Comments

  1. Akira MacKenzie says

    I don’t like it, but if that’s the reality… Pass me a gas mask. I’m heading to the polls.

  2. Anri says

    I have no intention of telling anyone at all how to vote. I’m not qualified to do so.

    I will, however, ask that regardless of how you vote that you acknowledge which of the two candidates, by your actual real-world actions, you are helping to put in the White House.
    “None of the above” has never occupied the Oval, and won’t this time around, either.

  3. davidnangle says

    Just remember: When you don’t want to vote for someone, you can at least vote against someone.

    Otherwise, you’re standing with Nazis and the KKK.

  4. says

    Regardless of the underling moral argument, it is beyond FUCKED up that you just implicitly endorsed violence against Sanders supporters who refuse to get in line and vote for Clinton. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU! With Trump, a quasi-fascist, on the ballot we don’t fucking need liberals pulling shit like this. FUCK YOU and the horse you rode in on. This is the message I’m getting here: Clinton supporter slap some sense into Sanders supports, force them to get into line.

    FUCK YOU!

    And batman, you couldn’t have made this point in a worse possible way.

    FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU !!!!

    FUCKING ASSHOLE.

  5. MassMomentumEnergy says

    It’s not like we have a unified national election, the same strategy is not applicable to everyone.

    I’m in California and I vote in the evening for the presidential elections. Between exit polls and early returns, I have a pretty good idea of who is going to win nationally and in my state.

    If it is Hillary v Trump in the general, I’ve voting Jill Stein because:

    * If the election is even close in CA, that means Trump has swept the nation harder than Regan.

    * If, like usual, CA goes deep blue, my vote is better spent trying to get a third party over 5% than joining the herd and voting for one of the evils because the other one seemed more evil.

    It is the poor bastards in swing states that have to agonize over their decision.

  6. A Masked Avenger says

    Okay… but for the record, Hillary’s appointments to SCOTUS will be an enormous disappointment. Before Trump took us through the looking glass, Hillary would be indistinguishable from a Republican in any meaningful way. Were it not for the fact that Trumpigula is liable to put his horse on the Supreme Court, it would be much harder to articulate why she is preferable.

  7. MassMomentumEnergy says

    Trump is the kind of guy to nominate Judge Judy for Supreme Court.

    I’m not sure if that makes me want to vote for him or not. On one hand, think of the hilarity. On the other hand, think of the tragedy.

    I hope the inevitable netflix miniseries of this election does it justice.

  8. naturalcynic says

    On the other hand…even though the Batman is the good guy, the same sentiments could be said to be applicable for all the super-villains to get behind the Drumpf. There seems to be even more reluctance in that crowd.

  9. slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) says

    OK, don’t vote for POTUS, if your preferred candidate isn’t on the ballot. Yet, still vote for the preferred party in all the other sections of the ballot. The ballot has more seats to be filled than only the POTUS.

    It’s like not buying a car cuz they don’t offer it with the kind of bucket seats you’d prefer. Still, wouldn’t you rather have a car that operates, rather than one that has to sit in the garage to prevent it bursting into flames? Even if the one that works doesn’t have Recaro seats?
    The POTUS is not omnipotent ruler of The Free World. Just the leader of an intricate mechanism. Let’s replace all the rusty gears that seem to slowing down the effectiveness of the entire machine.

  10. says

    But but but… think about the advertising revenue the U.S. could make placing ads on the Great Wall of Trump! Think of the children!

  11. Saad says

    Regardless of the underling moral argument, it is beyond FUCKED up that you just implicitly endorsed violence against Sanders supporters who refuse to get in line and vote for Clinton. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU! With Trump, a quasi-fascist, on the ballot we don’t fucking need liberals pulling shit like this. FUCK YOU and the horse you rode in on. This is the message I’m getting here: Clinton supporter slap some sense into Sanders supports, force them to get into line.

    FUCK YOU!

    And batman, you couldn’t have made this point in a worse possible way.

    FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU !!!!

    FUCKING ASSHOLE.

    Stick it to them by voting Trump!

  12. davidnangle says

    Mike Smith @ 4, you badly misinterpreted the use of a common meme. No one is advocating violence. No one is advocating costumes and bats and vigilantism.

  13. Vivec says

    Man, I hate it when I have to cringe at people I supposedly share a favored candidate with. Chill out, it’s an ancient-ass meme.

  14. applehead says

    What’s the difference between President Sanders trashing the country in 4 years and President Trump trashing the country in 4 months?

    I, for one, choose the sane option. A seasoned, competent leader who knows how to govern and keep the nation on track on its course towards ever greater secularization and diversification.

  15. Vivec says

    Generally, I wouldn’t seek out people who were vocal supporters of DOMA and DADT to promote diversification, but that’s just me.

  16. says

    @Saad

    I actually agree with the moral point being made, in a lot of contexts (but not all*) at the moment people have to vote Clinton because Trump really is that bad. It still doesn’t excuse the implicit threat that Professor Myers endorsed.

    *solid red/solid blue states are freer on these sorts of things

    @davidnangle

    1) Intent is not magic. I don’t know what Professor Myers’ intent was, but the cartoon straight up says that Sanders supporter should be slapped around to get them to see sense. That is wrong.

    2) We live in a culture of violence which says that we have to right to dominate others when they stand on principles we disagree with, or they stand instrumentally in our way. That’s wrong. Any liberal should stand against that. This cartoon makes point vividly. It’s splash damage. Yes it is common, because Batman is fascistic and using force to control others is the heart of fascism.

    3) The cartoon is not literal…the violence might not be, but HOW else are we suppose to view it? Besides saying violence is valid way to ensure Sanders voters tow the line?

