He’s done, and has dropped out of the race. That leaves Trump as the Republican nominee, unless you think, in some spasm of excessive imagination, that Kasich is relevant.
It’s now all about Trump, on one side.
And it’s probably going to be all about Clinton on the other.
Always happy to see that religious wackjob get kicked in the teeth.
I’ve seen some of the pundit class claim that the Bernie Bros would rather jump to Dump than vote for Hillary. That might be true but if recent history is any indication, we’re getting President Trump for the sole reason that everyone left of the KKK will stay home and pout.
Xpost MofPM
Latest headline. Cruz has dropped out meaning, Trump is the GOP nominee.
I really don’t know what to say. I’ve been working on survival plans for a while now if we end up with President Trump. We non-Trumpists (AKA normal people) will be the new Doomsday Preppers.
As atheists, shouldn’t we be at least slightly pleased that the party of Christian zealotry picked “Two Corinthians, eye-for-an-eye” Trump over an honest to goodness Christian domininist who dreams of turning America into a theocracy?
Doesn’t this show the power of the American Taliban to be vastly over rated when they can’t even make the Republican party do its bidding?
Kasich is still in this!
Fourth place in a two man race has to be a new record.
Linking to Pierce’s article in reference to Hillary’s obvious win is backwards.
Super delegates is the only reason Sanders is even in this race anymore. Clinton’s lead in votes and pledged delegates is basically unassailable at this point. The only chance Sanders stands is for super delegates to go against the will of the voters and vote for Sanders instead.
Depending on Comey’s time line, that isn’t an impossible outcome. If he drops an October Surprise, say hello to President Trump.
*God to Cruz, “you weren’t listening to me stupid, but you finally got the message”*
Cruz celebrates his loss by elbowing his wife in the face.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s—8SR8Iju–/zmpzlbznqej5i6cflyhu.gif
@9 MassMomentumEnergy
That is about the Ted Cruz-iest thing I could ever imagine happening. It’s the perfect coda to his campaign.
Welp, at least now we know who the enemy is this race. I’m hoping Clinton and the Democrats can take advantage of Trump’s tremendous unlikeability in the general electorate to secure the Presidency, the Senate, and Cthulu Willing the House (although that last part is unlikely). Then we might actually get something useful done besides piecemeal Executive Orders.
@6:
A large percentage of the protesters outside the convention hall in Philadelphia will have been excluded from the primary process that you’re assuming has been sufficiently reflective of the peoples’ collective will. Each of those protesters whose vote has been excluded, along those who stand united with them against four more years of the destructive status quo, will be boisterously expressing their collective support for Bernie as the nominee.
VP, here is where you are about to discount the will of these protesters, neverminding that Philadelphia will be both the first and the final chance for many of them to express the radical notion that in the context of this ignorant and weighted primary process, that yes, they do matter … … readysetgo
The DC Beltway consensus is that if Hillary is indicted before the convention, they will just take her pledged delegates and the super delegates and choose Biden.
Because that will work out well and won’t result in Philly turning into riot central (even worse than when a local sports team wins/loses an important game).
@MassMomentumEnergy
Don’t confuse ends with means ;) Trump is willing to bust heads and while he wouldn’t love a theocracy, he wouldn’t lift a finger to stop one, particularly if it was the kind of theocracy that gave rich people a pass on the morality laws.
@zero2cx
Can we just pass a law that says you’re not allowed to vote for President if you don’t vote in the midterms? That might tamp down some of the more obnoxious hero-worship that seems to pervade our elections of late.
I truly hope the Bernie-or-Bust people soon come to realize what a brutal reality a Drumpf presidency would bring.
Cruz would have hurt many people and set us back years with regard to policy, but the staggering ignorance and narcissism of Trump could get us nuked. He stated that he wants to be diplomatically unpredictable. He thinks the presidency is a Steven Seagal movie. You want the opposite of “unpredictability” in foreign policy. You want clarity and certainty.
Hillary is as responsible as anyone for the Syria and Ukraine boondoggles.
Picking fights with Russia playing the “Great Game” like it was still the ’60s is one of the few viable paths for getting us (and everyone else for that matter) nuked.
Strangely enough, in a Drumpf-Clinton match up, the anti-war vote should probably go to The Donald when playing the lesser of two evils game.
MassMomentumEnergy @15
I’m all for not giving a shit about the two bumbleheads and focusing on Senate and House seats. Either of the two in presidency is bad, but we can put checks on the more bumbleheaded aspects of their grand designs by electing the right people to check such things, as was intended.
@ 9 to be fair they’re probably both out of practice with the whole hugging thing.
