you want to make the case that there must absolutely be a woman in the presidency because of The Right Side of History (TM), I’ll make you the same argument for one Marine Le Pen in the French elections scheduled to happen next year. What? That’s fine for Clinton but unacceptable for Marine Le Pen? Because of her politics?

Well, yeah? I mean, this is politics? Shouldn’t we care about politics?? As has been pointed out many times, Hillary Clinton is pretty much a normal, regular Democrat. You criticize her feminist credentials, but yeah, Hillary is pretty much a regular feminist. Yes, there is a lot of criticism of her particular brand of feminism but you cannot tell me that her brand of feminism is not very similar to the mainstream brand of feminism.

I mean, I get that y’all apparently don’t like mainstream feminists, or mainstream Democrats, but this isn’t a problem unique to Hillary Clinton. If you hate Hillary, you should probably also hate Obama.

But anyway, it’s not like people are hypocrites for wanting a woman (Hillary Clinton) to be president but not wanting a conservative woman (say, Sarah Palin) to be the same. We’re not one-issue voters, with that issue being “is a woman”. It’s the whole package, and Hillary Clinton’s gender is part of that package. It’s one of her positives and for some people, like me, it’s a big, big positive. Not overwhelmingly big, but pretty damn big. She’s a Democrat, she roughly agrees with me on most issues, and she’s a woman. In my opinion, her negatives do not outweigh these positives, especially when I have serious doubts about Bernie Sanders’ ability to build a coalition to enact his policies.

Freemage
Freemage
4 years ago

Whilst reading the election columns and such, I ran across an item that talked about a polling company in Michigan called EPIC-MRA. The president’s name is… Bernie Porn.

My inner twelve-year-old can’t stop snickering.

Skiriki: Congrats on the new owners. I mean, pets. (No, I really mean owners….)

Brooked: Of course, what you quoted/linked to is actually part of the reason American leftists (myself included) have been backing Bernie so hard. We’re tired of the largely centrist* policies of the DNC, and want to do for the Democrats what the Tea Party did for the Republicans–provide an anchor that ensures the party doesn’t continue to ignore us.

***********

*: This bit is for folks who confuse the terms ‘centrist’ with ‘moderate’. Ignore it if you’re already clear on the distinction, and it’s not addressed to anyone in particular, but I do hear the two used interchangeably a lot.

‘Moderate’ is just that. A moderate leftist wants to pull things to a more just and fair society, but is comfortable with a slow and steady progress, focusing most on the areas they feel need the most immediate attention.

‘Centrism’ is not an ideological position at all. It’s a tactical one, mapped out by B. Clinton in the 90s. It’s based on ‘triangulation’. You study the general spectrum on an issue; figure out where the halfway point is, in terms of population, and then you go slightly to the right of it. This gives you a solid majority of the population, even if you’re actually on the ‘minority’ side of the line. Since the GOP can be relied upon to stake out a far-right position, the left has no viable option but to support you in the election. This works great in national elections, and pretty solidly on statewide posts like Governor or Senator. But state legislative posts, House of Rep posts and local positions, not so much.

Vetarnias
Vetarnias
4 years ago

@loquora

Oh I see. I say things you don’t like, so I’m a troll? I shouldn’t be surprised. This isn’t the first time. (For that matter, each and every one of my posts is stuck in moderation probably because of earlier events here.) Let me just say: I mean every word of what I write. Call me an abject human being if you want, but please do not impugn my honesty.

I’m not a progressive. I’m not a liberal. I’m quite the traditionalist, and would be pretty much to the right — but not of the far-right which is comprised of disgusting individuals with no integrity and abhorrent views. The Redpillers I find disgusting above all, because of their embrace of technological modernity unfettered by any sort of morals. (For that matter, I have written extensively against Gamergate for that very reason.)