    @ProfessorMyers

    I’m sorry for saying fuck you as much as I did. I lost my temper. But this post really, really stung. It’s extremely distressing that I will have to vote for Clinton in the general election, in most possible worlds. That is a profoundly hard for me to do.

  17. Vivec says

    Also, wasn’t Mike the one arguing against anti-discrimination legislation like two months ago, and likened anti-discrimination legislation to Jim Crow laws?

    Because if so I find your stance on allowing businesses to discriminate far more offensive and with far better backing that your outrage at a meme could possibly be.

  18. says

    Anri@#2:
    “None of the above” has never occupied the Oval, and won’t this time around, either.

    Has the people’s choice, either? Or has it only been the lesser of two evils, or a choice between whatever bowls of shit the two party system has on offer? You can have your bowl of shit with sriracha or chipotle sauce, how would you like it?

  19. says

    Cross posted from the Moments of Political Madness thread.

    Rachel Maddow performs anti-Trump Republican anguish as poetry.

    Rachel Maddow discusses the risk of Democrats being overconfident in assessing their chances against Trump in the General Election.

    Rachel Maddow points out that Trump has turned to the dark side when it comes to choosing a campaign finance chairman for his general election campaign.

  20. MassMomentumEnergy says

    “None of the above” has never occupied the Oval, and won’t this time around, either.

    Ignoring Ford I gather?

    If the FBI investigation takes far longer than it looks like it will, and if Hillary’s first VP is as tainted as she, we could have a Ford II situation.

  21. throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor says

    Mike Smith @16:

    It still doesn’t excuse the implicit threat that Professor Myers endorsed.

    Hello, what implicit fucking threat? That PZ would come along and slap each hesitant voter while exclaiming those words? That’s such an irrational viewpoint that I feel you must be trolling.

  22. Vivec says

    @21
    Personally, I get upset whenever I hear someone use the phrase “beating a dead horse”, because of the implicit threat of violence against deceased equines.

  23. Khal Draugr says

    Not a problem for me as Clinton has been my first choice from the beginning. The fact that people like The Amazing Atheist, gamergaters and MRAs support Sanders would have been enough to turn me against him if I didn’t already know what a vile excuse for a human being he was.

  24. MassMomentumEnergy says

    vile excuse for a human being

    Man, Correct the Record is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with their talking point du jour these days.

  25. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    Vivec @ 22,

    I’d threaten to slap you with a wet noodle, but waterboarding durum wheat products has never solved anything.

    Except perhaps for the conundrum of what to do with the vongole, but I digress….

  26. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    And Sanders is a vile excuse for a human being?

    Wow.

  27. says

    That kind of entitled condescension is SURE to win back disaffected D’s and Independents to the Hillary camp! (but, hey… mustn’t interrupt the coronation, right? I can almost hear Chris Crocker wailing “LEAVE HILLARY ALONE!” {RME}

    We’ve just dealt with eight years of obstruction (the GOP won’t work with the black guy) and now the DNC PTB want to further rile up the Republican base by nominating a woman? (not only that but a woman named CLINTON?!?) thus turning what would already be a divisive shit fest into something even WORSE. I think the country is prepared to accept a female POTUS, just not HRC.

    Look, I’m not gonna change your mind and you’re not gonna change mine:

  28. MassMomentumEnergy says

    I’m not going to slap anyone. Batman is going to do it.

    A rich boy who never grew up, wears a silly thing on his head, and likes to smack around poor people he views as “thugs”?

    Donald Trump?

  29. Hoosier X says

    Shame on you, Dr. Myers!
    It’s beyond the pale for you to suggest that your readers should slap Robin before voting for Hillary because of Supreme Court appointments!
    I, for one, will not be slapping Robin before going to the polls! (I will be slapping Green Arrow.)
    Good day, SIR!

  30. Jake Harban says

    I will, however, ask that regardless of how you vote that you acknowledge which of the two candidates, by your actual real-world actions, you are helping to put in the White House.

    Jill Stein.

    That was easy.

  31. davidnangle says

    Every pristine vote filled with noble smugness for the perfectest of candidates puts Trump one vote closer to dictatorship. Go ahead and stand aside so that KKK member or Nazi can vote effectively.

  32. astro says

    i voted for sanders in my state’s primary. i think he’s the better candidate. i think it’s great that he’s carrying his campaign to the convention. that’s the point of a convention, right? to pick the party’s candidate. and whomever the party picks, that person will have my vote in november.

    if you are not a democrat and want sanders, fair enough. if you were going to vote for stein in the general, and only considered voting D because of sanders, fair enough. but sanders is running as D, and if you are D, then it makes no sense to withhold your vote if the “wrong kind” of D is nominated.

    i say this as a former G myself, up until 2 months ago. i switched specifically to vote in a primary for a senate candidate i liked (maryland – i wanted donna edwards). after this fall, i will probably switch back. before, i have always voted D for president, but G for all of the downballot races, but that’s just me and i know plenty of Gs who vote for their candidate for president too.

    but the supreme court is always my #1 reason. it’s specifically why i voted for gore, kerry, and obama.

  33. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Jill Stein.

    That was easy.

    The you need to stop infesting threads about democratic candidates, as Stein never will be a viable, meaning electable by the general populace, candidate. Just something for the leftist fringe (those at the 0.03% of the general populace) to point at meaninglessly. Either show us the 15% polling, or you are simple wasting electrons.

    Which is why my answer in a previous thread was OBVIOUSLY Obama. Somebody who was elected and kept the rethugs in check the best he could, actually here and there impose some progressive policies.

  34. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Reminder on why SCOTUS appointments are so important, given that Trump has said he use a list from the Heritage Foundation.

    Rethugs: Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
    Democrats: Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.

