Home / General / It is Not Surprising That the People Most Vulnerable to a Trump Presidency See Greater Urgency In Electing Clinton

It is Not Surprising That the People Most Vulnerable to a Trump Presidency See Greater Urgency In Electing Clinton

Comments
/
/
/
891 Views

10391723_560816264371_2710097140891757586_n

Apparently there was a discussion in a thread I missed about this Deadspin post, which I also found striking. The response of the Jezebel staffers is perfect, but I’ll add some imperfect analysis. One strand of thought among the Deadspin staffers was that voting is kinda work so while we might grudgingly concede that a competent moderate liberal might be the very slightest smidgen preferable to a radically inept white nationalist authoritarian heading a party that’s looking to restore America’s political economy to the 19th century we’d prefer to free ride on the work of others (some of whom have to line up for hours with work schedules considerably less flexible than that of the typical journalist) to keep him out of office:

Voting’s for squares.

If I lived in a swing state I would hold my nose and do so;

I will not be voting for one of the candidates for president, since I don’t live in a swing state and I don’t agree with any of the platforms and policies of anyone on the ballot.

This is not an adolescent rebellion against the concept of voting, or a Naderite rejection of lesser-evilism. It does sound very self-indulgent and “I don’t have a TV”-ish to announce that I’m not sure if I’ll vote, but Marchman asked, and it’s the truth. It may be even more self-indulgent to cast a pointless symbolic vote, either for or against Clinton, than to not bother either way….I’m aware that if everyone else in safe Democratic states thought like me, Democrats would lose every election. Thankfully, most people in safe Democratic states don’t think like me, giving me the luxury to do so.

I will observe that this atomist-consumer analysis of voting is very similar to that of Reason editors, although it flows much more logically from libertarian premises than lefter-than-thou-and-thou-and-most-definitely-thou ones.

Another strand was people who decided to vote for Clinton but had to engage in a lot of hand-wringing about it, much of it risible on its own terms:

Hillary Clinton, a center-right corporatist and war hawk whose record and allegiances, where they are not actively hostile to most of what I care about most deeply in my capacity as a citizen, at best only happen here and there upon a fitful, accidental, momentary quasi-agreement both sides find distasteful.Then I will tell myself that this act of fearful ad-hoc cooperative dam-plugging purchases for me some accountability from either her administration or her broader brand of wan un-Republicanism that I may cash in at some later date, like a Good Little Leftist, when actually all it will have accomplished is assuring the Democratic Party establishment that they can continue winning my vote in the smallest possible margin between themselves and a Republican Party Nazifying at warp speed unto eternity.

I view her as the candidate of a discredited and exhaustingly long-lived center-right faction

The idea that, in the context of American politics, Hillary Clinton is “center-right” is absolutely absurd. The idea that there is merely the “smallest possible margin” between the two major parties in 2016 is embarrassingly foolish. And it’s not a coincidence that it was only male staffers who were engaged in either the “voting is for suckers” line or the ostentatious nose-holding that grossly distorts the actual political history and positioning of Hillary Clinton. #Notallmen of course, but no women is the most telling point.

As some commenters noted, the parallels with Dave’s experiences canvassing in West Dayton are obvious. There’s nothing remotely surprising or unusual in discovering that all things being equal African-Americans are more likely to be focused on the urgency of keeping a white nationalist authoritarian leading the party of vote suppression out of office than similarly situated white people. And it’s not surprising that with (inter alia) Roe v. Wade on the ballot although you’d barely know it from media coverage that treated Donald Trump’s extensive history of misogynist words and conduct as at worst the equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s email management, all things being equal women are more likely to be focused on the urgency of electing Clinton. Needless to say, there’s nothing remotely condescending about pointing any of this out; it would indeed be surprising if it wasn’t true.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • thequeso

    Say what you will about Burneko, but his ragu recipe is to die for.

    • Halloween Jack

      Pareene used to be a reliably good writer.

      • XTPD

        I still think Scott should swipe the Hack List for this year’s election coverage.

      • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

        That Pareene piece hit my limit for insufferability at sentence #2…which is about par for the course, I find.

      • ColBatGuano

        Hey, that was a well written justification for laziness.

    • Colin Day

      So was Mary Malloy’s.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Burneko’s food writing is excellent and his hoops writing seems good to my untrained eye.

  • D.N. Nation

    And Pareene’s transition to being worthy of his old Hack List is now complete. Good job, Big Al.

    Eloi of the left, all of those types.

    • Jewish Steel

      What happened to that kid? He went from funny and thoughtful to insufferable chin-stroking dorm room professor in such a short space of time.

      • Halloween Jack

        Maybe the failure first of Racket and then of Gawker after he came crawling back to it broke something in him.

  • Dilan Esper

    So first you spend 8 years on this blog saying that people have to vote the lesser of two evils.

    And then you get upset at them for actually saying they are voting for Hillary because she’s the lesser of two evils.

    Look, Scott. Lots and lots of people don’t think Hillary’s going to be nearly as good a President as you do. Many of them are on the right and voting for Trump or someone else, but a lot of them are on the left and think she’s a corporatist and a hawk and is too centrist. Because you know what? She is a corporatist and a hawk. And it’s debatable if she’s a centrist or a liberal. She’s feinted towards both in the past.

    When you criticize these voters, you are being exactly what you despise, a purity pony. You are saying that not only must we vote for the candidate that reflects your center-left ideology, but we must do so without criticizing her or saying that we would like a better candidate.

    She got my vote, she’s the lesser of two evils, and I think she is likely to be a terrible President, and I wish that I didn’t have to vote for her.

    • kped

      Yeah, but no one really gives a crap what you think (because you’ve been very helpful in showing why it’s not worth anyones times to give a crap what you think).

    • D.N. Nation

      And then you get upset at them

      I think you’re reading emotion into an argument that isn’t there.

      • Just_Dropping_By

        The term “risible” and the choice of photo to illustrate the post carry no emotional component? Hoo-kay….

        • D.N. Nation

          Okey dokey.

        • (((Hogan)))

          Mockery is an emotion?

    • Lord Jesus Perm

      Huh. Didn’t know Burneko posted here.

    • Murc

      And then you get upset at them for actually saying they are voting for Hillary because she’s the lesser of two evils.

      No, Dilan. Scott is upset at them for being grotesquely wrong. For not having a good grasp of the facts.

      Lots and lots of people don’t think Hillary’s going to be nearly as good a President as you do.

      I’m one of those people and, somehow, I manage to get along with Scott just fine.

      You are saying that not only must we vote for the candidate that reflects your center-left ideology, but we must do so without criticizing her or saying that we would like a better candidate.

      This is bullshit.

      Scott is doing nothing of the sort. What Scott is doing is simple: he is telling people that they are wrong and/or bad.

      You yourself do this on a daily basis. You did it in the comment I am replying to. Why do you get to tell people they are wrong and Scott does not?

      You could, of course, simply make the argument that Scott himself is wrong. This is different from accusing him of doing things he is not doing.

      • BiloSagdiyev

        What Scott is doing is simple: he is telling people that they are wrong and/or bad.

        Other than cat pictures, I’m pretty sure that this is what the internet was built for!

        • Just_Dropping_By

          According to Banky Edwards, it’s for slandering others anonymously.

          • BiloSagdiyev

            Wait, are you saying there’s a lot less goat fucking going on than I have been led to believe?

        • Origami Isopod
          • BiloSagdiyev

            Dang. And I forgot this, too.

      • Dilan Esper

        Scott is doing nothing of the sort. What Scott is doing is simple: he is telling people that they are wrong and/or bad.

        “Bad” is different than “wrong”.

        He’s calling people “bad”. “Risible”. For what? Not for voting against his beloved possibly centrist corporatist hawk. But for SAYING that she’s a centrist corporatist hawk.