@14 Robert Westbrook
At this early stage, that argument is not as hefty as you’d think. Repeatedly painting for us the horror show of a future Trump administration amounts to not even a half-effort to win over #BernieOrBust’ers. Our terms to continue the conversation have been well-stated, yet remain labelled as either childish or unrealistic.
It is widely known that Sanders remains hopeful that Clinton may adopt some of his progressive platform as her own. So far, her response could probably be summed up as “progressive goals or stances remain unrealistic today and will become harmful in the general election to come.” Noting that 33% of Bernie voters are purported by some measure to be “Bust’ers,” Team Hillary should probably assemble a new and different argument.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(OK, now someone please please please tell me that the polls showing Hillary and Bernie both being able to cream Trump in the GE are correct.)
Actually, with 70% of women against you, and like 80+% of Latino, African, and Asian-Americans against you, there’s no way to win. There just aren’t enough angry white men left, as the last two elections showed and the RNC admitted in their post election autopsies. Low voter turnout is their only chance. If Hillary goes pro $15/hr and pro-pot, fuggedaboutit. And yes, as mentioned above, it should be a good election for Democrats further down the ballot as well.
Clinton may well adopt some of his platform on the campaign trail, but given her history of (a) right-wing governance and (b) lying campaigns, I wouldn’t believe anything progressive she says unless she’s willing to offer a costly signal to support it.
We went with Dumb with Bush; I don’t think we’ll go Dumber with Trump. This has the makings of an election in which Hillary might eclipse LBJ’s record.
@4, MassMomentumEnergy
I disagree, and would rather they have gone with the theocrat (I’m not sure Cruz is actually a theocrat, rather than someone who uses religion to get his party’s base to vote for him, but I guess at a certain point there’s no difference).
The one positive thing I’ll say about Cruz: in seeking the presidency (probably something he’s wanted all his life), he argued cases in front of the supreme court, was solicitor general of texas, and a senator. I probably disagree with all his contributions while in these offices, but at least he spent his life as a public servant. He might ultimately never become president (fingers crossed), but he at least chose a path there that, in principle, has him working for the good of other people along the way.
Contrast that with Trump, who also probably always wanted to become president. The path he chose was birtherism and then a bullying, xenophobic presidential campaign. I’d honestly take the Christian every time if those are my choices (more likely, though, I’d abstain from voting)
The most recent Rasmussen poll has Trump beating Clinton in national polling. It might be an outlier, or it might be a sign of shifting winds. Either way, it indicates that this will be far from a cakewalk for Hillary. And given the trend of her favorability rating, I’m not confident that she will get better over time.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Can someone provide me with a source for this meme? All I get is conspiracy-theory stuff when I search.
Rasmussen has as much credibility as Melania Trump. Or Donald’s dog. It’s a GOP polling group.
Nevertheless, it isn’t over with until it is over. Anything could happen before now and November. ISIS could fly a plane into something US or shoot up a day care center. The future is essentially chaotic and unknowable.
We have seen enough of Trump though to know he is a walking disaster. He wasn’t even that good a business person. Thirteen Trump projects have declared bankruptcy. He has bashed both Moslems and Chinese despite being kept afloat by…Moslem and Chinese money.
A reactionary America-first populist with more bragido than brains, but a decent enough schemer and lover of money to probably keep the whole Ponzi scheme rolling
Vs
A dominist Christian with the world’s most punchable face who tried to ban dildos but was successful in shutting down the federal government because Obama implemented the Republican proposed solution to the health care crisis.
On one hand you have someone laughably unqualified at dealing with the inner workings of government, on the other hand you have someone that is competent at playing government, but has only used that skill for evil.
In one corner is a pompous egotist with exceptionally shallow thinking, and in the other corner is someone loathed by everyone that has had to spend any time with them.
This is some Kobayashi Maru level choices here.
@sigaba
Voter suppression isn’t exactly democratic.
More apt description for Trump: America’s Berlusconi, or America’s Le Pen?
@24
http://observer.com/2016/03/can-joe-biden-still-come-to-the-rescue/
http://m.dailykos.com/comments/1510862/60760336
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CKqJt6v7S8U
They are neither. They are totally idiotic. And so are are you. You might grow up some day but it is going to be a struggle. Threatening to throw a temper tantrum in Philadelphia is something a 4 year old would do.
I remember 1968 and the riots when Hubert Humphrey was nominated. I was neck deep in the anti-war movement but a bit too young to be in Chicago. Saw them on TV though. The whole world is watching. True enough. And they accomplished less than nothing.
As we ended up with Nixon Riots might be fun when you are young and stupid but they are often counterproductive.
