Home / General / The Trump Energy “Plan” and the Election

The Trump Energy “Plan” and the Election

Comments
/
/
/
247 Views

Sargent is right on here.

Believe it or not, Donald Trump has now made a very important policy statement. Introducing what he billed as an “energy plan,” Trump promised to “cancel the Paris Climate Plan.” Unlike so much of what comes from Trump on policy, this is a genuinely clarifying moment, with potentially enormous long-term implications.

The near-term political consequences of this will — or should — be that there is now no chance whatsoever that Bernie Sanders will do anything at all on his way out that could imperil party unity in a way that makes a Trump victory more likely. I don’t believe Sanders has any intention to do that, by the way, but this should theoretically render it an impossibility in his mind, because it dramatically increases the stakes for a relatively smooth resolution of the Democratic primaries. Indeed, I believe it’s likely Sanders will see it this way, too.

To get all the details on Trump’s full energy plan, read Brad Plumer’s piece. Trump would pursue a mostly standard-issue GOP agenda of “fewer regulations and more fossil fuel production.” More important, with some reporters wondering what Trump’s actual views are on global climate change, he clarified them: He is utterly indifferent to its existence and would roll back the main things we’re currently putting in place to deal with it.

Trump said that the current environmental challenges that the Obama administration is trying to tackle are “phony.” He added that he would “rescind” the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which would curb carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants, and is key to the U.S.’s ability to meet its commitments as part of the global climate deal. He would withdraw the U.S. from participation in that global accord.

As I’ve reported before, there are complexities that could make it harder than expected for a Republican president — even one as masterfully competent and strong as Trump — to roll back the Clean Power Plan and/or withdraw from the Paris climate deal. But it’s possible that Trump could accomplish one or both of these, which would be a tremendous setback.

The idea that Sanders voters could even conceive of voting for Trump is completely insane. That they would consider voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson is only slightly less idiotic. I know people have an unreasonable and unquenchable hatred of Hillary Clinton. Even though Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton share many of the same policy points and are not that far apart on most others, they see Clinton as literally Satan and Bernie as a heavenly savior to the nation. That’s completely nuts on both ends. But fine, hate Hillary Clinton all you want to. The other choice is Donald Trump. Once again, the other choice is Donald Trump. If you believe in Bernie Sanders then you probably believe that climate change is one of the greatest threats facing America today, if not the greatest. And Hillary Clinton has not really made climate change one of her most important issues. But you know that she is going to follow up on Obama’s commitments on this issue. So you might think, like Bernie, that that Paris climate deal doesn’t go far enough. That’s absolutely true. But it’s also the best we have right now. So the choice is going to be a) Hillary Clinton, who will at least keep us on the same path in terms of preparing to do something about climate change even if it’s not enough or b) Donald Trump, who is totally down with doing even more to cause it.

How is your vote in November not an obvious choice?

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • humanoid.panda

    The idea that Sanders voters could even conceive of voting for Trump is completely insane

    Some of Yves Smith best Wall Street friends and non at all insane blog commenters beg to differ.

    The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers of my website, Naked Capitalism, don’t just overwhelmingly favor Bernie Sanders. They also say “Hell no!” to Hillary Clinton to the degree that many say they would even vote for Donald Trump over her.

    They said we couldn’t combine corporate gobbledygook about thinkfluencers and key millenial demographics with heightening the contradictions leftism and Politico-style who won the morning nihilism, but we could! It’s like Uber, for idiocy.

    • Sly

      It’s like Uber, for idiocy.

      Airheadbnb

      • Bruce B.

        I rated this comment five stars at Blogster.

    • humanoid.panda

      Seriously, this column is a gold mine. It basically comes down to “what if I told that a bunch of well off, young, white men prone to abstract thinking and complex stories about a just-so universe think that doing something that might blow up the world is a good idea? Isn’t that amazing?”

      • Incontinentia Buttocks

        Why is Politico publishing this crap?

        • humanoid.panda

          Because by posting it here, I just helped win the morning..

        • Murc

          … because it’s Politico?

          They exist to publish contrarian claptrap, with a side order of “both sides do it” and a chaser of “eventheliberal.”

      • efc

        Did you read the article?

        “We are all fifty-somethings with money and college educations. Oh, and we are all registered Democrats.”

        They recognize that, both in the 1990s and now, the Clintons do not and have never represented them. They believe the most powerful move they can take to foster change is to withhold their support

        typically people who recognized they weren’t represented by the Clintons in the 90s were at least 18 back then meaning they would be in their 40s now.

        I personally know women in the demographic that is viewed as being solidly behind Hillary—older, professional women who live in major cities—who regard Trump as an acceptable cost of getting rid of the Clintons.

        Its readership is disproportionately graduate school-educated, older, male and high income. Despite the overall predominance of male readers, many of the fiercest critics of Clinton in the commentariat are women, with handles like HotFlash, Katniss Everdeen, Martha r, Portia, Bev and Pat.

        Those were the only mentions of gender, age, or race in the article. There were no mentions of young, white, well off men at all. Was there a reason why you chose to impute those sentiments to young, white, well off men? Does it make the sentiment even stupider?

    • Scott Lemieux

      That piece is…amazing.

      • Murc

        Right?

        Smith is, very intentionally I think (he’s too good a writer not to be doing this on purpose) doing a lot of mendacious hand-waving here. He starts off with a lot of bullshit passive arguments that he can later walk back if he has to (“Oh, see, I don’t believe this, my readers believe this, I’m just extrapolating from there”) about how Trump is an ‘unknown evil’ (demonstrably false) and how it ‘might be worth it to get rid of the Clintons.’

        Then he launches into a bunch of attacks on Hillary. Now, in isolation, I feel like that was the strongest part of the piece. (I know others will disagree about this.) Hillary has done a lot of shitty things in her political past, and those shitty things constitute a solid case to not vote for her… in the Democratic primary.

        But Smith is, ostensibly, writing a piece about the general election. And he somehow managed to do that while spending only a tiny fraction of the time actually directly comparing the two candidates on offer.

        And that’s bullshit. Running a column that says “don’t vote for this person in a general election for these reasons” is also an endorsement of either 1) their opponent, or 2) armed revolt. Smith doesn’t spend hardly any time at all saying why Trump is preferable to Clinton except for saying that Trump winning would “get rid” of her. Which is true, but you’d also get Trump. That means, if you’re at all intellectually honest, you have to do direct comparisons and make a pro-Trump case based on those comparisons.

        And he doesn’t make the pro-Trump case, because he knows (he must know) that there isn’t one to be made. “Trump will govern better than Hillary” is risible. So he doesn’t even bother. Instead he just hammers on “Hillary is bad.”

        I’ve seen people saying bluntly “Trump will burn it all down, and I feel like that’s worth it; I feel the country is so fucked up the only option left is a purging. I’m stocking up on food and guns.” That’s… wrong in a lot of ways, but at least it’s forthright.

        The whole thing is intellectually dishonest.

        I have a lot of inherent sympathy to the people who are really fucking pissed off that the best we can hope for over the next four to eight years is Hillary Clinton, probably followed by a Republican. I have this sympathy because I am one of those people.

        This doesn’t mean I want Donald fuckin’ Trump to be ensconced in the Oval Office, absently signing every bill Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell put on his desk. Hillary’s sins, such as they are, do not rise to that level. Anyone who says otherwise is not just wrong, but dangerously wrong.

        • wjts

          Smith doesn’t spend hardly any time at all saying why Trump is preferable to Clinton except for saying that Trump winning would “get rid” of her.

          Oh, it’s not that easy – I’m imagining something like an old EC Comic where Clinton, having lost the general election and died in December, claws her way out of the grave to TAKE BACK WHAT’S MINE on Inauguration Day.

          • Murc

            I’d vote Zombie Clinton.

            • Sly

              Hell, I’d phone bank for Zombie Clinton.

          • Rob in CT

            Heh, I had a similar thought. Get rid of Hillary Clinton? Hahah, fools! You think it’s that easy to destroy the Clinton Machine?? You’ve fallen victim to one of the classic blunders…

            • Dennis Orphen

              In Socialist America…….

        • It seriously sucks that if you’re unhappy with the Democratic party from the left, the only practical result of you trying to express that unhappiness in any meaningful way is to risk throwing the country further to the right (or so we’re told).

          • Rob in CT

            Well, we got to vote in the primary for a guy pushing a more left-wing vision. Hillary has latched onto some of that, and POTUS just signed on the “don’t cut SS, expand it!” idea. So while I understand feeling that the Democrats could still be significantly better on a number of issues, I don’t really understand feeling depressed about the direction of things. Looks to me like the party is moving leftward on multiple issues.

            • I hope you’re right!

            • witlesschum

              Yeah, as a lefty who wishes the Dems were more like me, I’m feeling a lot better about that than I was 12 years ago when Howard Dean represented the fringe of lefty possibility and I was throwing a protest vote to Carol Mosely-Braun in the Democratic primary.

          • Murc

            It seriously sucks that if you’re unhappy with the Democratic party from the left, the only practical result of you trying to express that unhappiness in any meaningful way is to risk throwing the country further to the right (or so we’re told).

            This isn’t true at all. You can express that unhappiness in meaningful ways by either running for office yourself (has your local school board filled all its seats?) or by looking to primary Democrats who are much to far to the right for the seats they hold. (California, I’m looking at your direction.)

            Neither of those options risks throwing the government (which is different from “the country”) further to the right.