        That is NOT “risible”. It is NOT bad. It is exactly what he has asked for, over and over again, for 8 years. For leftists who disagree with him to vote for his preferred candidate.

        So now, instead of “thank you for your support”, he calls them “risible”. Because anyone who disagrees with Scott– especially anyone to his left– is “risible”.

        • Scott Lemieux

          But for SAYING that she’s a centrist corporatist hawk.

          And once again you flat-out lie about what they actually argued!

          For leftists who disagree with him

          And this is also complete bullshit. On what issue is Burneko or Marchman to my left?

        • Murc

          He’s calling people “bad”.

          Yes he is. That’s allowed. He might be wrong, but that’s allowed.

          It is exactly what he has asked for, over and over again, for 8 years. For leftists who disagree with him to vote for his preferred candidate.

          No. This isn’t what Scott has been asking for. At all. In any way, shape, or form. This is a grotesque misrepresentation of his argument.

          • Scott Lemieux

            Yes he is. That’s allowed.

            No I’m not, actually. I criticized arguments.

        • Pseudonym

          Another strand was people who decided to vote for Clinton but had to engage in a lot of hand-wringing about it, much of it risible on its own terms:

          He’s calling people “bad”. “Risible”.

          It’s your reading comprehension that’s risible here, Dilan.

    • Venerable Monk

      I’m noticing a conspicuous lack of topics like reproductive rights, environmental issues, workers’ rights, and healthcare in your estimation of Clinton as being too centrist. Do none of these things have a place in your calculation of Clinton’s politics?

      • Lord Jesus Perm

        No.

        SATSQ.

      • Yes, this.

      • FlipYrWhig

        Mostly just the “corporatism,” like that thing she did with the corporations, and the “hawkishness,” like all those wars she started to teach pissant countries a lesson.

        • Venerable Monk

          Ah yes. I had forgotten that Clinton is an unrepentant, revenge-seeking imperialist who somehow claimed the powers of commander-in-chief during the Bush years. My mistake.

          • FlipYrWhig

            Worst Imperialist EVAR is basically a tie between her and King Leopold.

          • lunaticllama

            You forgot the 4 years when she usurped the powers of commander-in-chief during Obama’s administration, and the 8 years when she got started by pushing aside her husband. If she wins, 2017 will basically be the start of her 21st year as commander-in-chief.

            • Colin Day

              If she wins, 2017 will basically be the start of her 21st year as commander-in-chief.

              See, she has experience.

        • DW

          Mostly just the “corporatism,”

          She’s in the hands of BIG ABORTION!!!!

          • Stephen Reineccius

            +1

          • Origami Isopod

            As we all know, Planned Parenthood is The Establishment®.

      • cpinva

        “I’m noticing a conspicuous lack of topics like reproductive rights, environmental issues, workers’ rights, and healthcare in your estimation of Clinton as being too centrist. Do none of these things have a place in your calculation of Clinton’s politics?”

        but, but………….she doesn’t have a penis!

      • Dilan Esper

        I’m noticing a conspicuous lack of topics like reproductive rights, environmental issues, workers’ rights, and healthcare in your estimation of Clinton as being too centrist.

        I was careful not to say she was too centrist, only that there’s an argument that she is.

        And you are cherry picking just like you accuse me of doing. Bombing foreign countries, taking money from Goldman Sachs and Saudi Arabia, opposing deregulation of high finance, and supporting trade agreements are all important issues just like the ones you list.

        • PJ

          Dingbat:

          – if you’re struggling to find and/or pay for an abortion of a baby that you can’t afford to raise, or end of up raising that child, you will hardly find the time to care about any of that other stuff

          – if you’re struggling from minimum wage to job to minimum wage job because you can’t pay for a college degree, you are not going to consider ME foreign policy to be an issue to pay attention to and protest against

          – if you struggle to pay for healthcare, you are not going to pay attention to what Wall Street is or isn’t getting away with in the finance sector

          The problem with you white male leftists is economic/FP issues aren’t considered as such unless they come dressed in super obvious garb. And/or you really believe that us women and brown folk should leave it all up to you and not worry about it, so it’s not worth empowering us to help you do things.