I’m really confused on Trump. Some pundits mentioned that Trump may be as surprised as anyone that he’s the apparent nominee. Should he win, would Trump surround himself with competent, experienced people (with whom I’m sure I’d largely disagree with) or would he fill his cabinet with yes-men (of course it’ll be men) and wing the presidency?
So, who do you think he’ll pick for VP? Nicki Haley would be smart. Don’t know if he’ll do smart.
Berlusconi without question.
Given his history, I bet Trump will have a record breaking number of women on his cabinet and in lower leadership roles. Trump might have done a lot of shitty things, but having a glass ceiling in his companies isn’t one of them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-a-champion-of-women-his-female-employees-think-so/2015/11/23/7eafac80-88da-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html
I think @throwaway #16 had the right idea: democracy is much more than a single vote every 4 years.
I’d add that there is a whole ecosystem of power around the main positions, all down to local councils, and those are where individuals can make a larger difference.
@24
Or did you mean the indictment itself rather than the proposed DNC solution?
The short version is that if you have a dozen plus FBI agents investigating you for the better part of a year and they have the 30k emails you thought you deleted, and they offered you IT guy immunity, and they have in custody the hacker that spent hours a day reading your emails, you are fucked.
The long version involves a tangled web of people and money all hinting at selling the office of US Secretary of State for personal profit.
@27
Flaky hashtag warriors who would happily let millions of people lose their health insurance, and send ten million people on trains back to Mexico, for no other reason than “to send Hillary Clinton a message,” aren’t exactly respectable. If that’s how democracy is supposed to work you can have your democracy, somewhere else, preferably.
@33
Trump tolerates women insofar as he has the power to fire them.
One plus – the National Review twitter feed has been hilarious tonight.
Elizabeth Warren said it best:
I don’t believe the worst fears about a Trump presidency would come true — Cruz would have been worse, because he’s a man on a mission — but there is no way we can take that chance. I’m looking forward to the continued self-immolation of the national Republican party in the months ahead, but only if the Democrats can unify and take advantage of it. If nothing else, remember that the balance of the Supreme Court is at stake in this coming election.
Mmm. Anyone who’s not audibly masturbating over the prospect care to weigh in?
@MassMomentumEnergy #15
Blaming Ukraine in any way on Clinton is rank ignorance, the current war there as well as the annexation of Crimea were Putin’s pet projects, part of his “look over there” approach to dealing with actual problems in Russia, his pan-Russian megalomania as well as political calculations to fuck over the EU. Clinton had little to no influence on the Ukraine crisis. Similarly Syria, where there is a situation created by a brutal dictator after draught-induced unrest and poverty, later fueled by Iranian and Russian money and weapons and yes, now ISIS is in play one can throw some blame on Clinton over Iraq, but that’s primarily Bush’s war and fuckup.
Reading your other posts it seems you’ve been on too many anti-Clinton conspiracy websites. The war in Ukraine has never been about the US, it’s Putin’s beef with the EU “encroaching” on what he feels to be his sphere of influence during his bouts of post-soviet nostalgia.
Also congrats GOP for rejecting one idiot, all they need to do now is reject the other idiot at the elections. Now I’m just hoping president Clinton wasn’t bullshitting about *all* of her proposed policies and actually moves forward with some of Sanders’ ideas. Good luck US.
raven @30
You have a lovely front lawn.
You’re distracted! The BernieOrBust discussion must remain centered upon the lone motivator that is fueling the movement. We demand a permanent progressive shift in the Party’s platform. Or bust.
We’ll be proceeding without you, or you’ll be proceeding without us.
We get trains? I doubt it. I think marches through the desert to a location far enough away from witnesses to shoot everyone and claim that they were deported to Mexico is a more likely outcome. Trump would never waste taxpayer money by providing “immigrants” with such crazy luxuries as trains.
Sure there is. Voter suppression laws. Inadequate voting facilities in poorer communities so that there is a long wait to vote. Employers who refuse to give their employees time off to go vote. (Sure, that’s illegal, but who’s got time and money to sue their employers to enforce the law?) Street violence to stop Democratic organizers from reminding people to vote and/or to stop voters. Fake calls telling people that their polling place has changed so that they can’t find the actual polling place. Character assassination: convince people that there’s no difference and therefore no point in voting. It can work and has worked.
Oh, sorry. I forgot the October surprise. For no obvious reason people think that a Republican president can “protect” the US from terrorists better than a Democratic one. The Republicans gained seats in 2002, one out of only 3 times the ruling party has gained seats in a midterm election. Blow something up and blame it on Muslims and Trump wins.
Out of curiosity, have you ever convinced someone to support your preferred candidate by telling them they’re obligated to do so? Or by insulting them if they don’t?