            There are meaningful things you can do beyond just casting a vote in November, you know.

            • DrS

              by looking to primary Democrats who are much to far to the right for the seats they hold. (California, I’m looking at your direction.)

              I’d love to read more on this, but my impression is that our relatively new open primary system can make that tougher.

              • advocatethis

                I’m not sure that’s true. It hasn’t been around long enough to spot any true trends, but in safely Democratic districts we’ve seen two Democrats vying for the seat in the general election. In that scenario there will be seats where the candidate who runs to left in the general will have the edge.

                I haven’t figured out how to leverage that situation to get rid of Feinstein, though.

              • Pseudonym

                Calling California’s top-two primary system an open primary is a misnomer, even if that’s the official name. (Except for presidential elections, it’s a system where the top two candidates overall from any or no parties go on to the general election. Or even the same party, as seems imminent with Harris and Sanchez for the Senate race.) Scott tweeted something about it being a bad idea, so I’m hoping he expands on that soon.

                • witlesschum

                  Loomis argued to me in comments here that it would always result in Republicans voting for the more-conservative of the two and thus we’d have Feinsteins as far as the eye can see. (I paraphrase)

                  I’m not sure I buy that happens in practice, but it does make some sense.

                • Pseudonym

                  That seems plausible; on the other hand, I suppose it does more closely reflect voter preferences. Of course these kinds of good-government efforts aren’t going to happen in red states, so it’s a bit of unilateral disarmament.

                • ForkyMcSpoon

                  Strategic conservatives ought to vote for the centrist/center-left candidate.

                  I don’t buy that this makes it a “bad” system, as a good electoral system ought to reflect the preferences of all voters. The same system that would result in more left-wing winners in California results in people like Ted Cruz being elected in Texas.

                  Jungle primaries are bad for other reasons though (vulnerable to vote splitting, can cause odd results like David Duke going to a runoff).

                  I agree also that it is unilateral disarmament, so Democrats probably shouldn’t push such systems in blue states if it’s not going to happen in any red states.

                • witlesschum

                  Well, if you passed it at a state level it would affect both the conservative and liberal districts and if we believe the idea that it’d mean the more centrist candidate wins maybe we’d get a few more moderate Republicans representing conservative districts, too?

              • Aaron Morrow

                Regardless of the effect of the nonpartisan blanket primary, it doesn’t affect local or nonpartisan offices.

                We need more and better Democrats on our local school boards.

              • ForkyMcSpoon

                If you want to engage in some risky strategic voting, vote for the Republican in the primary, with the expectation that if s/he makes it to the runoff, they’ll be crushed by the Democrat.

                This only works if the more liberal candidate has a healthy lead while the more centrist candidate is vulnerable to losing to the Republican.

            • lunaticllama

              I’m angling to get appointed to a local zoning board. If you want progressive change, we need to take over local and state institutions and all do our part.

        • ColBatGuano

          They’d rather bet on the unknown, since it will also send a big message to Team Dem that they can no longer abuse progressives.

          I’d be fascinated to learn how this message gets transmitted. How does the Democratic Party learn that some limited number of Wall Street Bros who voted for Trump should be catered to?

        • Pseudonym

          I think Yves Smith is a woman, but otherwise this sounds pretty accurate.

          • rjayp

            Yves Smith is a woman, yes.

          • Anna in PDX

            Was Yves Smith somehow involved in the PUMA wars of 2008? I’m probably thinking of someone else…

            • Manny Kant

              Lambert Strether definitely was a PUMA, wasn’t he? He seems to be a front pager at Naked Capitalism.

        • cpinva

          fortunately, the majority of the commenters recognized the column for what it is, BS.

        • Procopius

          Wait a second, Yves Smith == “he?” Sounds like you don’t know the blog Naked Capitalism. Yves (pronounced ‘Eve,’ it’s the French spelling) Smith is a pseudonym. Yves Smith is a woman. A very smart woman. The name is a play on Adam Smith. Adam Smith, Eve Smith, get it? Apparently Murc is not as smart. Yves, at her blog, says,”This article was meant to penetrate the DC narrative all sensible people will fall in line and vote for Clinton when Sanders is knocked out of the picture (probable but not a given).” Sounds like a risky enterprise to me, as shown by Murc.

    • AMK

      This piece requires us to believe upfront, in the tagline, that there is a “powerful contingent” on Wall Street that supports Bernie Sanders. Unless “Wall Street” here includes the interns at the local H&R Block, I’m a bit skeptical.

      • humanoid.panda

        According to my friends who do academic work involving finance, there are a LOT of younger finance guy who are convinced the system is corrupt and doomed. Wouldn’t be surprised they support Bernie.

        • AMK

          I know a fair number, and they’re either Republicans who would die before checking D or Bloombergians who will settle for Hillary. Those who are really out there on the “far left” are big Obama supporters. The BernieBro investment banking analyst is a myth.

          And of course, they’re not a “powerful contingent” in any sense: they’re well-heeled gophers who have zero influence at work, and their votes as a bloc are effectively meaningless in the NYC area or Chicago or California.

          • lunaticllama

            I do law in NYC and am young and all the Wall Street lawyers I know (even the Rs) are HRC fans or grudgingly so, because Trump is too much of a market risk and you can’t support a socialist and work on the street.

    • wjts

      What they also object to is that the larger bloc of Sanders voters has been treated with abuse and contempt by the Clinton camp, despite the fact that their positions—such as strengthening Social Security and Medicare, stronger educational funding and higher minimum wages—have for decades polled by solid majorities or, at worst, ample pluralities in the electorate at large.

      All positions that Clinton has endorsed and Trump has opposed. So clearly, voting Trump will help implement them. I am not etc.

      (Also Smith’s touting “…the Smartest Progressives I Know Will Vote for Trump over Hillary” reads like my nephew talking about the tallest kids he knows at daycare.)

      • twbb

        “Abuse and contempt” typically referring to Clinton “campaigning to get elected.” The sheer effrontery.

        I mean, I’ve criticized some of Hillary’s attacks (though more for how counterproductive they are than because she’s a meaniehead) but some of the Bernieorbusters seem effronted that she’s actually, you know, trying to beat Bernie in an election.

        • wjts

          Oh, the temerity! Seriously, there have been dumb comments made by Clinton supporters in this very comment section (mostly along the lines of, “SANDERS IS GOING TO NADER IT UP AND HIS SUPPORTERS ARE GOING TO TRY TO REENACT PRIDE’S PURGE AT THE CONVENTION!”), but the Bernie or Bust crowd win the prize for stupidest things said by Democrats in this primary season.

    • MDrew

      To this day it had never occurred to me that Yves Smith wasn’t a woman.

      • MDrew

        …Ah, missed a couple comments to this effect.

      • Pseudonym

        To be fair, it’s a male pen name.

        Oh, wait, Yves Smith, like Adam Smith’s counterpart. I just got that.

        Now I feel dumb.

      • wjts

        I would never have thought someone named “Yves” wasn’t a man.

    • IS

      Its readership is disproportionately graduate school-educated, older, male and high income.

      Do I hear a “white”?

      The Clinton and Obama administrations presided over the worst losses in congressional and state races in modern history in 1994, 2010 and 2012. And voter preferences were clear. Under Obama, it was the Blue Dog, Third Way Democrats who were turfed out, while candidates with strong stances on economic justice kept their seats.

      Did the Blue Dogs lose to progressive Democrats? Did those with strong stances on economic justice come from safely blue states? The incuriosity here is staggering.

      Obama’s loss of a Senate majority when Republican Scott Brown won in Massachusetts was the result of his focus on bailing out banks rather than aiding distressed homeowners. The level of votes for Brown was strongly correlated with the amount of foreclosures in those particular districts.

      Speculation: this is related to the fact that by that point, Democrats were in charge and thus taking hits as a result of the economy–like tends to happen to incumbents. This was more pronounced where there were more foreclosures for obvious reasons. Nominating Coakley didn’t help.

      The Clintons’ dismal record, which Hillary cannot run away from, speaks for itself.

      Of course, Billandhillary Clinton is ineligible to run for a third term anyway.

      After her first major project, health care reform, turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach the topic for a generation, she retreated into a more traditional first lady role.

      16 years tops is not a generation. And half of that was under a Republican president, so I don’t see the relevance to, um, anything.

      The Clinton era brought in weaker anti-trust enforcement, which allowed companies to accumulate more market share and with it, more ability to extract rents.

      And the Obama era has started to show a little bit more, especially when compared to the Bush era.

      The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in such a bubble of operative and MEDIA sycophancy . . . (emphasis mine)

      What world does this person live in?

      Sanders voters are taking their cue from Talleyrand, the statesman who navigated the Revolution and the turbulent 50 years that followed with remarkable success: “I have never abandoned a party before it abandoned itself.”

      WHO TAKES TALLEYRAND AS A POSITIVE EXAMPLE OF ANYTHING? (Okay, making sure you always get out clean I’ll grant.)

      • efgoldman

        Obama’s loss of a Senate majority when Republican Scott Brown won in Massachusetts….

        Factually challenged. He didn’t lose the majority, he lost the 60th vote necessary to overcome a filibuster.

        ….was the result of his focus on bailing out banks rather than aiding distressed homeowners. The level of votes for Brown was strongly correlated with the amount of foreclosures in those particular districts.

        There is no evidence of this whatsoever. Cosmo Boy beat a hideously awful campaigner in an extremely low turnout, off-year, off-month special election.