I read this blog because I trust Mr. Futrelle’s sources, and I respect his insight. But I must admit I don’t really care for the politics of this site, and that could do without its flippant tone (complemented by the sanctimony lurking in the comments). Mocking things is, I suppose, fine; but in this state of affairs, mockery has become a surrogate for actual opposition. Like how eight years of George W. Bush were spent turning to Stewart and Colbert for guidance (now it’s Noah and Oliver). Like how everyone treated Trump’s campaign as a joke until he got a lead in the polls and started winning primaries. At some point it’s — it’s not a joke anymore. And Trump getting traction from the regular subjects of this blog should indicate that the time for mockery is past. Plus that whole calling Trump “Drumpf” following Oliver’s lead, as some people in this thread have done — mocking his family name even when the name change occurred long before Donald Trump — is highly questionable; yet I haven’t seen anyone here complaining about that, even though it must fall into some -ism or other.

I won’t hide that I never liked Hillary Clinton, but this never had to do with her being a woman. If it had been, say, Elizabeth Warren, I would not have complained. I don’t think anyone is denying that Hillary Clinton would make a competent president. But they sell Hillary Clinton by saying it’s her turn, or worse, that the next president HAS to be a woman. Never mind that I don’t think she stands a chance against Trump. Never mind that a male equivalent to her in all points would have likely been unpalatable to even her current supporters. They sell her on the premise that her time has come; but I don’t think it’s her time. (It might never be her time.) Please don’t persist in pretending that it is without looking at the situation or thinking of the consequences.

I’m not American, and the only reason I bother following this is because of the foreign-policy implications of the election. We know where Hillary Clinton stands: she’s a neoliberal hawk; but anyone sharing a border with a country led by Donald J. Trump (in my case, your northern border) should be damn terrified of the possibilities. And the rest of the world is looking aghast at what is going on in the U.S.

This election is going to be played on the support of the white working class. You still want to go on making grandiose gender plans that may be for naught in November, or you actually want to prevent Trump? I’m not a Bernie Bro, but I think Sanders is the only one who has a chance. If that makes me sexist, I guess I’ll have to live with that.

katz
4 years ago

-Ms. Clinton is a woman. We know. A qualified woman. We know. But if you want to make the case that there must absolutely be a woman in the presidency because of The Right Side of History (TM), I’ll make you the same argument for one Marine Le Pen in the French elections scheduled to happen next year. What? That’s fine for Clinton but unacceptable for Marine Le Pen? Because of her politics?

Well, that’s a rousing condemnation of something no one in this thread has said.

Ideologically, Hillary Clinton is no different than the other Democratic nominees we’ve had since I hit voting age. That would be Obama, Kerry, and Gore. But I have heard a lot more of the Hillary is evil/right wing/unlikable etc stuff about her than I’ve heard about those other candidates. I can’t help but think misogyny plays a big part in that. Even if it’s mostly subconscious.

There’s a parallel to the “fake geek girl” phenomenon. Hillary can have virtually identical positions to Obama and other male candidates, but she doesn’t get to be in the progressive treehouse.

I did a little unpacking of the sexist narratives I see at work in the anti-Hillary camp, for anyone who’s interested in that sort of thing.

dslucia
dslucia
4 years ago

Well, I mean, if you say so, but that would mean that pretty much every Democrat in office is “center right”.

According to many people from Canada/England (and possibly other European countries), that’s pretty much right. And has been for many, many years.

There’s a reason “socialism” is typically considered a scary word in the US.

Jarnsaxa
Jarnsaxa
4 years ago

She’s not very likeable, but very few politicians are. I feel like Obama is, but that’s pretty rare.

I have a hard time thinking of any others that are likeable; certainly none of the other current candidates are either (though obviously some are worse than others). They’re unctuous (Ted Cruz) or shouty (Bernie) or malevolent (Trump) or whatever, but they’re not likeable.

They really don’t need to be.