I’ve noticed that emphasizing health insurance rather than health coverage or health care is a red flag indicating Democratic loyalist kooks. The biggest “achievement” of Obama’s presidency was a law giving millions of people health “insurance” that they won’t realize is worthless until it’s too late.
“If the Democrats can take advantage of it” is a very important condition.
The Republicans self-immolated under Bush; all it would have taken to finish them off completely would have been a Democratic government that would (a) enact liberal policies that clearly show the people their own superiority, and (b) prosecute all the Bush-era criminals, making it functionally impossible for the Republicans to name any candidates that aren’t closely tied to a high-profile indictment or under indictment themselves. Unfortunately, we got Obama and his DINO brigade, and just two years later the voters were happy to consider the formerly moribund Republicans as a viable alternative to the do-nothing Democrats.
Now we’re at risk of repeating the same mistake with Clinton and Trump. It doesn’t matter how evil the Republican is if the Democrats have nothing to offer but slightly lesser evil.
OK, that’s a fair argument. We wouldn’t want to risk someone like Garland getting appointed to the Supreme Court.
No better place to ask than this one… Long time lurker and I love PZ’s work on those MRA’s… Now back on topic : How does voter registering work in the US ? In here (EU), you register as a voter at 18 and that’s it for life… Do people have to register every 4 or 8 or 10 years ? And register a party too ? What’s with the voter registration stuff ? We clean out voter registrations from 10 to 10 years I believe, right after the census… How the hell does it work in the US ?
His campaign suggests otherwise.
Please note that Trump’s (male) campaign manager, who presumably has a high salary, does not appear on this report so it underestimates the pay differential.
Why “worthless”? I can think of a couple of dozen patients who got care through the ACA who would have been out of luck otherwise. That’s including no one but people I’ve seen personally. Anecdote, I suppose, but I don’t see any reason to think that other doctors haven’t had the same experience, especially as studies have shown increased use of primary care and decreased use of emergency room care, especially in states that took the Medicaid expansion.
“Inadequate” I will grant you, but “useless” is going to need some more data backing it.
@drizzt: People in the US can register to vote at a given address if they are US citizens age 18 or older. If they move, they have to reregister, but as far as I know, that’s the only time. Registered voters are also eligible to serve on juries and there are people who do not register to vote to avoid jury duty. A person who fails to respond to a jury duty notification will be stricken from the voter rolls. (I think there are supposed to be other penalties, but, as far as I know, that’s the usual one.) Anyone want to correct or amend?
Also, you register as a Republican, Democrat, or other party member by checking a box on the voter registration form saying that you’re a member of party X and want to vote in that primary. This can be important in one party cities where the real election occurs in the primary and the general is a formality, as well as in national elections where you want to be involved in picking the candidate to run in the general.
zero2cx, but is he really that motivating. For his rallies aside, the numbers of Dems turning up to actually vote in primaries are down and significantly so in some of them. So far, I may be wrong, but I think only one primary has seen an increase in voter turnout for the Dems. The Reps on the other hand are breaking records at their primaries. of course, whether this translates into actual votes for either side when it comes November, who knows Note, I’m not an USian, just someone on the other side of the pond watching with a horrified fascination.
In the US, you have to register once you turn 18 and that remains valid unless you move, want to change your party affiliation, or get purged from the voter rolls.
Your party affiliation is something you pick when you register, and it determines which primaries you can vote in— in most states, only people who have registered with a party can vote in its primary, though some states have open primaries that don’t enforce this rule.
Officially, people are only supposed to be purged from the voter rolls if they become ineligible (eg, dead, in prison, renounced US citizenship, moved away from the address where they’re registered). In practice, purging eligible voters is a voter suppression tactic that’s seen at least some usage in the past few elections.
that is the point it is not who is The Dear Leader I will leave that to others it is the direction and the policies that matter I will vote for who pushes them to the farthest left.
I will vote that way to indicate what I want as that is one of the only ways I have influence anything.
uncle frogy
fucking hell
uncle frogy
@drizzt #45 . In the UK the head of household used to register for the occupants year on a form sent by the local council and posted back. They have relatively quietly changed that so individuals have to register online themselves and students have to register where they study and not where they live. This seems to be an attempt to loose a lot of people. Guess which demographic will be hit most!
@=8)-DX(#39):
The one who shows rank ignorance about the Ukraine is you. Clinton was secretary of state when the US started investing in overthrowing the Ukraine government (seeing that their color revolution government was booted out in favor of a Russia friendly one). And the plan was a beauty. A significant amount of time and effort (we know thanks to some strategic leaks the US spend over $5 billion in this) was invested in tarring any Russia friendly politician, white washing of corruption by EU/US friendly ones, highlighting of negatives of any Russian friendly legislation, high light any positives of any legislation that would hurt Russia. And it worked to the point that the next election would have gotten a EU/US friendly government. But that wasn’t enough, part of that $5 billion went into training the paramilitary battalions (like the Azov Brigade) needed for ‘security’ & getting gear ready for the long term protesting.