        • brewmn

          To be fair, the media has been treating the 60-vote requirement to overcome a filibuster as a requirements actually set out in the constitution that a lot of these “graduate school-educated, older, male and high income” types probably assumed it as true. After all, it’s probably been the way things are for their entire adult lives. All eight years of them.

  • Amanda in the South Bay

    “they see Clinton as literally Satan”- the amount of raw hate amongst leftover than thou Sanders supporters against Clinton is reminiscent of 90s talk radio. Ironically often by people who were either too young to have followed politics then, or who didn’t follow,politics until recently. Queue the inevitable JFL response…

    • witlesschum

      Joe hasn’t been around recently, has he?

      • efgoldman

        Joe hasn’t been around recently, has he?

        I think he’s pissed at us for pointing out that HRC has actually won, and as such has the rights and privileges of the winner, including actually being titular head of the party and running the convention. He’s convinced that, with or without the actual Bernie, the revolution is moving forward and inevitable, and the fact that actual Democrats might want to, and be entitled to, run the Democratic party is somehow being a bad winner, or something.

        • Which is pretty weird given the entire history of Joe before 2016.

          • cpinva

            “Which is pretty weird given the entire history of Joe before 2016.”

            ok, good, at least I’m not the only one on here who was beginning to wonder if JFL had had his nic hijacked and used by someone else.

            • sharculese

              Nah, it’s consistent with everything he’s ever done. He’s really big on being the smartest strategist in the room. From 2008 to 2016 that meant figuring out exactly why Obama did what he did and running down anyone who had qualms about what Obama was doing.*

              This time around it’s all about Sanders, so he has to make it aggressively clear to Clinton supporters when he thinks things they’re doing are strategically unsound.

              *Strategist was specifically chosen to head off the common argument that Joe can’t criticize Obama, which is bullshit because I’ve seen him do it. But only on policy grounds, never strategic.

        • Murc

          I think he’s pissed at us for pointing out that HRC has actually won, and as such has the rights and privileges of the winner, including actually being titular head of the party and running the convention.

          That doesn’t sound like joe on this specific issue. Joe’s posts with regard to Hillary have been quite reasonable and even-handed.

          Also, while there is nothing in your sentence that is technically incorrect, it’s worth pointing out that we’re still allowed to criticize how the nominee runs both the party and the convention.

          Hillary Clinton has the right to tell Sanders to go fuck himself and completely blackball him to the extent she’s capable of, but were she to decide to do that (which I do not think she will) that would be a mistake and a bad decision, which we’d be entirely right to call her out for.

          Similarly, Sanders has every right to demand a certain amount of face time and a speaking gig at the convention, given the strength of the campaign he ran, despite the fact that he lost.

          • witlesschum

            Yeah, I hope he’s just on vacation on top of a mountain or something. The idea that Joe’s some kind of HA! Goodman style Bernie or Buster is ridiculous nonsense.

            I miss him.

            • ForkyMcSpoon

              He’s mostly fine except for those times when he responds to literally every comment he disagrees with, often redundantly, and is annoyed that other people think that his making 100 comments is annoying.

              • Hogan

                And yet look how many comments he generates when he’s not even here.

                Are we entirely sure he’s the problem?

                • Does there have to be only one problem?

                • Hogan

                  OF course not, and I consider anything that keeps you from commenting here a problem. But there’s an ongoing claim that jfL is somehow responsible for the number of responses his comments get, and I want to remind people that hitting the Reply button is a choice, not an irresistible hardwired impulse. He does what he does. If we want to see less of it, there are things we can do about that. Not all of them require checking out completely.

                • hitting the Reply button is a choice

                  God, no kidding. I remember maybe in 2010 there was a comment thread where there had to have been 100 or more comments between joe and only one or two other people arguing about whether “getting profit out of health care” implied that doctors wouldn’t be able to earn salaries. At no point was there any actual policy issue at stake — the argument was solely over the proper meaning of the word “profit”. And it was a hugely ugly slugfest that makes the recent dustups over the election look like a tea party.

                  People need to be willing to let things go and move on to the next thread.

                • Hogan

                  Oh fuck me, I remember that one. I was in the middle of it, AND I WAS RIGHT, and I hung in there long after any sane person would have hit the silk. It’s a good thing I’m smart now.

                • sharculese

                  I think the last time I ever engaged with him when he was in a state was during the discussion of the HHS rule on Plan B for teenagers (also the only time I’ve ever argued with aimai.)

                  I realized what I was getting into, managed to de-escalate, and decided I didn’t want to do that ever again.

                • Where have you gone joe di fromlowell
                  Commenters turn their lonely eyes to you
                  Woo woo wooooo

                  What’s that you say Mrs Robinson,
                  Cranky joe has left and gone away
                  Hey hey hey

                  Hey hey hey.

                • God, no kidding. I remember maybe in 2010 there was a comment thread where there had to have been 100 or more comments between joe and only one or two other people arguing about whether “getting profit out of health care” implied that doctors wouldn’t be able to earn salaries.

                  A fond, if bemusing, memory.

                  But I JUST had a “discussion” wherein Dilan said that the NHS wasn’t single payer and that every health care worker worked for the government and this got profit out of the systems in spite of GPs all being independent and complaining about a new tax on their profits.

                • Pseudonym

                  Last time I engaged with jfL it got to the point that Scott was mocking his arguments. I wonder if that’s why he’s taken a break.

              • I’m just tired of his tendency to affect this aggressive dominance posture with everyone who disagrees with him in a thread, just because he’s pissed off at one or two commenters. After a certain number of comments in a thread, the remainder of joe’s comments are basically just insults and gloating. He might as well just write a bot to copy-paste pro wrestling dialogue at that point.

                I say this even though I think he has good points as a Sanders supporter, and he has a unique and thoughtful take on a lot of issues. There are other frequent commenters who contribute much less of interest and have more toxic attitudes. But I am sick of any thread about the election becoming a dick measuring contest for the debate club.

                • sharculese

                  I really can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a thread, thought “200 comments, must be a lively discussion!” and then I scroll through five nested Joe comments in a row and click back to the homepage.

          • efgoldman

            That doesn’t sound like joe on this specific issue. Joe’s posts with regard to Hillary have been quite reasonable and even-handed.

            Yes, about HRC herself. He said long ago that he’d vote for her, because he’s not an idiot.

            it’s worth pointing out that we’re still allowed to criticize how the nominee runs both the party and the convention.

            Sure, but what he was responding to was some (me and others) calling Sanders a bad loser and criticizing Bernie for acting like a dick, particularly for appointing Cornel West to the platform committee and trying to challenge Barney Frank and Malloy off the rules committee.

            Hillary Clinton has the right to tell Sanders to go fuck himself and completely blackball him to the extent she’s capable of

            When that was pointed out, initially in much less aggressive language, he basically accused HRC supporters of being bad winners, having a need basically to stand over Sanders’ prostrate body, pro wrestling style.

          • brewmn

            That doesn’t sound like joe on this specific issue. Joe’s posts with regard to Hillary have been quite reasonable and even-handed.

            Where the fuck have you been the last three months? Joe’s trolling has completely blown up dozens of Clinton/Sanders threads with errant nonsense and utter hostility.

          • cpinva

            “Similarly, Sanders has every right to demand a certain amount of face time and a speaking gig at the convention, given the strength of the campaign he ran, despite the fact that he lost.”

            ordinarily, I would agree with this, but not this year. unless and until Sen. Sanders (and by extension, his campaign staff) starts acting like a competitor who is willing and able to help the winner unify the party, rather than a 5 year-old sore loser, who just wants to hurl the game board, and everything on it, to the floor, he has earned and (should, up to now) gets nothing.

          • Manny Kant

            Joe isn’t particularly angry at how the Clinton campaign is treating Sanders, as far as I can gather.

            He seems to be angry that non-Bernie diehards (that is to say, everyone who, whether they voted for Bernie or Clinton, has recognized that Clinton has won and wants to move on to the party unity part of the election cycle) are getting annoyed at the Sanders campaign, because apparently this is not strategically optimal.

            This is a very irritating argument, because nobody else much cares about the particular question.

        • Hogan

          He gets shit when he posts, and he gets shit when he doesn’t.

          Some of you should find a new hobby.

          • Murc

            Also this.

            I say this as someone who has gone a lot of rounds with joe and doesn’t know on any given day if he’s my best friend or worst enemy.

            • I don’t agree. I basically left the comment section here because I was so tired of Joe’s self righteous rage-gasms. He can be a good commenter and a good person but when he can’t stop himself once he decides that he is the owner of the righteous sword. I found his trashing of Hillary Clinton and her voters incredibly insulting and although I knew he would come around after a while I knew he would do it with his trademark rug sweeping style in which he would just pretend that he hadn’t said any of the shitty things he’d said.

              • Pseudonym

                But how do we know you’re the real Aimai and not JenBob pretending to be Aimai?

                • wjts

                  Perhaps she’s the pseudo-K.

                • Pseudonym

                  Nice try deflecting attention away from yourself, wjts.

                • K.

                  Socialist gobnerment want to take my guns but I think thats racist why are you racist against guns I am not on meth your on meth only secret nonunion unions can protect our guns from al qdoba socialists.

                • wjts

                  Goodness me, k, you are stupid, aren’t you?

                  (I trust this settles once and for all the question of who is and who is not the pseudo-K.)