It’s like being smart. Sure, it helps, but if they’re not too smart but are savvy enough to listen to the right people and surround themselves with good people, they can do fine anyway. If you don’t believe that, recall that local government is run by pretty average folks and generally gets along okay by hiring expertise when it’s necessary. It doesn’t *always* work well, but most of the time, it’s fine.

hedin
hedin
4 years ago

@hugseverycat

Well, I mean, if you say so, but that would mean that pretty much every Democrat in office is “center right”.

Yup, that’s what I mean. There’s always a far right scary Republican and a center right Democrat, and progressives are always expected to swallow their loathing and vote for the lesser of two evils.

In my opinion, her negatives do not outweigh these positives, especially when I have serious doubts about Bernie Sanders’ ability to build a coalition to enact his policies.

The Republicans are basically the Khmer Rouge at this point. They destroy infrastructure because they can, and they’re so bent on tactics, they have no sense of strategy. How is Clinton going to do any better than Obama at building coalitions? Her politics are similar, they hate her as much or more, and she’s less skillful as a politician and orator (IMO, at least; it’s not meant as a dig at Clinton, but Obama is a hell of a politician.)

The difference is, Bernie might be able to build a mass movement and increase turnout and activism. The reason we’re losing isn’t the inability to work across the aisle, it’s the fact that too many people who agree with us feel incredibly disenfranchised and skip local elections, which cumulatively mean a lot more than the presidency. Bernie is also pushing hard to the left, which we badly need. The Republicans didn’t make “liberal” a bad word over night — it took years and years of agitation. The Democrats need to start pushing a left wing narrative twice as hard.

@katz

There’s a parallel to the “fake geek girl” phenomenon. Hillary can have virtually identical positions to Obama and other male candidates, but she doesn’t get to be in the progressive treehouse.

At least part of the reason is that Bernie showed us we can have an actual left wing candidate who isn’t primarily driven by a desire for power. A lot of us started to wake up during Obama’s presidency. I’ve been shouting about his attacks on civil liberties, drone murder campaigns and policy of impunity for the banks for years, and didn’t vote for him in his second run, and some of my progressive friends slowly started to listen. And Hillary has the misfortune to run when we’re starting to wake up. Saying she’s no worse than Obama isn’t making a very convincing case — Obama was an even bigger disappointment than Bill Clinton.

And there’s some pretty good evidence that women actually do better in Democratic primaries overall.

But ultimately, it really doesn’t matter whether people are being fair to Clinton or not. A lot of Clinton supporters act like she deserves to be president, which is absurd. It’s not an achievement award she’s being unfairly deprived of. No one “deserves” it. The only meaningful question for me is whether she’s the best candidate to advocate for the progressive policies this country needs. No matter how hard she tries to reinvent herself as Bernie lite, I’m not convinced.

hedin
hedin
4 years ago

And if it were an achievement award — if I were voting solely on my perception the sum total value of a life’s work —I’d still take the working class, proudly socialist lifetime radical who has risked his life more than once campaigning for civil rights, over the upper class, occasionally racist and family values-y former Goldwater campaigner whose foreign policy has killed a lot of people, whose law enforcement advocacy has unjustly imprisoned a lot more, and whose banker friends have tanked the economy.

brooked
brooked
4 years ago

@hedin

A lot of Clinton supporters act like she deserves to be president, which is absurd.

I’ve read this claim before yet have never seen these supposed Clinton supporters in the wild. I will continue to search, but I keep running into Clinton supporters who expect her to campaign and get the votes needed to be elected president. Strange.

brooked
brooked
4 years ago

@Katz

Is that the correct link? I’m just getting a Vulture article about comedy bits.

katz
4 years ago

http://www.vulture.com/2016/01/100-jokes-shaped-modern-comedy-c-v-r.html

…So it does. At least I didn’t have anything truly embarrassing open in the other tab.

Here’s the actual post.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

But ultimately, it really doesn’t matter whether people are being fair to Clinton or not. A lot of Clinton supporters act like she deserves to be president, which is absurd. It’s not an achievement award she’s being unfairly deprived of. No one “deserves” it.