Then the sniper shootings happened.
The coup was US planned. The US was not going to let a $5 billion+ investment result in a vote that would get a EU union puppet in place (Remember Victoria Nuland and her “Screw the EU, Yats is the man”?).
The sniper(s) incidentally shot at least as many security personnel as protesters. Shooting which IF done by the clique ruling (despite no reason to do so, they’d lose their position regardless of what was going to happen they were that unpopular thanks to all that propaganda) at that time wold have legitimized the new government when investigated but instead of an investigation any mention of those were buried.
The next step is that the US forces the removal of all security personnel from the important buildings allowing the fascists, Neo-Nazis and Nazis (yes honest to god Nazis, they call themselves Banderists but the ideology is pure Nazism) to take over the government buildings. 3 days later the US recognizes the unity government setup (with Yats in the position of power) a speed which means the US knew before hand what was going to happen. It isn’t for nothing that even western analysts call what happened the most blatant US backed coup
And now for the clever bit by Russia.
Russia gets the Crimea population to hold a popular referendum to split of from the Ukraine. Aside from the fact that the population itself wanted this; Russia used the U.S (through NATO) ‘humanitarian’ intervention in Kosovo (when the U.S. backed forces were losing; Why does the U.S. only seem to back losers since the end of the cold war?) as a way to legitimize their ‘humanitarian’ intervention in Crimea to prevent the rabidly anti ethnic Russian brigades from wiping out the population of Crimea (see what happened in Odessa or the reasons why the current government can’t even fulfill Minsk II for evidence).
Only difference this time it isn’t the US or one of it’s allies using that fig leaf but an enemy that did so. And make no mistake Russia is an enemy because it doesn’t bow to the dictates coming from Washington, worse Russia has the temerity to intervene, successful, in places where the US is trying to achieve goals by force (remember the Ukraine coup was only a few weeks after Russia managed to prevent a full scale ‘humanitarian’ invasion of Syria).
If the US would have stopped (or never green lighted, depends on who you view was responsible) the sniper shootings, let the then legitimate government of the Ukraine end at the elections then the following would have happened.
The minus. A government under control by a EU friendly person meaning the US would lose of indirect control of the gas junction for Western Europe and therefor another way to control the EU. It would also lose having a US friendly nation positioned between the EU and Russia which were getting too friendly with each other (can’t have someone else influencing US controlled nations now,can we?).
The plus. A government that would still be in control when the Russian lease on their base in/near Sebastopol would come up for renewal. Meaning that Russia would have lost it’s only warm water naval base.
But now we have a nation that is slowly turning into Somalia II, no control over the gas roundabout by either EU or US and Russia permanently in control of Sebastopol because a bunch of idiots in the state department couldn’t wrap their heads around the idea that not everyone in the world follows their diktats and might actually respond to preserve their own interests.
@Jake Harban #44
It is obvious that people who think like you are too self-righteous and petty to be convinced of anything, so mocking and insulting you is the only thing that can be done besides ignoring you. The more I read comments by Bernie supporters, the more I give credence to the observation that a sizable part of their arguments boils down to covert misogyny in the shape of hyperbole and conspiracy theories, and that many of them actually want and deserve president Trump. The rest of the world does not, though, so I’ll keep my fingers crossed for a Democrat (any Democrat) from my tiny corner of South America. I know imperialism, and I know that Trump’s would be worse than Clinton’s.
@Kreator(#57):
I don’t know if it is worse. Different yes. Clinton is a neocon and would use force. Trump would go for a more neocolonialistic approach.
More anecdata, the removal of pre-existing conditions is one of the few reasons my mother is ambulatory and not having constant limb seizures. Her MS medication was putting us into bankruptcy, and it was also treated as a pre-existing condition.
I’m perfectly willing to criticize Obama for a lot, and I definitely don’t think the ACA is ideal (-glances at NHS-) but I’m not going to act like it’s some horrible thing when its what saved us from going under and allows my mom to function normally for as long as she actually has left.
@vivec: If you’re looking for something a bit less anecdotal, JAMA reports a study that demonstrated lower uninsured rates, better access to medication, more access to health care, and better health among poor people after the ACA’s first open enrollment period. More benefit seen in the Medicaid expansion than non-expansion states, but some gains even in non-expansion states. The rates of uninsured and other problems remaining are still too high and there is certainly much room for improvement, but I’m still not looking at this and seeing “worthless”.