              • MDrew

                So basically you left because Hillary Clinton was not unanimously enough getting her due propers at this blog and in this comments section. One dude’s sustained criticism, such as it was, was enough to send you off in a huff.

                And that’s on Joe.

                Ok.

                • Pseudonym

                  Temporarily losing jfL and getting Aimai back is more than a fair trade.

                • I didn’t leave “in a huff” I just left because it was tedious and I didn’t see any point in ending up in a 100 comment, spittle flecked, thread filled with men explaining why Hillary Clinton was history’s greatest monster and Bernie Sanders a political genius. I had more fun at Balloon Juice where a surprising number of commenters turned out to share my viewpoint on the matter at hand.

                • Linnaeus

                  I had more fun at Balloon Juice where a surprising number of commenters turned out to share my viewpoint on the matter at hand.

                  Not that it matters one way or the other, but I’ve been getting a bit tired of the daily Two-Minute (Primary) Hate at BJ as of late, which is why I haven’t been there as much. Not liking Sanders is fine, but now it’s like he’s evil incarnate.

                • One man’s “two minutes hate” is another woman’s happy place, I guess. I think the entire experience of a comment thread is complex–sometimes one is looking for an argument, and sometimes one is looking for a place to just kick around ideas, jokes, and experiences. Sometimes people feel supported even during an acrimonious debate, and sometimes they feel attacked even during a lighthearted, jokey, thread. Its not right or wrong, it just is.

                • Warren Terra

                  I liked Bernie just fine – didn’t believe in him, really, but liked him just fine – until the last month or so, when he and his closest aides and friends have been pulling a bunch of “Bern It Down” bullsh!t – most recently, Bernie agreeing to a debate hosted by Fox News (gee, wonder what could happen there?), and then agreeing to do it with Trump (who later lost interest).

                • Linnaeus

                  Aimai:

                  I don’t disagree, really. I just thought some of the discussions got a little overheated, so I’ve been less active until they die down a bit. Not a big deal.

                • wjts

                  …most recently, Bernie agreeing to a debate hosted by Fox News (gee, wonder what could happen there?), and then agreeing to do it with Trump (who later lost interest).

                  Trump, I’m sure, imagined that such a debate would be the two of them discussing how awful Clinton is. Sanders, I’m only slightly less sure, had other ideas in mind.

                • Warren Terra

                  Trump, I’m sure, imagined that such a debate would be the two of them discussing how awful Clinton is. Sanders, I’m only slightly less sure, had other ideas in mind.

                  Your theory being that Sanders was unfamiliar with Fox News, who would be hosting and providing the questions?

                • efgoldman

                  I didn’t leave “in a huff”

                  Of course not. There’s no place in Cambridge you can park a Huff.
                  Plenty of spaces in Lowell, however.

                • brewmn

                  Hillary Clinton was not unanimously enough getting her due propers at this blog and in this comments section.

                  One dude’s sustained criticism

                  Christ, how dishonest are you going to be about the way this guy behaved? Bernie’s vocal blog supporters have resembled nothing but the worst rightwing trolls this whole primary. Goalpost-shifting, deflections, and personal attacks have been the norm from what I’ve seen. and now you want to flush all this sorry behavior down the memory hole as if it was the president of George W. Bush.

                  And regardless what you say, Clinton’s supporters didn’t pull out their knives until this shit had been going on for months. Enough with the complete dishonesty, already. It’s embarrassing.

                • MDrew

                  Christ, how dishonest are you going to be about the way this guy behaved? Bernie’s vocal blog supporters have resembled nothing but the worst rightwing trolls this whole primary. Goalpost-shifting, deflections, and personal attacks have been the norm from what I’ve seen. and now you want to flush all this sorry behavior down the memory hole as if it was the president of George W. Bush.

                  And regardless what you say, Clinton’s supporters didn’t pull out their knives until this shit had been going on for months. Enough with the complete dishonesty, already. It’s embarrassing.

                  Are you talking about this blog and its commenters? Because not only am I only talking about this blog and its commenters, but I am talking only about joe from lowell.

                  What’s the bill of particulars?

                  It’s remarkable that/if there is a sense of grievance among Clinton supporters regarding how the discussion has unfolded at this website.

                • MDrew

                  I had more fun at Balloon Juice

                  Well that’s a shock.

                • brad

                  Late to the party, but goddamn is that self-serving bullshit.
                  Aimai didn’t leave in a huff. There was no drama, and if you want to ignore Joe’s behaviors in order to sound like a Bernie or Bust bro and reduce it to some kind of fealty to Queen Hillary litmus test then you’re quite simply wrong.
                  Joe is impossible to engage with much of the time. When he decides he’s correct he is incapable of letting go or tolerating any dissent on even the tiniest and most pedantic of points. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the positions he’s arguing, tho sometimes (Tebow) they are quite ridiculous, and everything to do with him and how he argues. There’s a handful of other regulars who also should learn better than to keep feeding him, but his, as termed elsewhere, aggressive dominance posture is the problem.
                  And you should mind your own over-determining grievances before accusing others.

              • junker

                I don’t post here as much as you do Aimai but I quit this site for about three months for exactly the same reason… I was hoping things would calm down when we got close to the end of the primary but they haven’t quite yet.

                • I came close to thinking I should take a break. But how else would I put off grading?

                • Hogan

                  But how else would I put off grading?

                  It is literally impossible to overstate the importance of this.

                • N__B

                  But how else would I put off grading?

                  Live with a sloped site.

                  [Surveyor humor. Ar ar ar.]

                • [Surveyor humor. Ar ar ar.]

                  Last month Miss Subways, now piratical surveyors. You just can’t stay away from sic transit.

                • N__B

                  piratical

                  I believe, sir, you mean “Morkian.”

              • cpinva

                hey Aimai, good to see you back! :) yeah, that’s why I said what I did in the post (way) above here.

      • Pseudonym

        I hope he comes back, at least after the primary is over.

      • ChrisTS

        He’s been on DK a few times scolding Hillary supporters.

  • If you believe in Bernie Sanders then you probably believe that climate change is one of the greatest threats facing America today, if not the greatest.

    As long as it’s a greater threat for someone else—anyone else (but, of course, preferably someone else who has even more going against them than merely not being us)—America will still be THE GREATEST. So that’s all okay, right?

    No need to outrun the bear, kind of thing.

    And, yes, I think that that belief is probably quite widespread among general Trump fans, and not too widespread among Sanders fans who would rather vote for Trump than for Hillary. But.

    • delazeur

      As long as it’s a greater threat for someone else—anyone else (but, of course, preferably someone else who has even more going against them than merely not being us)—America will still be THE GREATEST. So that’s all okay, right?

      This is probably a driver for at least some climate deniers. Part of the reality is that if you have the money, you will be able to avoid most of the negative impacts.

      • guthrie

        That’s one of the stupid things though – as the warming happens, even if you are rich things will change for the worse. You won’t be able to get your favourite wine anymore because the vines are dead. It’ll be harder to get servants in your tropical island, in fact your tropical island will become increasingly uninhabitable. Moreover, your investments won’t do so well because of mass migration of poor people and lack of resources globally.

        • efgoldman

          You won’t be able to get your favourite wine anymore because the vines are dead. It’ll be harder to get servants in your tropical island, in fact your tropical island will become increasingly uninhabitable.

          Oh MAN! I HATE when that happens.

      • Bruce B.

        Peter D. Ward has remarked on how much of the world’s most valuable land is going to become unlivable, or at least unproductive, in coming decades. When whole metropolitan areas can no longer maintain sewer systems, for instance, there’ll be limits to how much individual wealth can offset the problems. You can move your own stuff; you can’t move every building in Manhattan, and you can’t give any place else the appraised values of all that land and real estate overnight. Maybe not even over decades, given how much uncertainty premiums will rise.

        And on like that for a ton of other considerations.

    • Pseudonym

      I don’t think the voracity of rising ocean levels works quite the same as that of bears, but I suppose we’d need our resident expert on both, N__B, to weigh in on that.

      • N__B

        A rising ocean lifts all bears.

  • malraux

    Because Hilary pushed fracking while at the State department. Thus she really doesn’t care about global warming.

    At least that’s what I gather from the Bernie supporters I know.

    • guthrie

      Which still doesn’t answer the point that she’ll be better than Trump in every way anyway.

      Also from abroad it seems amazing that for such a “patriotic” nation you seem determined to be addicted to oil from evil foreign countries who hate you.

    • efgoldman

      Because Hilary pushed fracking while at the State department.

      There’s oil and gas under Foggy Bottom? Who knew?

      • Pseudonym

        If that was a flatulence joke, I approve.

        • efgoldman

          If that was a flatulence joke, I approve.

          Wasn’t meant that way, but things have more than one meaning.

          • N__B

            things have more than one meaning.

            “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.”

    • ForkyMcSpoon

      Her argument was basically renewables > natural gas > oil/coal, ergo we should promote natural gas over oil/coal while solar/wind are not up to the task.

      Given the state of green energy tech even just a few years ago, that may have been the right policy. At the very least, it was not pure negative (less oil and coal burned was a positive). Green energy tech has advanced rapidly, so I would say it’s better just to focus on that now.

      But thinking that it makes her horrible or even bad on climate change or anywhere near as bad as Trump, who would be disastrous, is a bit ridic.