    If you don’t notice a difference, you are simply not paying attention.

  35. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    Bush v. Gore is still haunting us, isn’t it? But the truth of the matter is that was a once-in-a-lifetime event; the likelihood of Trump winning the election because a percentage of the population voted Green or stayed home rather than voting for Clinton (or whoever the nominee is) is minuscule.

    I’ve voted for every Democratic candidate since I could vote–starting with Mondale. In the primary I voted for Sanders (though for me it was a bit of a coin flip); in ’08 I actually voted for Clinton in the primary. I’ll vote for whoever the Dems nominate; I live in a decent-sized purple state that’s been trending blue in statewide elections, so my vote carries some weight.

    All that said, I don’t have much of a complaint with those who choose to vote Green, as long as they vote. Not just for president, but for all the offices up and down the ticket. A vote for Stein is not the same as a vote for Trump; at best, it’s half a vote, but only if the voter had any inclination to vote for the Dem. For those who can’t bring themselves to vote for either of the major candidates, it’s still a far better option than staying home.

    Trump will not win this election. If he does, I’ll eat the photons that this post is emitting. The Dem will win, and will likely disappoint us, regardless of who it is. All we can do is to keep pushing for progressive candidates at all levels, and work to see that they get their hands on the levers of government.

  36. andyo says

    I like Sanders, but he has a problem keeping his white dude and well-off demographic in check.

  37. screechymonkey says

    Marcus Ranum @18,

    Has the people’s choice, either?

    Oh, please. If, as you imply, “the people’s choice” is someone other than the winner of the election, then please enlighten us as to who that is, for this year and prior years, and explain how you determined it.

    We can all nitpick things we don’t like about the electoral system, but I don’t buy the notion that there’s a bunch of wonderful leaders who the Great and Good American People would have elected if only the mean old establishment elites would just get out of the way. The conservative half of the Great and Good American People just ignored the urging of the elites, and chose Donald Trump.

  38. Intaglio says

    I see the Bernie Bros are taking offense. Anyone seen my nanoscale violin?

  39. nekomancer945 says

    (Referring to #6) I can hardly imagine Clinton picking anyone like Scalia or Thomas — bear in mind that a number of Republicans are suggesting Cruz for the spot! She may well pick more centrist types, but I am certain she will pick people who are going to be forthright on women’s issues, and I think we will all benefit from that. Trump will likely put in people who will knock out – I almost wrote “knock up”, but that might please Trump no end – women’s rights, gay rights, and just about any other rights we cherish. Though gun rights will probably get stronger.

  40. Holms says

    Mike Smith,
    You’re not you when you’re hungry. Also, the argument substitute that runs “intent is not magic” needs to die in a fire.

  41. zero2cx says

    andyo @39

    white dude and well-off

    I am out-of-control. Can’t keep me in check! Rawwwwwr. Misogyny! HAHAHAHAHA!

    Seriously though, your clumsily-applied paintbrush is beyond lame. You’ve conveniently left aside, as Hillary has also done, Bernie’s true base of support. I’m not sure why anyone would need to remind you of the hundreds of thousands, millions really, of multi-cultural college-age women, men, and teens who are studying and working themselves deep into debt, left without any clear hope for their future. The primary candidate-selection process is broken. For them, the whole damn system is broken.

    FeelTheBern’ers know this and they sense that Hillary does not. The rest of the country SHOULD be ashamed for what we’ve done to the world that we will be leaving to the next generation. For many, hope equates to getting out the vote for Sanders. andyo, you should consider that you need to check your paintbrush and yourself.

  42. ck, the Irate Lump says

    Intaglio wrote:

    I see the Bernie Bros are taking offense. Anyone seen my nanoscale violin?

    I would caution getting up on your high horse given the nonsense applehead and Khal Draugr posted in this very thread.

    Honestly, it’s hard to decide which online group is worse: the petulant “Bernie or Bust” crowd or the arrogant Clinton faithful.

  43. zero2cx says

    Intaglio @41,
    For some reason, it is lodged askew, firmly up your rectum.

  44. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The primary candidate-selection process is broken. For them, the whole damn system is broken.

    Until you offer a realistic alternative the present system will remain in place. Quit complaining, and come up with a realistic solution. If you can’t find one, quit complaining.

  45. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    In case anybody thinks I’m a “Clinton Faithful”, BS got my primary vote. Whoever bears the democrat standard in the general election will get that vote.

  46. rrhain says

    If you truly think the Republicans and the Democrats are the same, if you truly think that “Hillary would be indistinguishable from a Republican in any meaningful way,” then go ahead and Naderize the country again and see what you get.

    If Trump is elected, there’s a good chance the Senate and House remain in Republican hands. Which means the ACA is repealed. Which means the more than 10 million people who now have health insurance will lose it.

    And we’re back to the more than 32,000 people who died every year because of a lack of health insurance. But hey, Hillary’s “indistinguishable from a Republican in any meaningful way,” right?

    If you don’t like the candidates we have, where were you 12, 16, 20 years ago? Candidates for the presidency don’t just appear out of nowhere*. They come from previous elections. So if you didn’t want Clinton to be a presidential candidate, what did you do to prevent her from getting elected to the Senate? Who were you voting for in your local area who would have been a stronger candidate than Clinton?

    Suppose Sanders wins. Great. Then what? He’s not going to be president forever. Who are you going to get to replace him? You need to be thinking of that NOW in THIS election. Kamala Harris is running for Senate to succeed Barbara Boxer. Would she be an acceptable next choice? If not, who are you going to vote for now who will be a stronger candidate than her in eight years’s time?