    • So first you spend 8 years on this blog saying that people have to vote the lesser of two evils.

      And then you get upset at them for actually saying they are voting for Hillary because she’s the lesser of two evils.

      Not all “lesser of two evils” arguments (which is the formulation you use- to my knowledge Scott does not and has not used it in earnest) are created equal. Here are two arguments that you would class as “lesser of two evils” arguments:

      1) “While I don’t agree with all her policies, she is by far the best of the options on the ballot, so I have no hesitation in voting for Clinton”

      2) “I hate Clinton’s neoliberal warmongering guts and the Democratic Party is scarcely better than the Republicans but I guess she is still marginally preferable to an unstable bigoted authoritarian bully with a history of shady business practices….so I guess I’ll have to vote for Clinton”

      You may disagree with Scott’s take on 2). But just because you put both 1 and 2 in the category of “lesser evil” arguments doesn’t mean anyone else is required to treat them as being equally worthy arguments. Each has to be defended on their own merits.

      • Dilan Esper

        But he didn’t simply say it was a bad argument. He said people who vote for Clinton on that ground are “risible”.

        • Scott Lemieux

          He said people who vote for Clinton on that ground are “risible”.

          No Dilan. I called arguments — and, contrary to your incompetent and/or dishonest reading, arguments, not people — that Hillary Clinton is “center-right” or that there’s almost no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties in 2016 risible. Which they obviously are, which is why you won’t defend them and prefer to defend other, more defensible claims the writers in question didn’t make.

    • ColBatGuano

      Perhaps a nap would help.

    • Scott Lemieux

      And then you get upset at them for actually saying they are voting for Hillary because she’s the lesser of two evils.

      No. This reading is, at best, incompetent. You’ll note that I raise no objection to Hamilton Nolan, who expects to be extremely critical of a Clinton presidency but says he’ll vote for her without undue drama and — read carefully, this is important – is able to criticize her from the left without describing her as a crypto-Republican or claiming that the parties are nearly indistinguishable. I did not criticize anyone for voting for Clinton as a lesser evil. I criticized them for 1)proudly not voting or 2)making factual claims that are transparently wrong.

      And it’s debatable if she’s a centrist or a liberal.

      And, here, your argument becomes flat-out dishonest. The two writers quoted here didn’t call her a “centrist.” They called her “center-right.” I don’t actually think centrist is really defensible either — her Senate record is to the left of the median Democratic senator, her platform arguably the most liberal in the history of the party. But “center-right” is just idiotic.

      • Dilan Esper

        I agree with you that on my scale she’s not center-right. She’s either center or center-left.

        But it’s important to remember that there’s no absolute definition of left and right. If you are far enough to the left, everyone is to the right. So I don’t think a person is an idiot just because they view her as center-right– and I certainly don’t find such a person “risible”.

        And I have one other point. You get really mad at left wingers for not being a good coalition member. But you are a terrible coalition member. You trash people whom you want to do your bidding.

        Stop hating the left. Stop trying to force them not to say things you don’t like. Stop trashing them all the time. There’s no reason why these people have any obligation to support your lousy presidential candidates at all, but they are doing so. Say “thank you”. Say “I may disagree with you but I appreciate that you voted for her”.

        Maybe if center-left types like yourself didn’t hippie punch so much, you might not have such a big problem with left-wing defections.

        And it isn’t though left wingers are the only people who have ever gotten their facts wrong. I remember a time when a lot of black people thought the CIA caused AIDS. I still wanted them to vote for liberal candidates. And I didn’t call them risible.

        • (((Hogan)))

          Stop trying to force them not to say things you don’t like.

          This gets back to another of Scott’s actual, not-made-up complaints: the relentless self-dramatization.

        • Scott Lemieux

          I agree with you that on my scale she’s not center-right. She’s either center or center-left.