      • brewmn

        Plus, there were Bernie Bros ripping into Clinton for her comments about putting coal miners out of work. So, I’m guessing like most criticism of Clinton, it was more about the target of the criticism than the substance.

  • Derelict

    How is your vote in November not an obvious choice?

    As one person I know explained it, “If Bernie isn’t the nominee, then I’m voting for Jill Stein because, if the Green Party gets enough votes, then they’ll get federal funding for the next election.”

    Sure.

    • And if the Greens get federal funding in 2020, the two-party system is doomed and everyone gets a pony on top of their single-payer!

      • Scott Lemieux

        We we throw this election to the GOP, we can get enough money to throw more elections to the GOP! Also, throwing the election to Trump will totally make us more popular on the left! We are not crackpots!

        • petesh

          Ah but Trump will cancel federal funding for elections because everyone can finance their own, just like … oh, wait … I mean, Trump will obviously support a broad, inclusive dialog conducted with portraits of Franklin, right? … I mean … we the people shall never be polluted … I mean … Presente!

      • efgoldman

        everyone gets a pony on top of their single-payer!

        Except all the ponies will be dead from respiratory diseases.

      • witlesschum

        So, no single payer veterinary care for my pony herd, Loomis? I can’t vote for such a bunch of Corporate Sellouts obviously in the pocket of Big Wormer. Lesser evil is still evil!

      • JMP

        But don’t you understand, if we can break the corrupt two-party duopoly on power, that casts a magic spell that makes everything better somehow! Really, I think that’s how third-party advocates must think it works, it’s the only way their insistence that making third parties stronger makes any sense at all.

    • Warren Terra

      This argument dates back to Nader in 2000. There was a pleasing symmetry about it then: in order for the Green Party’s presidential nominee to “qualify for federal funding” in the 2004 election, Nader needed to get 5% of the vote. The “federal funding” on offer was 5 million dollars, and 100 million votes were expected. Thus, the argument was that your vote was worth slightly less than a dollar – and a dollar in four years time, at that.

      There is in fact one other aspect, that a good performance in one election often guarantees automatic or at least streamlined ballot access for the party in the next election, and in some venues getting on the ballot is otherwise a pain.

      Still: because our plurality voting system strongly penalizes third-party voters, and penalizes them more strongly the more successful they are, the idea of selling your vote for less-than-a-dollar and no concept of voting reform is just nuts.

    • L2P

      I have more respect for a “heighten the contradictions” or “Me Feelings are too precious to vote for Hilary” guy. That’s just patently ridiculous.

  • Morse Code for J

    It’s always better to starve than to consider any fraction of a full loaf.

  • Warren Terra

    The remarkable thing about Trump’s energy speech isn’t that it was full of terrible, destructive, and nonsensical proposals – that was predictable for any Republican energy speech – it’s that, as pointed out in a piece by David Roberts at Vox, Trump made it clear through his mannerisms that as he was reading the speech from the teleprompter he was seeing its contents for the very first time.

    Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the truly remarkable thing isn’t even Trump’s remarkable ignorance and lack of preparation – it’s that the press largely doesn’t care. Trump’s complete disdain for the substance of the office he seeks somehow isn’t even an issue.

    • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

      “Sure, he’s an ignorant boob. But he’ll be a CEO President, and all CEOs know to surround themselves with the best people, and get out of their way.”

      • delazeur

        “But they also deserve eight-figure compensation, because the company would be crippled without them!”

    • Alex.S

      He’s done this twice now for big policy speeches — foreign policy was the other one. Weirdest part is his campaign itself plays up that he’s reading it off of a teleprompter and someone else did all the work.

      • Matt McIrvin

        He also attacks everyone else for using teleprompters.

    • petesh

      Yeah, at some point I expect to see Trump look up halfway through a policy speech and say “Who wrote this shit? Fire that guy! Look, it’s simple …” [insert incoherent nonsense spouted by Limbaugh or someone on whatever the topic was supposed to be, transitioning quickly to some totally different topic that happened to wander into his famously empty skull]

      • delazeur

        Oh man, I’m looking forward to that day. It’s inevitable.

        • guthrie

          Or else if you can hijack the teleprompter, how far can you get him to go – “And I endorse a universal basic income for all, and… Wait a moment, what did I just say?”

          • Hogan

            “Mr. Bush went on to say that in his family, obsequiousness is not considered a vice.

            “In other news, I have no pants on. I’m absolutely naked from the waist down. I’m now reading a message from the guy who writes the news. Believe it or not, I’ll read anything he writes. There’s a kind of Zen perfection to my vacuity. If it’s on the teleprompter, I’ll read it, no questions asked. My mind is on my dinner reservation. That’s tonight’s news. Oops, I see we’re almost out of time. For all of us here at ABC News, I’m overpaid.”

            –Roland Burton Hedley Jr., Doonesbury, 1988

            • postmodulator

              Joke recycled twenty years later as “Good night, San Diego, and go fuck yourself.”

      • I think he basically already did this. He delivered a speech in which he broke the fourth wall and commented deliciously on the speech as though he himself were not giving it.

        • TroubleMaker13

          “Isn’t this a great speech, people? Let me tell you, I have the best speechwriters! Top notch speechwriters! And how about this teleprompter? Lyin’ Hillary wishes she had a teleprompter like this one!”

    • efgoldman

      Doesn’t Trump and the opossum on his head have extensive oceanfront property in Florida? Has he started building the boat dock off the third-floor bedrooms yet?

    • sibusisodan

      After n years of something something teleprompter, Republicans are nominating someone who can only read from a teleprompter?

      I know it’s trivial, but it really does my nut.

      • Warren Terra

        To be fair, their claim about Obama was always “sure, he seems eloquent, but he’s just reading from a teleprompter” (even though Obama was a successful author, and even though they idolized professional reader-of-scripts Ronald Reagan). This isn’t a criticism applicable to Trump, who notably doesn’t seem eloquent – or even remotely informed or prepared – when reading from a teleprompter.

        • so-in-so

          But he’s ‘authentic’, or non-PC, or something. And they like it.

          • efgoldman

            But he’s ‘authentic’, or non-PC, or something. And they like it.

            Back in my misspent youth, we’d have called him a cretin, but i don’t think that’s allowed anymore.

            • Of course it is. I especially use it because of the “other sources” hypothesis:

              The etymology of cretin is uncertain. Several hypotheses exist. The most common derivation provided in English dictionaries is from the Alpine French dialect pronunciation of the word Chrétien (“(a) Christian”), which was a greeting there. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the translation of the French term into “human creature” implies that the label “Christian” is a reminder of the humanity of the afflicted, in contrast to brute beasts. Other sources suggest that Christian describes the person’s “Christ-like” inability to sin, stemming, in such cases, from an incapacity to distinguish right from wrong.

              In other words, the ideal Xian is a cretin.

      • Rob in CT

        Dur-hur, Obama’s fault.

  • John Selmer Dix

    The Sanders campaign has brought people in who would otherwise not vote for the Democratic candidate. I’ve done some voter registration here in Texas, and my anecdotal evidence (which should be at least as good as “I read a shit piece on Salon about BernieBros”-evidence) is that this year Bernie supporters have made up a huge proportion of both the voter registration volunteers and the people getting registered for the first time. There’s something about Sanders, whether it’s the package or its contents, which has convinced otherwise apolitical people to stand in the Texas sun registering new voters.

    It seems a trivial observation that a fraction of these people will resort to what they would’ve done if Bernie had never run: Not voting, or voting for Trump or Stein. This is unfortunate, but is in no way unique to the Sanders campaign, this election, or even this country.

    These people would’ve never voted for Clinton to begin with. So how many net people will Bernie “flip”? That is, how many people will vote Clinton as a result of Sanders running in the primary who would otherwise not have voted for a Democrat minus the number of people who would’ve voted Clinton had Bernie not run, but now will vote Trump/Stein/Bupkis? Does anyone have any idea about this number, that we are all oh-so-concerned about? Is it even negative, or will the Sanders campaign have given Clinton a boost in voters? Given some boundaries on this number, does anyone have a rough idea of the probability of this having an effect on the election? I don’t, but it seems unlikely that it will.

    • Rob in CT

      Well, a lot of the NeverHillary stuff we see online is written by people who claim to be True Leftists ™.

      From a left-wing viewpoint, helping elect Donald Trump is flat-out insane.

      People are making bad arguments on the internet. Other people are shredding those arguments on the internet.

      In the real world, better things may (hopefully!) be happening.

    • “Does anyone have any idea about this number, that we are all oh-so-concerned about? Is it even negative, or will the Sanders campaign have given Clinton a boost in voters?”

      I’ve wondered this too, but it smacks of independent thought, which can only be read as dissent against Clinton’s candidacy, and no dissent can be tolerated or else we get President Trump.

      Are these people nuts? It’s election season… no time for measured discussion, only groupthink, labels, personal attacks, snark pieces…

      • Actually, its time to not be a child and to realize that there are precisely two people who can win the presidency. Thus, we have to choose which of those will be the better option. All the organizing and discussion is what needs to happen both before and after the election, to prepare for the next election when hopefully we have mobilized for better candidates and better issues.

        • Completely understand, and I will choose the better option (YES, it’s Hillary) in November when I actually vote.

          like John I’m also a Sanders supporter in TX. my own experience and the race/age/nature of the fellow Sanders supporters I’ve met personally bears absolutely no resemblance to the mud slung at us and the labels placed on us. Pretty much every speaker at every campaign event I attended emphasized the long game, staying involved post-November regardless of who gets elected. all shared deep contempt for the GOP and Trump in particular. Many were getting politically active for the first time.