This is the kind of thing I was talking about. It’s very common for presidential nominations to go to the candidate whose perceived turn it is. Although I’d say it’s more common in the Republicans than the Democrats. Yet, you’re acting like this is some sort of phenomenon unique to her and her supporters.

It’s also not unusual for a supporter of any candidate to believe they deserve the office. That would be why they’re supporters.

This post reeks of the attitude that female candidates and female supporters of female candidates are only okay if they don’t get too uppity.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
4 years ago

@Brooked, Kupo, and L.W.F.:

Thanks, much appreciated!

@W.W.T.H:

It’s also not unusual for a supporter of any candidate to believe they deserve the office. That would be why they’re supporters.

Right. It wouldn’t be a case of false equivalence if I were to say many people feel the same about Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump – though for differing reasons. It’s an incredibly common political phenomenon.

hugseverycat
hugseverycat
4 years ago

Wait, what? “Deserves to be president?” What the fuck is voting supposed to mean if not (amongst other things) “I think this person deserves to be president?”

Heck yeah I think Hillary deserves to be president! That’s why I’m voting for her?? (Well, if I get the chance.)

katz
4 years ago

This post reeks of the attitude that female candidates and female supporters of female candidates are only okay if they don’t get too uppity.

Oh, thank god, I’m not the only one who heard a dogwhistle there.

zyvlyn
zyvlyn
4 years ago

@katz

Great column. I particularly liked this paragraph:

“Democrats have allowed the Sanders campaign to define the Democratic primary as a purity test specifically along the axes he promotes most strongly, casting him as an ironclad progressive and Clinton as inherently questionable and needing to prove herself. Issues where Clinton leans right (foreign policy) are taken as proof that she’s not a real progressive, while issues where she’s left of Sanders (women’s rights) are ignored; meanwhile, issues where Sanders leans left (economic policy) are taken as proof positive of his progressive credentials while issues where he is right of Clinton (gun control) are ignored.”

I hadn’t been able to quite put my finger on what was bugging me about the whole “Sanders is the only true liberal running” narrative until you perfectly encapsulated it.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Not a huge surprise here, but Rubio dropped out.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

Her politics are similar, they hate her as much or more, and she’s less skillful as a politician and orator (IMO, at least; it’s not meant as a dig at Clinton, but Obama is a hell of a politician.)

Obama is a crappy politician, and all you’re revealing here is that you don’t know what a “hell of a politician” actually looks like, or how that differs from being a great orator.

We don’t live in ancient Athens. Oration doesn’t actually get things done.

zyvlyn
zyvlyn
4 years ago

@WWTH

But he promised he wouldn’t! Are you saying he lied to me!?

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Katz,
Good blog post.

I liked the comparison between Dem’s attitudes towards John Kerry’s “flip-flopping” and Clintons similar shifting opinions. I hadn’t really thought about that, but you’re right.

Even if Clinton’s rhetoric has shifted leftward recently because she knows that’s what voters want to hear, who cares? Isn’t it the job of elected office holders to respond to their constituents?

I feel like some liberals want a pure liberal candidate because they don’t want to do the hard work of holding politicians accountable and trying to get progressive legislation passed. It’s like they think if a pure enough candidate wins, progressive laws will magically get passed. But that’s not how Democracy works. Citizens have to do more than just vote every 2-4 years. Most people don’t want to do that.

J.
J.
4 years ago

I kinda feel bad for Rubio, losing his own state.

Since we’re talking politics, Iran had its elections a little over a week ago, and it seems despite the entrenched hardliners’ best efforts, a good many “moderates” (by Iranian standards) got seats in parliament and, perhaps more importantly, the Assembly of Experts (which will be choosing the next Supreme Leader, and relatively soon I think as the current one is quite elderly and not in the best of health). So there’s that. Good for the long term as it opens up the opportunity for actual reformers to stand a chance to run in the future. It’s more of a relief than a victory, an inch out of a mile, but breaking the hardliners’ dominance is still promising.