John Phillips:
I do not have the link at the moment, but I remember someone doing an analysis earlier this year, and since 1960, there has generally been an inverse correlation between primary election participation and the party’s success in the general during presidential elections with open contests, where neither candidate was incumbent. If a party has higher primary vote numbers, it actually meant they were more likely to lose.
1. LOL. Toddlers are so cute when they try to think and act all grownup.
2. It’s completely empty rhetoric. You have to know how to change things in a country of 322 million with a long history. Hint: Posting mindless drivel on the internet doesn’t do it.
3. I’ve said for a long time that the main problem and driver of both Trump and Sanders is economic inequality, increasing since 1970. Someday that will have to be dealt with, will become the main problem. But I don’t know how and when.
4. I like Sanders and give him huge credit for pointing out the elephant in the room. But his proposed solutions simply won’t work.
@sigaba, interesting. If you find that link anytime, please post it as I would be interested in reading it.
so, Trump is basically the president now? :(
Any vote for shillary in the primaries was always a vote for the republicans in the general election. Assuming she stays out of prison, which might happen if the FBI is corrupt enough.
Some people aren’t worth the effort. You just have to hope they grow up some day.
Have you ever seen anyone change a country of 322 million people by rioting, torching a few police cars, posting mindless drivel on the internet, and throwing temper tantrums?
Hard work and hard thinking work better. Bill Clinton and Obama have done as much as anyone in the last few decades.
If it was easy to fix economic inequality, it would have been done already.
@madtom (#55) : yeah, people with pigmentation problems and/or a uterus I presume…
@dianne(48 & 49) : thx for the explanation
The election is now Clinton vs Trump. People talking about how they will never vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s evil / corrupt / conservative make me sad. Elections matter. 3rd parties aren’t viable in a first-past-the-post system. Staying home is effectively a vote for Trump. Voting for Trump because you don’t like Clinton is effectively 2 votes for Trump.
Yeah, maybe Clinton isn’t as liberal as the average FTB reader. But by US standards she’s not a conservative. When she was a Senator, she was the 11th most liberal. Yes, less liberal than Sanders. But more liberal than Joe Biden or Harry Reid or Obama.
Assuming the current gridlock stays, the next president gets to nominate Scalia’s replacement on SCOTUS. And Ginsburg is in her 80s, while Kennedy and Breyer are nearly 80. So a pretty good chance of nominating multiple justices. That’s a big deal by itself.
It has been fixed – it just got fixed by the people who were in favour of more of it. Took ’em 40-odd years and a fuckton of money, but they got the job done.
futurechemist @67, this:
…is not innately true. Canada has three national parties in our Westminster-style parliament, and went into last year’s federal election with the three parties polling closely.
Now, if you want to say it’s true in the US context, then I’d agree: the US system is so stacked in favour of the two calcified party structures that a third party is not remotely viable, usually serving only as a vote-splitter to give the election to the unsplit side. But to say it’s true of FPTP systems in general is easily falsifiable. It can be found in many other FPTP places too, the viable third party (or fourth or fifth, in rarer contexts).
It needs to be allowed for by the system: nationally, our parties are given public campaign funding based on the proportion of votes received, rather than districts won. This has helped the Greens, a growing party in Canada who’ve had a rough ride from FPTP, as well as my own leftist NDP (the third party I’m talking about, and which finished second overall in the FPTP election last year).
Taking a realistic look at Bernie Sanders’ path to the Democratic nomination:
Link
Bernie Sanders ended up with 52.7% of the vote in Indiana; Clinton took 47.3% of the vote. Sanders has 43 Indiana delegates. Clinton has 37.
Looking only at the pledged delegate totals so far:
Clinton has 1,682
Sanders has 1,361
The number of delegates needed for the nomination is 2,383
Adding the super delegates to the candidates’ total delegate counts so far:
Clinton has 2,202
Sanders has 1,400
In the popular vote recorded so far in the primaries, Clinton holds a 3.1 million person lead over Sanders. Link
A bigger problem might be turnout for the general election. The Democratic nominee (whoever that is) needs to start worrying about turnout. So far, in state after state the Republican turnout has shown big increases over the primary voter turnout in 2012; conversely, the Democratic turnout has been lower in state after state (Bernie’s enthusiastic supporters have not increased turnout).
Not to derail, but:
one of the few viable paths for getting us (and everyone else for that matter) nuked.
There have been more than a half-dozen close calls on nuclear war that resulted from communications problems or software glitches. Those are just the ones we know about; they keep them pretty secret. For example, one has surfaced fairly recently that was buried since 1962, We all owe our lives to Stanislav Petrov (and now we discover, to William Bassett*)
It may be the apex of human stupidity that we have so many fucking nukes.