    So you would like a “better” candidate. Barring a miracle, it looks like you’re not going to get one. That means you have to suck it up today and work for a better tomorrow. The idea of literally setting people up to die in a political temper tantrum indicates a person isn’t actually serious about wanting a better country. A smell a huge stench of privilege of people who probably won’t be suffering all that much under a Republican administration and thus don’t see it as too much of a hardship to hand the power back to those who have always left the country worse when given power.

    You don’t “owe” Clinton your vote. But are you truly saying that if you can’t have everything you want, you’re going to work to ensure you get nothing? You don’t have to vote for the Republican in order to ensure the Republican gets elected. The only way the Republican loses is if somebody else gets more votes.

    [* yes, yes…I know…Trump never held an elected office.]

  47. Rob Grigjanis says

    Nerd @47:

    Quit complaining, and come up with a realistic solution. If you can’t find one, quit complaining.

    Hmm. Don’t point out problems until you have solutions? Gosh, how scientific!

  48. Vivec says

    Yeah, I gotta say. That’s weirdly close to the whole “don’t criticize that movie if you couldn’t make a better one” line. I can recognize that the current system is far from ideal without having a sixty part “how to fix the system” plan in triplicate.

  49. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Hmm. Don’t point out problems until you have solutions? Gosh, how scientific!

    Too many folks gripe without offering solutions. In my final years of working, I stopped being afraid of starting the discussion and being refuted, and just tried to start the discussions. It worked, even if others got the credit.
    If the solution is the Bernie Sanders plan of having the government pay for college through graduate school, so be it. Put it out there.
    I did a little research on medical costs a while back, and one factoid became apparent. American MD’s often had a quarter to half a million dollars of debt, compared to their European counterparts who usually graduated with no, or only a small, debt, due to government subsidies for their training. Any guess to as which continent has the higher fees for physicians?

  50. Drawler says

    There’s been a lot of appeals to the possible future victims of a potential Trump administration in the comments here. I think you can make a moral case for voting for Clinton in the general on the basis of lesser evilism; but if you do so you at the very least have an obligation to the future victims of a Clinton administration to do it with your eyes wide open about what a despicable politician she is and how she represents some of the very worst aspects of Democratic and American politics.

    If you live in a non-battleground state like me, I highly encourage people to vote for the Green Party. There’s no risk of your vote altering the outcome of the election, so you can vote for a principled, humane candidate without fear or guilt.

  51. Rob Grigjanis says

    Nerd @52:

    Too many folks gripe without offering solutions.

    The problem is that not enough people gripe, with or without solutions. We need the follow-up to the Occupy movement. The Powers That Be only toss out crumbs when they feel threatened. The more threat, the more crumbs. The only way to get the fuckers to listen is to challenge their power. Fuck solutions. Let them know they (including the Clintons) are the problem. Good for you that Sanders got your primary vote. That may influence Clinton. But kindly stop telling people to stop griping when they have shitloads to gripe about.

  52. rrhain says

    @53, Drawler:

    I think you can make a moral case for voting for Clinton in the general on the basis of lesser evilism; but if you do so you at the very least have an obligation to the future victims of a Clinton administration to do it with your eyes wide open about what a despicable politician she is and how she represents some of the very worst aspects of Democratic and American politics.

    Indeed.

    But do you really think a Trump administration is going to be better? Because unless you can pull off a miracle such that the person elected is neither the Republican or the Democrat, that’s what’s going to happen. It’s too late to complain about the candidates we have today. The time to do that was years ago so that the “better” candidates were in a position to defeat them. You have to work with what you have, make the best of it, and start working on making things better for tomorrow. This election did not creep up on us. The next election has a known date. What are we going to do today to make sure that the “better” candidate is in a position to get nominated then?

  53. Vivec says

    Personally, I’m a fan of “vote for the lesser of two evils and then fight and make a big ruckus if/when she pulls some neocon/warhawk bullshit”

    If we can send the message that “we don’t want trump, but we hate these policies and want something better”, we can at least encourage more people to pull a Sanders and run on a platform that addresses those issues, without having to endure a Trump presidency.

    Of course, that’d require some people to admit Hillary has faults, which some seem loathe to do.

  54. Jake Harban says

    Not with the Electoral College you aren’t.

    You need to read the question. “Which candidate are you helping to put in the White House through your actions?”

    If I vote for Stein, then my actions are helping to put Stein in the White House (whether they actually succeed in doing so or not).

    The you need to stop infesting threads about democratic candidates

    Sorry, but unless and until PZ appoints you Thread Dictator, you don’t get to unilaterally declare what subjects are OK to talk about.

    Which is why my answer in a previous thread was OBVIOUSLY Obama.

    Ah, an actual answer! Of course, I can see why you were hesitant to give it.

    See, since you genuinely prefer Obama, you admit that the bullshit you spew about “viability” is just concern trolling. This isn’t a disagreement over tactics, we actually disagree over policy. I’m a center-left liberal who supports universal health care and basic civil rights, while you are a far-right extremist who supports the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and more plus the torture of political prisoners in Guantanamo, the massive surveillance state, the persecution of whistleblowers, and so forth. (Obviously, you don’t necessarily support all of those things, but if you genuinely prefer Obama over Stein then you must necessarily support some of them.)

    So with that in mind, if the 2016 election offers the choice between Trump, Clinton, and Stein (as it likely will) then I will be voting for Stein. If you want me to vote for Clinton, you need to convince me that Clinton is the better candidate. Otherwise, you’re claiming that I should vote for whoever is winning just so I can say I voted for the winner and actual issues don’t matter.

    Rethugs: Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
    Democrats: Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.

    If you don’t notice a difference, you are simply not paying attention.

    I didn’t notice Garland on that list. In fact, this is the second time you have deliberately omitted Obama’s current sweetheart from that list, for reasons that presumably have nothing to do with the fact that it completely trounces your argument.