Vetarnias
Vetarnias
4 years ago

I love how you just deleted my posts in moderation. Oh well, I guess I know what to expect from this place now (as if I didn’t already).

Good thing I made copies before they vanished.

Vetarnias
Vetarnias
4 years ago

Ah, looks like they made it through after all. My apologies.

Luzbelitx
4 years ago

I’m reading you all with deep interest.

I do have some deja-vus (and non-javus) about debates regarding Cristina Fernandez here. I don’t want to draw any parallels with Clinton yet, but I think it would amazing if she won and we could see her in action.

Having a heavily pro-US president now, I’m paying close attention to the development of this election.

I’m going to bed but I’m saving katz article for tomorrow, probably during breakfast.

Nequam
Nequam
4 years ago

Anyone else hear a thin, high-pitched whine? If we’ve got mosquitos in here we’d best set up a bug zapper.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

I doubt that happened, Vetarnias.

Sometimes there are glitches. I’ve had comments disappear on me before.

David has a pretty hands off moderation policy and will let through anything that isn’t overly vicious or violent and will tend to ban only if he gets emails requesting it.

Get over yourself. Nobody is afraid of whatever truth bomb you think you’ve dropped.

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

I am so sick and tired of all of the sexism against Clinton. Before you start complaining about her, think about if Sanders did/said the same which side you would be on, and think about whether gender is in any way biasing your opinions (have you ever heard a man called shrill or bossy, for example? Not that she’s been called that here, but a lot of the complaints reek of sexism to me).

hedin
hedin
4 years ago

@brooked

I’ve read this claim before yet have never seen these supposed Clinton supporters in the wild. I will continue to search, but I keep running into Clinton supporters who expect her to campaign and get the votes needed to be elected president. Strange.

Yes, strange indeed. Try reading Weirwoodtreehugger’s response to me.

@weirwoodtreehugger

This is the kind of thing I was talking about. It’s very common for presidential nominations to go to the candidate whose perceived turn it is. Although I’d say it’s more common in the Republicans than the Democrats. Yet, you’re acting like this is some sort of phenomenon unique to her and her supporters.

On the contrary, I don’t think there’s anything unique about Clinton — I’ve always thought she was pretty much just like the last two Dem presidents we’ve had, which is part of why I’m not voting for her. It wasn’t Obama’s “turn” (he was a relative newcomer to the national stage) and it certainly wasn’t Bush’s. Is that how you vote? Should vote for their interests, or pass the stick around the circle, in your opinion?

It’s also not unusual for a supporter of any candidate to believe they deserve the office. That would be why they’re supporters.

I can’t speak to how others make their decisions, but IMO, that’s a terrible way to vote. They’re public servants and I always vote for who I think serves my interests (as a doveish progressive).

This post reeks of the attitude that female candidates and female supporters of female candidates are only okay if they don’t get too uppity.

That’s insulting, and reeks of the dishonest tactics many Clinton supporters use to derail legitimate criticisms of their candidates. I’ve never said Clinton was unusually bad for the Democratic establishment, but I think the Democratic establishment is abominable.

You have a right to your opinion, but it’s deeply dishonest to accuse me of sexism for not wanting to vote for a center right imperialist who has helped overthrow democracies abroad. If you put fairness to Clinton over the lives of the innocent victims of Clinton’s foreign policy (or of the innocent people whose lives have been ruined by the criminal justice policies she’s supported domestically, for that matter) then frankly, I really don’t care what you think about my “attitude.”

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Don’t you love it when trolls whine about being censored when their posts actually did show up?

This election is going to be played on the support of the white working class.

False. Although the Dems could stand to do better with them, a lot of Republican white working class voters actually live in red states. Plenty of blue collar whites in blue and swing states do actually vote Democratic. Many that are Republicans are Republican because of things like gay marriage and abortion. That is, they’re evangelicals or sometimes devout catholic. This is not a demographic that can won by Democrats without severely compromising the platform.