          I don’t doubt there are flakey #NeverHillary Sanders supports out there – they write blog posts and tweet and all – but despite meeting several dozen Sanders supporters personally at campaign events, I never actually encountered one myself. They strike me as a particularly vocal minority if anything.

          Ironically, the whole #berniebros hashtag name-calling BS didn’t bother me as much early in the campaign when a challenge was mathematically feasible (if unlikely), but the fact that it seemed to get racheted up of late, when Hillary more or less locked things up, bugged me a lot more. Whatever. okay I’m over it. Rest assured no amount of mud slinging/hashtags/snark aimed at me will convince me to vote Trump/GOP/third party. I’m a good person.

          • Why do so many people persist in thinking that “Bernie bros” refers to all of his supporters, and not just a particular obnoxious subset? Why do Sanders supporters who intend to vote for the Democrat in November think that attacks on “Bernie or Busters” are attacks on them? It honestly baffles me.

            I think there are obnoxious Sanders supporters, and obnoxious Clinton supporters. They are both a tiny subset of the candidates’ total support. Reasonable supporters of both candidates should come together to mock and reject the assholes.

            • Brien Jackson

              The issue behind “Bernie Bros” isn’t about supporting Sanders either, but about being abusive to people, mostly women, particularly in social media space.

      • Murc

        I’ve wondered this too, but it smacks of independent thought, which can only be read as dissent against Clinton’s candidacy, and no dissent can be tolerated or else we get President Trump.

        This is a very silly statement.

      • sharculese

        Im on my phone so I cant type a lot, which means Ill leave it at this-

        This is the most aggressively non-responsive post Ive seen here since we chased Davey N. off.

        • witlesschum

          There’s a blast from the past.

          • Murc

            I don’t miss Neiporent but I sometimes miss Brad Potts.

            • sharculese

              We all miss Brad Potts. Closest thing to a sane libertarian that ever existed.

            • Wait, one misses the nice guy and doesn’t miss the asshole!?

              I’m going to readjust my world view!! :)

        • Pseudonym

          I suppose the margins of this blog were just too narrow to contain his brilliance and integritude.

      • JMP

        Yes, it’s suppressing independent thought for the nomination to go to the person who has by far the most votes.

        • Precisely. Voting for the most popular candidate is not independent thought, it’s brain-dead conformity.

    • Spiny

      It seems a trivial observation that a fraction of these people will resort to what they would’ve done if Bernie had never run: Not voting, or voting for Trump or Stein. This is unfortunate, but is in no way unique to the Sanders campaign, this election, or even this country.

      That is true. But it also suggests the other assumptions you make regarding the unique appeal of Sanders are questionable. Obama got higher turnout than Sanders has, and his campaign was remarkably effective in registering and turning out new voters. Some of those folks have since relapsed into apathy or third-partyism. Likely some portion of Ron Paul Republicans have done the same, and any number of supporters of insurgent candidates since forever.

      My belief is that Sanders certainly has played a role in energizing apolitical/younger voters and bringing them into the process, and even if a significant proportion fail to stay energized past the thrill of the campaign this remains a valuable role. But this is not really the unique, ground-breaking, movement-building phenomenon his more devoted admirers claim.

      • John Selmer Dix

        You’re right that I am perhaps overstating the amount of new voters that Sanders has brought in, likely due to my own subconscious bias for the Sanders campaign. I agree with you that Obama also did quite a bit to expand the party, though he won that primary, so the similarity ends there. Paul is an interesting case, and I wonder what his effect on the Republican party base was (did enough Paul-curious people decide to stick around and vote Mitt? Did Paul make some Republicans sit at home or vote Obama instead?).

        Ultimately my guess is that primary challengers like Sanders are very likely to strengthen the winner by increasing the number of voters. I would also guess that this effect is small to insignificant, but almost never negative. I have little data to back any of this up, but in this way I am in the same boat as people who think BernierOrBust is a serious threat to Clinton.

        • Spiny

          Fair enough. I wish that we had more evidence to judge this question, but I do take comfort in knowing how much better the Democratic party is at data-driven campaigning.

  • While I obviously agree with the sentiment, that Sanders tweet sets my teeth on edge, because it undermines its own intent with its tautology. Climate change is the greatest threat to the planet because it’s the only threat to the planet. Everything else is too small. In fact, I’m not even sure that climate change should count as a threat to the planet, which will keep spinning quite happily whether or not there’s anything living on it. Climate change is a threat to our species, and a great many others, which should scare the crap out of us, but there’s really not a lot that can threaten a planet.

    (Not the point of this post, I realize. I just couldn’t help my pedantry.)

    • Rob in CT

      Cue up the Carlin line (the planet will be fine, folks. WE’RE fucked…).

      • The Temporary Name

        This sounds like we CAN’T end all life on Earth. I say we CAN! Who’s with me?

        • Murc

          On July 4th of this year, America will blow up the moon!

        • Easy there. I only want to eliminate all humanoid life on this benighted rock. Let the other animals be.

          • The Temporary Name

            Once again, a compromised vision. Is THIS the Democratic party we want? One that only goes halfway?

    • trollhattan

      I seem to recall a period named the Cold War during which a certain type of machine was perfected and built in copious numbers that could have irreversibly altered our planet in a scant few hours. Whatever happened to those machines, anyhoo?

      • The Temporary Name

        I remember this being a leading doomsday candidate:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb

        • Matt McIrvin

          It was to be announced at the Party congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.

    • so-in-so

      I like a pedant as much as the next person, but aren’t nuclear weapons still a thing?

      Climate change is more of a sure thing, but it isn’t the only way to end life as we know it.

      Okay, Trollhatten beat me to it. How about the new super bugs?

      • petesh

        Super bugs and gene drives! Will humanity be killed or commit suicide? Opinions differ.

      • Bruce B.

        Unless things have changed significantly since I last did research on it, which may be the case, even the power of nukes at the height of the Cold War wouldn’t be enough to end life on Earth. Drive humanity to extinction, quite possibly. But the kind of thing that turns up in studies of future climate possibilities gets into the territory of the five great mass extinctions, including the Permian one, where life got this close to just stopping. The thing about nukes is that they deliver a lot of energy, but just the once. The high-end extinction events are less “events” than periods of time, hundreds to million years of awful things like continental-scale lava flows or chemical processes that turn the oceans oxygen-free from sea floor to nearly the surface, or all the way up.

        Which isn’t to say that mass nuke use wouldn’t be Really Bad, only that there are superlatives of horribleness well beyond.

        • The thing about nukes is that they deliver a lot of energy, but just the once.

          After which they merely deliver comparatively low levels of ionizing radiation for a geological eye-blink, and not even all in easily bio-available form! So it’s all good.

        • Pseudonym

          According to my research, the fallout from nuclear war will be quite a bit of fun as long as you manage to survive it in your underground vault.

          • sharculese

            You even get a dog.

        • I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed.

  • Hallen

    Well, I don’t know if irony is the exactly right word, but I guess it’s sort-of ironic that the one, single thing that could possibly justify an authoritarian rule-by-decree Great Leader is the prospect of actually doing something quickly about climate change, saving the human species from the tragedy of the commons it’s inflicted upon itself. Of course, the most popular authoritarian we actually get is also the asshole from the Asshole Party, who naturally thinks global warming’s a hoax. Congratulations, America!

  • Cheerful

    My response to those going to Stein or other third parties is that Trump will get millions of votes this fall whatever else happens and so the only question is whether somebody else is going to get more (in the appropriate states). You are either part of making that happen or you’re not. If you think Stein is going to be that somebody else, you are almost certainly wrong.

    Unless you think a future with Trump as president is fine, and no worse than Somebody Else, than your choice should be clear.

    This doesn’t help with those who feel that the long term project of turning the Democratic Party progressive, or making the Green Party the
    Second Party is worth whatever shorter term damage a Trump presidency causes (putting aside the logistical problems of a 2016 vote for Stein getting you to those conclusions) but those people are off in a dream land I can’t deal with anyway.

  • MPAVictoria

    Look I get it. I really do. I would vote for Hillary if I lived in a state where the outcome was even the tiniest bit in doubt. But I can’t help but be depressed that she is the best the democratic party could come up with in 2016. Her comments today on Israel and Palestine (She attacked Trump from the RIGHT!!!!!!!!) make me absolutely sick and frankly in a sane world would have been disqualifying. And that is not even mentioning the blatant grifting her and her husband have been involved in over the past 16 years. Yet here we are I guess…

    /Fuck

    • Rob in CT

      Nobody is actually telling you how to vote, unless I’m quite mistaken about your citizenship.

      • MPAVictoria

        Sigh…

        Yes I am Canadian and yes I can’t vote in your crummy election. But whoever you choose will be inflected about me and the rest of the world for at least the next 4 years. So forgive me if I take an interest Rob. ;-)

        • Pseudonym

          When does Canada start building its wall, and how are they getting us U.S. Americans to pay for it?

          • Pseudonym

            At least Trump has never elbowed a political opponent, as far as I know.

        • Spiny

          I don’t blame non-Americans for taking an interest. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask that they not act like a condescending out-of-towner at a community meeting who has decided to give everyone their Objective Outsider Opinion.

          • Pseudonym

            That’s an awfully uncharitable description of Scott.