    Bush v. Gore is still haunting us, isn’t it? But the truth of the matter is that was a once-in-a-lifetime event; the likelihood of Trump winning the election because a percentage of the population voted Green or stayed home rather than voting for Clinton (or whoever the nominee is) is minuscule.

    Don’t be so sure. Trump is glib and knows how to manipulate the media. Clinton is an out-of-touch DINO who has been positioning herself as dangerously right-of-center in the Democratic primary and will almost certainly veer right further once campaigning begins for the general.

    Never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to let an evil Republican win by campaigning on a promise to be only slightly less evil. When you consider the protracted economic malaise we find ourselves in and the fact that Trump is offering answers (glib and wrong though they may be) while Clinton is denying the problem, it’s too early to dismiss him out of hand.

    I like Sanders, but he has a problem keeping his white dude and well-off demographic in check.

    This sentiment is Received Wisdom among the Clinton campaign, but I’ve never seen any evidence of it.

  55. ck, the Irate Lump says

    Vivec wrote:

    Yeah, I gotta say. That’s weirdly close to the whole “don’t criticize that movie if you couldn’t make a better one” line. I can recognize that the current system is far from ideal without having a sixty part “how to fix the system” plan in triplicate.

    Well, there’s a lot of difference between a critique like “Movies these days suck” and “rapidly cut movies are hard to follow”. A clear, focused criticism can have an implicit call to action in it even if it doesn’t specify the action to be taken.

  56. Jake Harban says

    If you don’t like the candidates we have, where were you 12, 16, 20 years ago? Candidates for the presidency don’t just appear out of nowhere*.

    YES! EXACTLY!

    20 years ago, in 1996, (Bill) Clinton ran for reelection as a right-wing DINO and people voted for him because, well, sure he was bad but Dole was worse.

    16 years ago, in 2000, Gore ran on the principle of: “I’ll be 4 more years of Clinton!” A right-wing Democrat who was virtually indistinguishable from his Republican counterpart was unable to motivate liberals to vote for him, and so he won by the slimmest of margins— and when the Republicans said: “Election doesn’t count, we win automatically!” he folded like a cheap suit and simply gave them what they wanted.

    8 years ago, in 2008, the Republican that Gore let win had wrecked the country and the people swept in a new government of Democrats who promised to fix things. Instead, they “conceded” to the powerless Republicans and let them run things as if the election hadn’t happened. Sure enough, two years later the Republicans were voted back into power.

    If Trump is elected, there’s a good chance the Senate and House remain in Republican hands. Which means the ACA is repealed. Which means the more than 10 million people who now have health insurance will lose it.

    And we’re back to the more than 32,000 people who died every year because of a lack of health insurance. But hey, Hillary’s “indistinguishable from a Republican in any meaningful way,” right?

    I don’t have health insurance. Many people can’t afford health insurance. Many people who have health insurance learn (often too late) that it doesn’t cover anything. Many people die because they can’t afford insurance. This will continue until we get universal health care, which Clinton opposes.

    I wouldn’t claim that Clinton and Trump would have identical body counts, but I would claim that if arguing over who is the “lesser evil” requires counting bodies then they’re both too evil to support. Especially since my body will be among them— while privileged people often claim that Clinton is such an improvement over Trump, I’ll be screwed over by either of them.

    The next election has a known date. What are we going to do today to make sure that the “better” candidate is in a position to get nominated then?

    Whatever you do, don’t vote for Clinton.

    No incumbent president has ever lost reelection to a primary challenger, so if we let Clinton take the White House in 2016, we’ll have to forfeit the 2020 election. The next shot we’d have is in 2024, and after 8 years of Clinton, the Republicans would have a considerable advantage.

    Frankly, I doubt that Trump would kill as many people in 4 years as Clinton would in 8.

  57. zero2cx says

    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls @47

    1) Lose the state caucuses. They are fatally non-representative of the will of our state and territory electorate. Caucuses are cheaper in execution compared to a full primary, so they remain attractive to many. Cheapskate states decide how to select their own delegates, so Party leaders at the national level need to work hard, and then work harder still, to sway caucus states. A process that consists entirely of primary elections on the Dem side should be the goal, so offer many carrots or maybe swing a big stick at them. Enfranchise more people, people.

    2) Promote universally open primaries. So many voters have not been able to fully participate. Democratic Party leaders pretend to be invested in enfranchising as many voters as possible but that fairy-tale doesn’t stand up when scrutinized against the evidence of this year’s primary-season debacle.

    3) More and earlier debates. As far as I am aware, Party leaders (Hi, Debbie!) have never actually offered any rationale for gaming the early debate schedule. Instead, we should have leaders and candidates (Hi, Hillary!) work hard to promote wider debate in order to perfect our platform so as to get voters, base and otherwise, energized about our candidates. Energized voters will push candidates to be more responsive to the actual will of the electorate and should go a long way toward changing the media narrative. Instead, we have the Democratic Party leadership imagining that the horror-show of Republican freaks eating each other and calling that a primary season will motivate our side. Fail.

    4) Super-delegates need to go away. They break our democratic process. In my opinion, it should disturb us all that their inclusion serves only to ensure that the will of the voters shall be ignored if doing so would be judged as the more effective strategy for the general election. More effective for whom, exactly? We have loyal Democrats opposing democracy and it is clearly an ugliness.

    The above proposals have been echoed repeatedly from Camp Sanders all season long. When will those who remain willfully deaf to that drumbeat begin to acknowledge that there is a conversation happening while you are all getting yourself a good slumber?