Also, when people say “white working class voters” they mean straight white men. Whether you think women should vote for Clinton just because she’s a woman or not, a lot of women will vote for her based on that. Obama lost the white male vote and still won.

But sure, lets ignore that Clinton is popular among women, black voters, and IIRC Hispanic voters. Because all that matters is the almighty white dude vote. Right?

I hate to break it to you, but the angry white man and religious fundy vote are no longer enough to win.

My only big worry with Clinton is that young voters may not turn out. But I suspect her campaign knows this and will work on it.

It always cracks me up when men who aren’t even USian come in here to mansplain US politics to us.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

Ms. Clinton is a woman. We know. A qualified woman. We know. But if you want to make the case that there must absolutely be a woman in the presidency because of The Right Side of History (TM) …

What kind of fucking moron types something like this and doesn’t spontaneously explode into a splatter of bullshit – oh, it’s Vetarnias. Figures.

For the curious, he’s a particularly nasty MRA who’s trolled here before.

David, I think the reason why the mod filter caught his posts is that you stuck him on permanent moderation.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

I’ve read this claim before yet have never seen these supposed Clinton supporters in the wild. I will continue to search, but I keep running into Clinton supporters who expect her to campaign and get the votes needed to be elected president. Strange.

Yes, strange indeed. Try reading Weirwoodtreehugger’s response to me.

Try again.

I already said in this thread, and many other threads here that I’m a Sanders supporter. Although the behavior of many fellow supporters is starting to make me embarrassed to admit it.

That doesn’t mean I am okay with the misogynistic way Clinton has been talked about and that doesn’t mean I have to think she’s some kind of monster.

That’s insulting, and reeks of the dishonest tactics many Clinton supporters use to derail legitimate criticisms of their candidates.

That’s cute, considering you’ve been a smug, condescending asshole on multiple threads all day.

If we want people to vote for Sanders, we have to convince voters he’s the best choice. Not go on holier than thou rants about how terrible Clinton is and how her supporters can’t be real progressives. I’ve hardly even heard you say anything positive about Sanders here other than vague things about how he’s more liberal. It’s helping no one. Again, I’m not the Clinton fangirl you’ve decided I must be because I dared disagree with your behavior, but the commenters here who are Clinton supporters are not your enemy. At least they weren’t until you decided to make them your enemies.

Bernie Sanders always seemed like a nice guy to me. I used to listen to the Fridays with Bernie segment on Thom Hartmann every week and he always struck me as a pretty chill and kind person despite his passionate political opinions. I really don’t understand where this vitriol from some of his supporters is coming from.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

SFHC,
I thought the name sounded familiar. Here was my favorite part of his rape apologia rant

If alleged rapists like Allen, Cosby et al. are to be dealt with, it is through a court of law, and nowhere else.

Bolding mine.

Calling Cosby an “alleged” rapist when dozens and dozens of victims have come forward while simultaneously denying the existence of rape culture. The irony. It burns.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

Good thing I made copies before they vanished.

Could someone translate this for me? I can only read this as Vetarnias thinking these vanished/not-vanished posts are so amazing that it’s a damned good thing they were saved for the ages.

But when I scroll up, this is all I see:

I won’t hide that I never liked Hillary Clinton, […]

I’m not American, […]

That’s a mighty big ego you have there, thinking that your opinions matter here.

This election is going to be played on the support of the white working class.

Please do ‘splain American politics to us some more. I love it when people who aren’t Americans demonstrate so confidently that they know jack-all about our electorate and political landscape. For your next trick, why don’t you ‘splain MLKJr and BLM to us? We definitely need the uninformed outsider perspective here.

weirwoodtreehugger
4 years ago

Joe Scarborough just ordered Hillary Clinton to smile.

http://gawker.com/joe-scarborough-tells-hillary-clinton-to-smile-more-1765148337

Nope. No misogyny in the way she’s talked about at all. No siree.