          • I agree with Spiny. Its not like other countries routinely put up great people to run and are uniformly led by wonderful visionaries. The entire world is full of lousy politiicans, grifters, amoral authoritiarians and outright conservatives. Hillary Clinton (and Bill too) are not, by far, the worst people who have ever put their names forward to run a country. They really aren’t. Its precious taht mpavictoria thinks that this is even remotely true.

            • MPAVictoria

              You know it is kinda sad that Clinton supporters have to routinely lie about what I write.

              • Does “Clinton supporters…lie” not strike you as a bit hyperbolic? And, also, too:

                Did you somehow not write this?

                But I can’t help but be depressed that she is the best the democratic party could come up with in 2016. Her comments today on Israel and Palestine (She attacked Trump from the RIGHT!!!!!!!!) make me absolutely sick and frankly in a sane world would have been disqualifying. And that is not even mentioning the blatant grifting her and her husband have been involved in over the past 16 years. Yet here we are I guess…

                • MPAVictoria

                  No. Can you tell me where I said:

                  “Hillary Clinton (and Bill too) are not, by far, the worst people who have ever put their names forward to run a country. They really aren’t. Its precious taht mpavictoria thinks that this is even remotely true.”

                • What is the basis for arguing that anything about HRC and Bill that you have offered up for consideration, or that is known to be true, “would have been disqualifying” in “a sane world?” Also, obviously, its not a sane or insane world. Its just the world we have. In this world, they are not disqualified in any way from running for office, and choosing them as representatives may make you sick but doesn’t make millions of US citizens sick since we are quite happilly voting for her this time around.

                  You are madly overreacting, and over-acting, like some scenery chewing third rate ingenue from the sticks. Its just fucking politics. Its not even your politics. Get over yourself.

                • MPAVictoria

                  And now when confronted you change the topic. Very revealing. So I ask again, where did I say they were the WORST people who have ever put their names forward to run a country.”

                  And be specific please.

                  “It’s just fucking politics”
                  Must be nice to be so privileged. I

                • Actually, I think standing around and bitching about some other country’s political choices is the very essence of privilige. I take voting very seriously–and I vote not just for myself but for all the people who live here who can’t vote because they don’t have the franchise, and for people who will be affected by my vote (and this country’s policies) because the country is just so damned powerful. You can fuck off with your hysteria and your attitude about the choices my political system throws up. I deal with the reality that we have a two party system that puts up a raging lunatic on the far right and a perfectly acceptable, centrist, progressive, democrat every four years. Its not the worst and it doesn’t require your extreme depression or your overuse of capitalization and screaming exclamation points. OMG you are made “absolutely sick!!!!!” Really? what are you, twelve?

                • MPAVictoria

                  Yeah God forbid I am worried about who is gonna run the most powerful country in the word. And it is interesting that you are more interested in attacking me than responding to a simple question about a untrue claim you made about me.

                  But if insulting me makes you happier please go ahead.

                • Amanda in the South Bay

                  Must be nice to be so privileged.

                  Privileged is living in a more social democratic country than the US, and imagining that you can harshly judge the lesser of two evils for not being Jeremy Corbyn incarnate, and not having to face the consequence of Republican administration. Pray tell, were you worried a couple of years ago that the GOP congress would go through with a government shutdown and your Gi Bill benefits would be in jeopardy?

                • “Blatant grifting” is ridiculous. If they can get zillions for anodyne speeches, more power to them!

                  YOU CAN’T CHEAT AN HONEST HUMANOID!!

        • burnspbesq

          Your lot returned Harper to power … how many times … and you presume to lecture us about our bad choices?

          • ForkyMcSpoon

            One that I know is a Dutch guy who says he could never vote for Hillary if he lived here. Because of something something Israel.

            He live off benefits in the Netherlands and gets healthcare through their universal system, and is frequently complaining about racism (he himself is ethnically Dutch) and the way immigrants are treated there.

            I merely said I found it hard to believe he wouldn’t be more concerned about Trump if he lived here.

        • Rob in CT

          This is probably too dead a thread for you to see this, but…

          This actually isn’t quite what I meant. I wasn’t trying to slam you for “taking an interest” in US politics. US politics is interesting! Further, we’re a superpower so our electoral results do matter for citizens of other countries. Taking an interest is fine.

          What I’m saying is that Erik’s post, and many Erik and Scott posts before it, are arguments for what conflicted US voters should do. You’ve taken them personally, and they’re simply not aimed at you!

          Further, neither Erik nor Scott have ever said that HRC is above criticism, or expressed approval of her foreign policy approach/instincts. IIRC, each is critical of her for that.

          So, go right ahead an be critical of her FP approach! I will too, as that is the single most worrisome aspect of her potential presidency.

          But don’t get all wounded by bloggers suggesting to US voters that they should not do a particularly dumb thing out of anger/spite/foolish miscalculation. You’re simply not the target here, nor are really any sane people who prefer Sanders to Clinton.

          That’s what I was trying to say, and probably should have said in full from the first.

          But, also, too: what Spiny said.

          • Rob in CT

            Damnit, I forgot something else:

            From the perspective of a citizen of the world who is concerned about US foreign policy, Erik’s and Scott’s arguments hold very well too!

            We’re talking about the possibility of handing Donald Trump the power of the US Presidency here. The narcissistic, thin-skinned, racist, know-nothing blowhard. The best case scenario is that he outsources the work to GOP operatives. The last time we had a CEO President who had others do the heavy lifting, we started a totally unnecessary war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and (further) destabilized an already volatile region. We’re still dealing with the consequences today.

            Remember, that’s the argument being made: Clinton >>>> Trump. Not Clinton is the greatest, or even Clinton > Bernie Sanders.

            And the reason this argument is being made over and over is that dumbshits are making breathtakingly stupid/mendacious arguments to the contrary on the internet.

            It’s not about you, so don’t take it personally and get all worked up.

          • Matt McIrvin

            Not only that, I am pretty sure that Erik and Scott both endorsed Bernie Sanders over Clinton in the primary elections! Or at least posted things that strongly implied that. Because they’re not now taking a maximalist Bernie-or-Bust position, and sometimes say mean things about people who do, they’re getting flak for being Clintonite shills.

            • Rob in CT

              IIRC, both effectively said “it doesn’t matter much but for what it’s worth I’m pro-Bernie.”

          • Matt McIrvin

            The other thing that Canadian and European observers, in particular, need to realize is that the US doesn’t have a multiparty parliamentary system. Every political system that is at all democratic needs to have a way of building a governing coalition, and in the US, the coalition-building happens within the political party as the sequel to a primary election, not in a parliament after the candidates are elected. That means that there’s less opportunity to express your direct preferences by voting for a more ideological party in the general election.

            This is built into the structure of our Constitution (because of the combination of presidentialism and FPTP elections), and it might not be for the best and we might be better off with some other system; but too often, I get the impression that people outside the US think we just do things this way because our voters are too unaccountably stupid to vote like they do.

    • ColBatGuano

      And that is not even mentioning the blatant grifting her and her husband have been involved in over the past 16 years.

      This is how we can tell you are serious.

      • Warren Terra

        If they’d gone with “graft” (which means “the acquisition of money, gain, or advantage by dishonest, unfair, or illegal means, especially through the abuse of one’s position or influence in politics, business” but can also, in Britspeak, mean strenuous effort) instead of “grift” (which means petty swindling), MPAVictoria might at least have linguistic and cultural confusion on their side.

        • Was this grift or graft? Let’s argue semantics.

          Taking millions from a for-profit college (even if, quote: “Reviews of Laureate have been mixed, but it is not considered among the worst offenders in the for-profit college industry.”) is Less than ideal? A-Okay because the Clintons are immune to the influence of money?

          mandatory disclaimer: While I support Sanders, I like many of his supporters, am not a #neverhillary drone and I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee regardless of how much money the Clinton foundation collects from shady people, third world despots, murderers, etc. etc. because I have no choice.

          • MPAVictoria

            Thank you Pete. Exactly what I was talking about.

          • Warren Terra

            According to your own linked story:
            1) That’s the other Clinton. They’re a couple, but they’re not the same person.
            2) We don’t know how much Clinton got paid. Your accusation about “millions” presumably refers to the money received by the Clinton Foundation – a charity that spends its money trying to help poor people (and, admittedly, spends money on fundraising events and conferences to make its donors feel good about themselves)
            3) The agreement started back in 2010 and ended at the end of its five year term – though if you just look at the headline you might get the impression the agreement was cancelled.
            4) In this context, it’s important to remember that not all for-profit colleges are alike, and the emerging concern about abusive practices was not always widespread. In particular, in the 2000s there was a lot of attention paid to the (for-profit) University of Phoenix as being a possible model for MOOCs and making college more accessible to less advantaged and nontraditional students. According to the article, Laureate is not seen as particularly abusive or predatory, and has influential, supposedly public-minded backers, including George Soros.
            5) “Mrs. Clinton herself denounced the predatory practices of for-profit colleges during her first campaign swing through Iowa”, the article says. We can assume her administration would continue the Obama administration’s attempts to more strictly regulate for-profit companies. None of this suggests she has been bought off by Laureate!

            • MPAVictoria

              1. Of course she still gets to spend the money.

              • “If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you’ve got no business being up here.”

    • petesh

      What did HRC say about Israel/Palestine?