  58. dangermouse says

    Here’s a little known secret us Aussies have been keeping from our USAnian friends: we’ve had universal/socialised medicine for quite a while now but have somehow avoided becoming North Korea/ Red China / Communist Russia. We have also enacted strong gun control laws and not become a dictatorship. And the sky hasn’t fallen in on us (yet!).
    Lest this sound like too much cheerleading, it’s worth noting that our treatment of refugees & asylum seekers is as repugnant as Trump’s wall ( if not worse – fining refugees for self-harm; seriously? ! ?)

  59. Jake Harban says

    Here’s a little known secret us Aussies have been keeping from our USAnian friends: we’ve had universal/socialised medicine for quite a while now but have somehow avoided becoming North Korea/ Red China / Communist Russia. We have also enacted strong gun control laws and not become a dictatorship.

    That can’t be possible. There’s no way you can have universal health care and gun control laws! All manner of Very Serious People have informed us that we must put away our principles and vote for Clinton because such things are simply impossible.

    Next, you’ll try to convince us that Australia has a preferential voting system or that voting is compulsory or something.

  60. zero2cx says

    dangermouse @61, do people really expect the sky to come crashing down? They must be forgetting that the sky is upside down, down under.

  61. Azkyroth, B*Cos[F(u)]==Y says

    Also, the argument substitute that runs “intent is not magic” needs to die in a fire.

    Intent is not magic.

    “Intent is not magic” is also not magic.

  62. says

    Bernie or Bust. People who think like that are how the Tea Baggers steamrolled America into the shit pancake it is now.

    Remember when Obama wasn’t for gay marriage until the polls told him it was okay? Hillary too. This is for the simple reason that Democrats can be shamed into doing the right thing. Republicans have none to begin with. So try to vote strategically, instead of staying home and pouting like children.

  63. chrislawson says

    Nerd, I get your disappointment with those who do nothing but grouse without having any kind of viable alternative, but (1) it’s a bit much to ask of a short comment in a political thread that someone pointing out a flaw in the American electoral system has to also provide reasoned alternatives, especially when (2) there are many reasonable alternatives that are well known and in active use in many nations around the world.

    For instance, I live in Australia, where we have an excellent electoral system called preferential voting — which means very specifically that if you vote for a minor party that can’t possibly win, your second choice vote is still counted. If this system had been in place in 2000, Nader’s second choice votes would have gone 37,000 to Gore and 24,300 to Bush in Florida and the Supreme Court would never have even had the opportunity to destroy its reputation with its worst decision since Dred Scott.

    And it’s not just Australia — the system is used in many places, including some American jurisdictions, and even for the Hugos (and before anyone complains about the recent Hugo controversies, it is worth remembering that the various malcontents who gamed the system were working on the nomination system, not the final voting method which managed to work pretty well to exclude the arsehole slates even after the egregious manipulation at nomination level).

    None of this is to suggest that Australia’s politicians are wonderful, but at least they don’t get elected because of silly, and often wilfully abused, electoral flaws.

  64. Jake Harban says

    Bernie or Bust. People who think like that are how the Tea Baggers steamrolled America into the shit pancake it is now.

    Except that the Teabaggers only got into power because Clintonesque right-wing Democrats refused to enact liberal policies to differentiate themselves from Republicans.

    Remember when Obama wasn’t for gay marriage until the polls told him it was okay? Hillary too.

    If the best argument you can muster is that Clinton is willing to support the most token rights for a minority only if the majority approves then maybe you ought to rethink your support for her.

    So try to vote strategically, instead of staying home and pouting like children.

    I will be voting strategically. I have made it quite clear that (a) I support Stein but I’d be willing to vote for Sanders, and (b) what can convince me to support Clinton if it comes to that.

  65. zero2cx says

    It seems to be #BernieOrBust vs. #HillaryOrElse.

    If those are our choices then, as I see it, Hillary voters need to consider switching their allegiance to the candidate who most consistently beats Trump, and beats Trump better, according to every poll. REPEAT: All polling says that Bernie can beat Trump by wider margins than Hillary can’t. That makes all of you #HillarysBrowBeaters into #ChumpsForTrump, then. Doesn’t it?

  66. Jake Harban says

    It seems to be #BernieOrBust vs. #HillaryOrElse.

    Actually, from what I’ve seen, it’s Bernie Or Bust vs. Vote Blue No Matter Who. I’ve barely even seen any arguments in favor of Clinton as such; most of her supporters simply argue against Trump.

    Which is a vitally important distinction to make. The Democratic nominee will be decided by the superdelegates who are, at least ostensibly, expected to vote based on the best interests of the party. Normally, overturning the primary results is contrary to the best interests of the party, but if 40% of primary voters are saying: “I prefer Sanders because Clinton is evil and I’d never support her” while 60% are saying: “I prefer Clinton, but I’ll vote for any Democratic candidate no matter what,” then it’s probably best to consider naming Sanders— and that’s before you consider that he’ll perform much better among independents in the general.

  67. applehead says

    #15,

    Personally, I think you’re an uber-douchy deluded Bernie Bro who overdoes the phrase “personally.” Anyway, both the political climate and people change. Today Hillary’s base is made up of the vast majority of America’s Afro-Americans, Hispanics and LBGTs. She has to listen to them if she wants to prevent becoming a one-term President.

    This diverse coalition was the reason Obama got into office. That means liberals have to mobilize this coalition if they want their candidates moving into the White House. Saint Bernie “I’m-only-here-for-the-white-folks” Sanders does the exact opposite, driving minority voters away with his drooling, sneering Tweed jacket white supremacist followers.

  68. Jake Harban says

    Sanders does the exact opposite, driving minority voters away with his drooling, sneering Tweed jacket white supremacist followers.