And when Hillary gets elected there’s a good chance that she’ll continue the $1t “upgrade” to the US arsenal (“upgrade” means “build 12,000 or so new nukes then phase out the old ones”) which will probably mean US cheating on the limited test ban.
There are assloads of “viable paths” to getting us all nuked. The idea that most nukes have permissive action links that prevent them from being used without presidential authorization is propaganda. Battlefield nukes (artillery shells, manpack, and MLRS) as well as ballistic missile sub nukes can be deployed by the battery commander, which, in the US Army, doesn’t go much higher rank than a Major.
Humanity’s “turn and look the other way” attitude toward CO2 emissions is remarkably similar to its attitude toward nukes. It’s always someone else’s problem, let’s keep kicking the can down the road, future generations can figure it out. If there are any.
(*Mace B incident: http://thebulletin.org/okinawa-missiles-october8826
The 3:00am phone call: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb371/
Petrov archives: http://www.brightstarsound.com/ )
erik333@#64:
Assuming she stays out of prison, which might happen if the FBI is corrupt enough.
Thanks for the laugh. FBI corrupt enough!? (Insert some internet-age “meme” picture here, of a horse that has fallen over laughing, or something)
I had to sit and boggle over that one for a second. Is an organization that was made to be corrupt corrupt if it fulfils its purpose? Or is that showing integrity? The FBI was created to be the federal secret police. The Gestapo was modelled on it (Goebbels was a fan of Hoover) It’s been messing in politics since its inception. That’s its job.
I’ll be very surprised if the FBI does anything against Clinton. She’s hardly the first oligarch to mis-handle secret information, and (thanks, Snowden and Manning!) we confirm that most of what the State Department considers secret is embarrassing bullshit. Also, the “secrets” she was mishandling are pretty uninteresting. They won’t go after an oligarch for what amounts for a procedural error. Clinton isn’t the only one in this scenario that’s bought and paid for.
@CaitieCat Westminster parliaments are parliaments, though, which means they can only be organized by an absolute majority, so third party votes can be integrated through the coalition process, it’s not as winner-take-all as the US system, particularly the US presidential race. Our presidents are as powerful as prime ministers in parliamentary systems and their support is pretty much required in order for a party’s agenda to move, so while it’s possible for a third party to make some progress in, say, the US House, they’re institutionally incapable of delivering on their agenda, because they can never take the presidency and they have no levers on the presidency.
It’s not just the FPTP aspect, it’s also the winner-take-all contests and the overlapping veto points of our system that really punishes people for third party voting. I’m all for making the House STV but good luck explaining STV to a Trump voter…
Sanders entered the race to shift the agenda leftward, and then appears to have developed a bad case of White House Fever. The sad thing is that if Sanders (this applies to both Bernie and Jane, actually) does not turn back to the original agenda-shifting goal, rather than encouraging supporters by example to denigrate and insult HRC, he and they may get shut out of the agenda-setting process. I want to see Sanders have an impact on the Democratic platform, and make a powerful prime-time convention speech nominating Clinton.
One more thought: Please note that Clinton, very sensibly, is not wasting resources on a done deal. Sanders has been outspending her. She has raised millions for the party, he has has kicked in cash to three (3) Congressional candidates, and a bit to the Senate fund. A significant chunk of the impressive haul of cash raised has gone to media, including a nice cut to Tad Devine, apparently because Sanders failed to negotiate a cap to his payments. This guy:
The revolution is sold from the top, I guess.
She has used the party to launder millions so she could weasel around campaign finance laws: the “downticket dems” got to keep 1%.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
@11 zero2cx – Whatever the flaws of the superdelegate system may be, the context in which PZ links to the Charles Pierce article, and to a great extent the Pierce article itself is wrong, because they are implying Hillary is winning because of super delegates. But this is completely backwards. The only reason Sanders is even in this is because the Democratic party has a super delegate system. When asked for the path to the nomination both him and his campaign manager Ted Devine have stated their strategy is to convince the super delegates to vote for him and nominate him despite the fact that Hillary would have ended with more pledged delegates, and more votes.
Hillary won’t be the nominee because of the super delegates. It will be despite the opportunity the super delegates provide Sanders to win.
Cross posted from the Moments of Political Madness thread.
Tweets from Rachael Maddow:
New Jersey is one of the states that will vote soon in the presidential primary race. In that state, current polls show Hillary Clinton leading Bernie Sanders 60% to 32%.
A new Siena poll shows Clinton leading Trump in a general election match-up, 56% to 30%.
Bobby Jindal, the former governor of Louisiana and a former Republican presidential candidate, once described Trump as “an unserious, unstable, narcissistic egomaniac.” Yesterday, Jindal said that he will vote for Trump.