      • sharculese

        There’s a section where she talks about not letting Iran get a nuclear weapon (by which she means honoring the terms of the nuclear deal) and midway through there’s some boiler plate about protecting Israel, “our closest ally in the region.” Not stuff I like to hear but pretty standard stuff.

        No mention of Palestine as far as I recall.

        • I thought the Saudi Arabia family was our closest ally in the region.

    • witlesschum

      What’d she say? I’ll probably be happier if I don’t know, but morbid curiosity.

      • junker

        We have to do whatever it takes to to enforce the Iran deal and prevent them from getting nukes, Israels security is non-negotiable, and we have a moral obligation to defend Israel. Nothing about Palestine from what I can see in the transcript.

        Her words, not mine.

        • MPAVictoria

          She also said that Trump saying he would neutral on the Israeli Palestinian issue was disqualifying. This is outrageous.

          • sharculese

            I missed that (I was in a bar watching it with the sound off) but let’s be honest here. Trump’s neutrality on Palestine would involve looking the other way while more settlements get built. He is bad for both sides.

            • MPAVictoria

              I agree. Trump is horrible and I hope he loses to Clinton in a landslide. Now what Clinton is saying here is still awful. Bernie was much better on this issue. But here we are.

            • Pseudonym

              You were in a bar watching a political foreign-policy speech with the sound off? Was closed captioning turned on at least?

              • sharculese

                Yeah, closed captions on. I missed the last three or so minutes because some asshole came in and asked the bartender to ‘turn that bitch off’ so he could watch golf, so I finished my drink and left.

                • MPAVictoria

                  Yikes!

                • sharculese

                  It was a white-flight Atlanta suburb.

                  which also explains why I was at a bar at 3. There was nothing else to do.

    • Warren Terra

      Maybe he was swayed by how very much he likes walls.

      • so-in-so

        Who knows what he really believes (beyond that he is GREAT), he figures that this is what he needs to SAY to get the GOPers on board. At least, as of now.

        Maybe next week he’ll say climate change is our greatest danger. Neither of which will be predictive of anything he’ll actually DO if elected.

      • Maybe he was swayed by how very much he likes walls.

        Particularly when he gets the squids, jellyfish, and Aquaman to pay for them!

  • LWA

    I just don’t get the Clinton-hate, from the left.

    Like other Dems who are not always the progressive ideal, I could take issue with their issues. I preferred Obama over Hilary in 2008 for example.

    But effing hell.

    This is John Cole’s “Tire Rims and Anthrax” choice here. Take every bad thing about the Clinton, multiply it by 5, and you still get a clear choice between sensible moderate Establishment politics, and insane Neo-Confederacy.

    • australianrulesquidditch
      • ForkyMcSpoon

        I knew that was photoshopped because Trump’s fingers are stubbier than that.

        (Real picture has him with both arms down)

  • Amanda in the South Bay

    Being under 40 and in Portland and saying I voted for Hillary in a lot of my social circles…yeah, that goes over *real* well. There’s a certain amount of Bernie fatigue IRL, and just too many raw memories of 2000 to not let the political novices of the BernieBuster crowd get to me.

    • sharculese

      My roommates are both in their 30s and I’m about to hit that mark. Their huge Berners, and they know I voted for Hillary. Fortunately, neither of them have been dicks to me about it. One is a man and one is a woman.

      The dude and I got into a heated discussion one night, and although it was mostly about tactics (he thinks Hillary is uniquely susceptible to Trump) a lot of his animosity felt personal. He claims he’s staying home in November.

      The woman is planning on holding her nose and voting for Hillary, but of late she’s been prone to repeating some of the worse arguments about the race. She’s usually up for debate but when you challenge her on any of this stuff she just shuts down.

      • efgoldman

        he thinks Hillary is uniquely susceptible to Trump

        I really hope he has been paying attention the last couple of days.

        • sharculese

          I don’t know. I’ve been scrupulously trying to avoid any talk of the election when he’s around for the past month or so because of how worked up he gets.

        • ForkyMcSpoon

          I’m not really certain of it, but my hot take is that Clinton is actually better to take on Trump, and Bernie would’ve been better for Cruz. Less sure about the other not-Trumps.

          Trump’s thing is that he’s a buffoonish, ignorant, male chauvinist, blowhard, and Hillary’s in-depth knowledge and cool-headedness is a strong contrast.

          Cruz is a smarmy, heartless, insincere extremist with a penchant for lawyerly phrasing, and Bernie’s straight-talk seems better for taking him on.

          • sharculese

            That was my basic response to him. If anyone has experience deflecting blowhards like Trump, it’s Hillary Clinton. But he’s so convinced that she’s tainted with scandal that just responding to anything at all is “going on the defensive.”

            Like I said, it sounded a little personal.

          • Matt McIrvin

            Part of the problem is that head-to-head polls show Sanders walloping Trump and Clinton running a close race, so to make that point, there has to be some kind of theory about how those numbers would change if Bernie were the frontrunner.

            I suspect that you’re right, and they would. But it’s easy to dismiss any such theory as speculative.

    • Anna in PDX

      Hey I thought you were in San Francisco or something. We really should have an LGM get together some time. (I voted for Bernie in our primary but I am going to be delighted to vote for Clinton in the general.)

      • I will be in Portland for a few days in July

      • Another Portlander here.

        • Anna in PDX

          Ok we really have to do this when Erik is here. I think there are a few others too. Erik, when your plans firm up please do let us know what day might work and we’ll organize something!

          • They are pretty firm. I’m out there for a faculty union training thing from July 21-24, or something like that.

          • Excellent. My email is at the bottom of the website linked in my username, if someone wants to put something together.

          • Amanda in the South Bay

            I’m definitely game for that!

      • Pseudonym

        Does Portland even have a South Bay?

      • Amanda in the South Bay

        I’m a native Oregonian who spent the last 11 years in CA before moving back to Portland in March. Bay Area housing prices, you know? Its a Make a good tech salary or be married to/BFF someone who does world down there. My tech salary certainly wasn’t good enough for the Bay.

        • Although pretty soon, that’s Portland too, sadly.

          • Amanda in the South Bay

            Yep, I’m extremely aware of that. I’m enjoying a massive quality of life increase from the Bay, and I do worry about me being part of the displacement (though I think my tech salary is a bit on the low end). At least I can claim to be a native, not a true transplant from CA.

      • Amanda in the South Bay

        I was Berniecurious last winter for a variety of reasons, but that phase didn’t last very long. I pretty much lost my enthusiasm for him right around NV/SC, when it confirmed my instincts that he’d be a poor general election candidate, and that a lot of Berniebusters didn’t realize the the media (and Trump) only fluffed Bernie up to create a rat race.

  • veleda_k

    But has Clinton sent each Sanders supporter roses and chocolate and crooned Barry Manilow at them? Why should they vote for her if she won’t court them like they deserve?!

    • wengler

      How about she appeals to them in some even miniscule way? It’s kind of how politics works.

      • You mean by moving left on a number of issues, like she’s already done?

      • ForkyMcSpoon

        Could you give examples of some “miniscule” ways she could appeal to Sanders’s supporters?

        • wjts

          As the ArchiMANdrite of the Pittsburgh Chapter of BernieBros, I’m not going to vote for Clinton unless and until she endorses a minimum wage increase, promises to nominate liberal/left Supreme Court Justices, and does a little dance for me in my living room.

  • wengler

    Every day I have more and more respect for the bloggers that decided to sit out the primary.

    Pretending there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Hillary and Bernie is disingenuous.

    • There’s a dime’s worth of difference. May even be a Kennedy half-dollar’s difference.

      But the primary is over. The question is who Bernie fans will vote for the general election. And if they don’t vote for Hillary, they are stupid.

      • Brien Jackson

        Well a) in important ways there’s no difference between how they would govern given the same Congress. They’d sign the same bills and appoint judges who would probably vote in nearly identical fashion. Their personal differences on domestic policy just don’t matter much at all in areas where Congress is involved. B) Where they are different, and where it could make a difference, is in areas where I don’t know that it actually weighs in Sanders’ favor. Say executive branch appointments. Is Sanders’ going to go outside of the box and appoint a bunch of outsiders with no administrative experience to key roles? Maybe that gets you a new perspective, but it also gets you a bunch of people who have no idea how to run the federal bureaucracy. Coupled with Sanders own seeming lack of interest in administration and detail, I remain convinced that a Sanders Presidency remains likely to be an administrative disaster. On foreign policy, Sanders may be less hawkish, but it’s not clear to me that that really outweighs his ignorance and lack of interest in geopolitics.

    • sharculese

      Good thing nobody’s done that. Literally every single post here has talked about the relative merits of the two, and how to weigh the pros and cons. So far 13 million of us made that calculation and decided we liked Hillary’s pros better. That’s a thing that happened. We don’t necessarily think Sanders is in any way bad, although some might, but all of us made our choice, and this is how things sorted out. It’s time to start dealing with the reality of that.

      • ForkyMcSpoon

        YOU’RE NOT COUNTING MY VOTE. I haven’t made my choice yet!

        This primary ain’t over until DC votes. Don’t disenfranchise me with your pronouncements.

      • wjts

        So far 13 million of us made that calculation and decided we liked Hillary’s pros better.

        I refuse to have the direction of my party dictated by a mere 13 million neoliberal sellouts like you and my grandmother (with her paltry 60+ years of activity in Democratic politics).

    • witlesschum

      I think the way they’d actually govern given the restraints of a Republican House would probably be very similar, yes.

It is main inner container footer text