    It’s impossible to find an article in favor of Clinton that doesn’t mention these hypothetical pro-Sanders bigots, and it is equally impossible to find an article in favor of Clinton that offers any evidence that they exist.

  69. Jake Harban says

    Just for clarification, so no one makes accusations of moving goalposts: While I’m sure individual people exist who support Sanders and are bigots, they do not make up a meaningful percentage of his supporters, nor has Sanders himself actively courted their support. That all or most of Sanders supporters are bigoted “Bernie Bros” is considered received wisdom in Camp Clinton, but they never even try to pretend there’s any evidence for it.

  70. Vivec says

    I consider “most” lgbt people incredibly unskeptical, then.

    Sorry, I have a hard time voting for someone who has repeatedly supported and defended DOMA and DADT without actual, non-campaign speech evidence that she won’t flip flop again and go right back to supporting homophobic legislation like she used to.

  71. ck, the Irate Lump says

    Jake Harban wrote:

    Except that the Teabaggers only got into power because Clintonesque right-wing Democrats refused to enact liberal policies to differentiate themselves from Republicans.

    Only if you completely ignore much of what they’ve said. A very common complaint about politicians from the Tea Party camp was that they compromise with Democrats. An unwillingness to compromise is completely antithetical to democratic governance. Ted Cruz was the Tea Party’s ideal candidate – a man willing to shut down the government and cost everyone billions just to get his way. He ultimately didn’t get his way, but that was more to do with the fact there are still Republicans that care about having government actually work over complete ideological purity. Tea partiers like Sarah Palin vowed to work to unseat those “traitors” after the deal was reached.

    That’s far different from saying the two parties are indistinguishable. Do you really want this kind of complete ideological purity that the Tea Party was demanding?

    Disclaimer: I don’t think Bernie Sanders is concerned about ideological purity. I think he’s as much (or more) a pragmatist as Clinton is. I do actually have a problem with professional centrists like Clinton, but it isn’t the fact I dislike compromise or that they get centrist laws passed, but rather the fact that when you start from the center, you can only compromise towards the biggest/loudest voice opposing you.

  72. Jake Harban says

    Sorry, I have a hard time voting for someone who has repeatedly supported and defended DOMA and DADT without actual, non-campaign speech evidence that she won’t flip flop again and go right back to supporting homophobic legislation like she used to.

    Don’t worry. As long as a majority of Americans oppose homophobic legislation and no rich people support it, she can be trusted not to endorse any unless the Republicans ask her to.

    I do actually have a problem with professional centrists like Clinton, but it isn’t the fact I dislike compromise or that they get centrist laws passed, but rather the fact that when you start from the center, you can only compromise towards the biggest/loudest voice opposing you.

    That’s sort of the point. Intent doesn’t matter where policy is concerned; a person who enters negotiation with a right-wing extremist by opening with a centrist position before “compromising” to a right-wing position is a right-winger for all practical purposes. And as such, you will have a hard time convincing people that you’re meaningfully different from the right-winger you “compromised” with.

    If right-wing policy is going to be enacted either way, it’s better to have it enacted by a Republican who will face a Democratic challenger for reelection. While Clinton is slightly to the left of Trump, she’s still far enough to the right to not be worth the cost of establishing her brand of conservatism as the “liberal option.”

  73. Menyambal says

    I don’t see anybody being a rabid Clinton supporter here. Making remarks about her blindly faithful followers is just bogus. It reminds me of the folks who never realized nobody worshipped Bill Clinton – the projection was strong.

    As far as Sanders goes, my wife and daughter both prefer him to Clinton. They went to his local rally (and got invited to sit behind him). They saw a lot of their friends, which were a very diverse lot, with not a Bernie Bro among them.

    Me, I find Clinton more practical than Sanders. I like his ideals, but I don’t think he’d achieve much. I voted for him in the primary, hoping to send a message.

    Between Clinton and Trump, I’ll vote Clinton, certainly. But it looks like we are going to wind up with a president that a lot of people dislike, either way.

    I say we support Clinton, and try to keep her informed as to what we want. And try to get her to pick a good running mate – who should it be?

  74. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If right-wing policy is going to be enacted either way, it’s better to have it enacted by a Republican who will face a Democratic challenger for reelection.

    Jebus, you don’t understand politics at all, and keep fallaciously thinking the democrats are farther to the left than they are. Here’s the truth, and you can check the facts.
    In three primary campaigns that I voted in on March 15 that were contested, in each case (president, IL US Senator, and congresscritter IL 10th district) the democrats (not necessarily me) selected the less liberal candidate in each position. You are out in left field. Stop pretending otherwise.

  75. ck, the Irate Lump says

    Menyambal wrote:

    Me, I find Clinton more practical than Sanders. I like his ideals, but I don’t think he’d achieve much. I voted for him in the primary, hoping to send a message.

    Any practicality probably won’t mean much if Democrats don’t take home filibuster-proof majorities. Otherwise, the usual obstructionism will simply continue.

  76. says

    Oh, and: Nerd of Redhead? I changed my mind. I used to wish you’d stop posting because you’re a condescending jerk and you make me hate actively hate the Democratic Party more than my usual cynical distrust leads me to do. But I’ve had a change of heart. Obviously, Trump must be much more viable than I expected, or else the Democrats would be starting to shut up about him. Obviously, therefore, he’s likely to win. Since I categorically refuse to vote for Clinton, I want you to keep making me hate the Democrats more and more and more, so that in the event of a Trump victory I’ll actually feel like justice was served. I can come and gloat at you for alienating your potential allies beyond any hope of reconciliation, and mock you openly for supporting such an uninspiring candidate. It won’t make Trump any better of a candidate, but it will definitely change my perception of what will happen from that point onward.