          There is no scale relevant to American politics in which Hillary Clinton is “center-right.” It is not a defensible claim, which is presumably why you didn’t defend it and lied about what they said instead. But, alas, now you have absolutely nothing, since I did not disagree with anybody for voting for the lesser evil or for criticizing Hillary Clinton.

          Stop hating the left.

          As noted above, and has been noted many times with zero substantive response from you, this is utter bullshit. This is not an ideological dispute. It never has been. “There is virtually no difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties” is not a “left” argument. It is a “stupid” argument. And, to state the obvious, my politics are not “center-left” in the American political spectrum.

        • Origami Isopod

          Stop hating the left.

          Who is “the left,” Dilan? Does it include all the progressives who are voting for HRC? Or is it mainly Berniebros who are too pure to stain their hands at the voting booth?

          • Scott Lemieux

            I think he means David Brooks. Noam Chomsky and Harry Belafonte are neoliberals.

        • delazeur

          I certainly don’t find such a person “risible”.

          And I didn’t call them risible.

          You are deliberately mischaracterizing Scott’s statement. He very clearly described hand-wringing as risible, not the people doing it.

  • Craigo

    That’s ice cold, Jezebel.

    • kped

      Once again, white men showing their asses…I cringe for my combination of race/gender…

      Honestly, white guys need to take a knee for a bit, sit a few plays out, listen to other people and their concerns.

      • Steve LaBonne

        Especially since it’s African American voters who have been saving all of us from disaster since 2008. We owe them not just thanks, but very, very humble thanks.

        • scott_theotherone

          And, apparently this year, Latino/Hispanic voters. This particular middle-aged white guy is very, very grateful to all the demographics that don’t look like me.

          • BubbaDave

            + 1 taco truck on every corner

      • Just_Dropping_By

        The Deadspin writer who said “Voting’s for squares” was Bill Haisley who would appear to be African-American from his profile pic (https://kinja.com/billyhaisley), but thanks for playing.

        • thequeso

          Billy Haisley has terrible soccer opinions.

          • XTPD

            I liked his Sean Price obituary, but that’s about it from him (he also seems to think Young Thug>>>>>>Travis Scott & preaches the Lil B gospel, because Pitchfork). FWIW, I initially interpreted the “voting’s for squares” like as an (admittedly shitty) joke.

            • thequeso

              Ditto.

              That being said, Lil B sucks too.

              • XTPD

                Sean P was one of the three best rappers in the Boot Camp Clik, along with Starang Wondah & Buckshot, and it sucks that he died relatively young.

                As for Travis & Thugger, my main problem is that Jeffery is such an obviously flawed artist that most of the really effusive praise he’s gotten feels at best a result of wokehacking – i.e., using transvestitism as a gimmick to soften up criticism, even though it doesn’t reflect at all in his music – and worst transparently ironic Pitchfork-level bullshit. (The most I’ll grant it is that Thug sounds like an ODB retread, but without even good ghostwritten lyrics and significantly worse singing ability*). Which makes the criticism of Rodeo as a Jeffery knockoff from some circles (Paisley, Passion of the Weiss’ DocZeus) especially rich: Either it succeeded in pushing Thugger-style rap to its furthest artistic boundaries, or his cheap cash-in succeeds in ripping’ off y’all wizzle-dick muthafuckas and makin’ ya look like punk-asses).

                *ODB does the singing in the background, and also did a cover of “Good Morning Heartache”).

              • Craigo

                Do not offend the basedgod.

        • kped

          Cool. Was I discussing that one comment? No? So what is your point? That “not all white men”? That “sometimes blacks”?

          “yo, i’m going to write a black guy said something, and I’m going to own the internet so hard!”

          Child.

          • Just_Dropping_By’s entire schtick is to parachute into threads, drop a couple of “gotcha, looney libs!!!” truth bombs, and then run away. It’s like a tomcat spraying random objects to mark his territory, only dumber.

            • Pseudonym

              Although I have to confess that I’m a fan of self-descriptive pseudonyms.