@76: 1. You are cherrypicking and misconstruing what is in the link you provided. Are you familiar with how the Democratic Party works?
2. But if that’s your only comeback, I take it you agree with everything else I said?
Did you read the link?
You claimed she helps raise money for the democratic party while that dirty old jew doesn’t. But she doesn’t raise money for the party. She raises money for herself and uses the party to launder cash donated by the big money interests in excess of the amount set in place by campaign finance laws.
As for the rest of what you said, you pointed out that Bernie actually raised funds for someone other than himself and pays a consulting firm well for running his campaign. Whoopdie do.
Oh and you also claimed that Bernie won’t drop out because he has “Whitehouse fever” without giving any support for that assertion.
Whoa, I did NOT call Bernie a “dirty old jew.” That’s a slur by you, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I shall not be responding further.
Whoa: ? Nothing of the kind was said until you brought it up.
Warning to MassMomentumEnergy: that kind of racism, even assigned to others, will get you banned. Don’t do it again.
So pulling out the discredited “Hillary helps down ticket dems while Bernie is stingy with his money” isn’t as much of a dogwhistle talking point as the Obama in a turban pic from 2008? Or is the assertion that democrats don’t do dogwhistles at all?
If that is not corruption, then what the hell is corruption?
From the other link in the article:
Basically, they are circumventing the maximum donation limit by allowing any one person to donate 34 times the maximum allowed. She must be feeling sooo clever.
Thanks, PZ. On second thoughts, I’ll respond to content:
I did read the linked article. Money is being shuffled around. That is normal. It’s not “laundering,” it’s a bureaucratic response to our absurd campaign finance laws, which both Sanders and Clinton have committed to changing. The DNC essentially is the party, like it or not (I don’t much).
I diagnosed Bernie with “White House Fever.” It’s my opinion, based on visible changes in campaign strategy, and I hope he gets over it soon. Tad Devine absolutely does have a conflict of interest; I’m not going to stoop to insults, but there is something very strange about a consultant netting a reported $800,000 from $27 dollar contributions.
Really? That’s your comeback? It is as clever as “but the climate has always been changing” line. Your position only makes sense if you believe there should be no limit on how much any one person can donate to a political campaign.
Uh-oh. MassMomentumEnergy accused me of “dog-whistling” while I was writing. I was not. I wasn’t even accusing Bernie of being stingy, but selfish and also not good at negotiating. Let me just reiterate the end of my first post:
@87: I had not read your previous post (I am multi-tasking here) but I am not sure you read the rest of my reply. I’m not being clever, in the sense of disingenuous. It is a fact that the “1%” claim is cherrypicking, since the same article explains how the money will be disbursed. I dont like the system, especially this year’s tweaks in it, any more than you do. I probably don’t like HRC much more than you do. But I don’t slam her, or her campaign, or the DNC for trying to make the best of the stupid rules. She has won. Please join the campaign against Trump.
MassMomentumEnergy
If you apologise for the racist slur and stop digging, I’m sure we will all just move on.
chigau (違う) @90:
It always is amusing. You can tell the honesty of someone by what they do in moments like this. Most of the times when such ludicrous charges are thrown around it means the person has grown tired of the conversation and is looking for a way out without losing face or possibly so they can feign righteous indignation. It never occurs to them to simply say “I’m not interested in this conversation any longer.” No conceding anything, just bow out. Totally respectable. But this other way… fundamentally dishonest, and once begun, it becomes harder and harder to stop that digging process.
This is really weird because as much as MME’s rubbed me the wrong way I can’t help noticing they’re not even remotely the first person who’s sarcastically made an explicit reference to a slur or stereotype in responding to what they perceived as a dog-whistle comment referring to it (even if wrongly), but the first one I can recall getting this kind of response…..
@57:
The more I read these threads and articles about the campaign, the more it becomes impossible to notice a notable distinction between supporters of Clinton and supporters of Sanders in arguing why each is preferable to the other.
According to Sanders supporters, the top five reasons to vote for Sanders are:
1. He supports universal health care.
2. He supports debt-free college.
3. He supports breaking up the banks and reestablishing sensible regulations on corporate recklessness.
4. He supports fair taxation that makes the rich pay their fair share.
5. He supports investing in vital infrastructure to (physically) rebuild the country.
According to Clinton supporters, the top five reasons to vote for Clinton are:
1. Trump is bad.
2. If you don’t support Clinton, then you’re sexist.
3. If you don’t support Clinton, then you’re immature.
4. Clinton pays lip service to liberal policies. Focus on what she says, not on what she does.
5. Clinton is the best by definition. This is received wisdom. You may not question it.