    Carry on, tell me how I’m an idiot loser who doesn’t understand The Way Things Are, and how casting a vote for someone other than Trump is somehow magically identical to voting for Trump (I just love that one). Maybe you can throw in some references to Nader, even though Nader voters certainly didn’t cost Gore the election in 2000, but rather Democrats who voted for Bush. Wave your magic wand and tell me how Clinton’s wrong initial stance on every major economic and foreign policy issue of the last three decades doesn’t matter because of her current “evolved” rhetoric, some of which didn’t even show up until Sanders entered the race. Tell me that a candidate with no discernible non-negotiable ethics, who treats “triangulation” as a positive thing, is an acceptable choice for All True Democrats. Tell me how we need to ignore Clinton’s disastrous proposed wars which will probably cause a nuclear apocalypse because — oogey boogey boo! — there might be Supreme Court nominations! Remind me that Clinton wants to surgically graft her lips to Netanyahu’s rear end, and tell me again how much she loves our neo-Nazi proxies in the Ukraine, but that It’s Her Turn and We Owe It To Her Because She’s A Woman™. Lay it on me, the more condescending the better. I need to get my hate on.

  77. applehead says

    Any fairydust imaginary “revolution” is not viable national policy, no matter if the Great Revolutionary is called Sanders or not.

    The Bernie Bros’ blind hatred for our monstrous corporate criminals has benighted them, making them unable to see Bernout has no plan, no clue how to break up the banks and turn America into a Star Trek total-equality socialist utopia.

  78. Saad says

    If this election wasn’t solely about who will be president of the United States next year, I’d vote third party or write in to feel good about myself.

  79. ck, the Irate Lump says

    At this point, I’m rather convinced that applehead may be working for the Trump campaign. There is nothing to gain for Hillary Clinton’s campaign by further alienating Sanders’ supporters, except to encourage them to stay home on election day, improving Trump’s chances.

  80. Jake Harban says

    Jebus, you don’t understand politics at all, and keep fallaciously thinking the democrats are farther to the left than they are.

    You are out in left field. Stop pretending otherwise.

    OK, so from these comment threads it appears your two fundamental arguments are:

    1. Clinton is well to the left of Trump, and is clearly the best person for liberals to vote for.
    2. Clinton is virtually indistinguishable from Trump because Democrats as a whole like far-right candidates.

    Of course, you have a history of concern trolling, you think centrist beliefs that practically the entire country supports are left-wing fantasies, and you say “Democrat Party” so you may as well be a member of Trump’s campaign staff.

    Any practicality probably won’t mean much if Democrats don’t take home filibuster-proof majorities.

    Seriously, we’re still dealing with this nonsense?

    A majority in the Senate is 51 seats. If you have 51 seats, you set policy. The Democrats had considerably more than 51 seats, and so they set policy— but thanks to Obama and Reid, the policy they set was “do whatever the Republicans want.”

    Appealing to the “filibuster” is a lame excuse. Best case scenario, the Republicans filibuster for a day (two at most) before they get tired. Worst case scenario should have been that the Republicans filibuster for a week or two, during which the entire Senate shuts down and the Republicans get excoriated in the press for disrupting the legitimate function of government until eventually a few of them remember they’re up for reelection in 2010 and vote for cloture. What actually happened was that the Republicans said: “We intend to filibuster that,” and the Democrats said: “Oh, in that case we’ll scrap it of our own free will and save you the scandal of actually opposing it.”

    Maybe you can throw in some references to Nader, even though Nader voters certainly didn’t cost Gore the election in 2000, but rather Democrats Supreme Court judges who voted for Bush.\

    Fixed that for you.

    At least I hope I did. Preview doesn’t work for me so I can’t tell if I borked the formatting before posting.

  81. Jake Harban says

    Yep. Borked the formatting and my blockquote didn’t close. Sorry about that.

  82. What a Maroon, living up to the 'nym says

    Jake Harban @85,

    You don’t know how cloture works in the US Senate, do you?

  83. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Best case scenario, the Republicans filibuster for a day (two at most) before they get tired. Worst case scenario should have been that the Republicans filibuster for a week or two, during which the entire Senate shuts down and the Republicans get excoriated in the press for disrupting the legitimate function of government until eventually a few of them remember they’re up for reelection in 2010 and vote for cloture.

    You have any idea how long the filibuster lasted during the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

    On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill’s manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[18]

    It isn’t easy against determined opposition.

  84. Jake Harban says

    Jake Harban @85,

    You don’t know how cloture works in the US Senate, do you?

    Not sure where you got that impression.

    “If 60 Senators vote for it, debate on a bill can be forcibly ended” is a fairly simple rule.

    You have any idea how long the filibuster lasted during the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

    Apples to oranges. You’re talking about a bill opposed by a determined bipartisan minority generally regarded as legitimate and backed by considerable public opinion.

    Health care reform would have been a bill opposed by a determined Republican minority just after the Republicans had been voted out of power who were blocking a bill that the Democrats had been elected with a specific mandate to pass. There is no way they could have filibustered it without looking like an attempt to usurp power against the explicit will of the people.

  85. Jake Harban says

    Oh, and @Nerd of Redhead—

    Would you mind explaining exactly why the 60-votes-required rule only applies to benefit Republicans? After the 2002 elections, the Republicans controlled the Senate with 51 seats and were able to do whatever they wanted because they had a majority. After the 2008 elections, the Democrats failed to control the Senate with 59 seats because apparently passing laws requires 51 votes when the Republicans are in the majority but 60 votes when the Democrats are in the majority.

    If the filibuster/cloture rules were as unbreakable as you think, then presumably the Iraq war never happened because the Republicans never had 60 votes to pass it.