        • El Guapo

          I know nothing about Haisley other than his shitty soccer takes. Is he American?

  • If Pennsylvania goes for Trump, I hope Marchman gets his “safe state” bullshit rubbed in his face every day for the rest of his life.

    • thequeso

      I read that yesterday and I was pretty close to incredulous. It’s “safe”, now.

    • kped

      Sure…but I’d rather that didn’t happen.

  • Brett

    The Concourse has turned into Gawker 2.0, so it’s about what I expect. Good on Jezebel for that response.

  • Lord Jesus Perm

    See also: the way white journalists have covered this election versus non-white ones.

    The last year and a half’s been pretty damn revealing, and not in a good way. Defeating Trump is obviously priority #1, but I think liberals have some major soul searching to do after this one.

    • Jay B

      Why’s that? Liberals have done OK this election. Some BernieBros not withstanding.

      • tsam

        It’s been far more than BernieBros. It mostly has to do with impassioned pleas or threats of peril for not empathizing with Trump’s base, because some people are fucking stupid enough to think there’s more to those people than white supremacy and other types of bigotry.

        A whole bunch of white writers have done a lot of useless beard stroking over this–which can’t be anything other than completely fucking insulting to black people.

        • efgoldman

          some people are fucking stupid enough to think there’s more to those people than white supremacy and other types of bigotry.

          But there is. There’s lots more to these people than that. Why, there’s unfathomable ignorance and unbelievable stupidity.

          • tsam

            I STAND CORRECTED.

            But still, this WONT SUM1 THINK OF THE POOR DOWNTRODDEN RACISTS THEY LOOSED THERE JOBZ BECAUSE DEMONRATS CHINA business is so fucking tiresome.

            I sort of wish we still did in-person voting, because I’d really love to come across a fucker with gun intimidating people and give that motherfucker a reality check.

  • Alex.S

    Jeb Lund’s latest Deadspin rant has to get in digs at Hillary for being the “most conservative Democratic candidate in a generation” and that raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour is equivalent to keeping the current minimum wage.

    Of course, the real problem with Hillary’s campaign, according to Jeb Lund, is that it was such an anti-Trump campaign. Weird how he got that message while insisting that nothing Hillary proposed counted.

    • Rob in CT

      This person presumably knows that the present minimum wage is $7.25…

      LOL, 65% increase or no increase, same difference LOL

    • D.N. Nation

      I look forward to the Bro Pair follow-up piece that’s essentially “everything Jeb Lund wrote was awesome and great!”.

    • kped

      Who is this even aimed at:

      Anyone who didn’t feel it at some point was probably a dead-souled hack who made the election journey from behind a computer to in front of a camera and probably can’t reply to Chris Matthews when John Podesta or Robby Mook are drinking glasses of water. They know who they are, and now no one with a job outside a campaign staff will ever trust them again to even give directions.

      Seems to be against some Clinton supporter (otherwise the ventriloquist thing with Mook and Podesta doesn’t make sense).

      God i hate so many people…and they so very much deserve it.

      And fuck everyone who whines about negative campaigns. They work. Deal with it.

      • BiloSagdiyev

        And some people deserve negative campaigns, because of all the things they have said and done. Why, if you took all of the horrible things Trump has said in public and compiled them into…oh wait, actual TV ads.

      • Alex.S

        Turns out that anyone who supported Clinton as a pundit was merely a puppet of the shadowy Clinton conspiracy.

      • Origami Isopod

        The people who whine about negative campaigns are also the people who complain that politics is too negative and uncivil and we should all get along and Mommy and Daddy should really stop fighting because it makes them very very sad.

        • BiloSagdiyev

          Mommy and daddy stop fighting! (plugs ears)

          Why can’t we all just agree to be excellent to each other? And compromise?

          Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m late for dinner. It’s half a flaming tire and some anthrax!

    • gccolby

      This guy must in great shape from all the moving goalposts around. Those things are heavy.

    • mongolia

      skimmed the article, and holy hell were those paragraphs about dems and hrc just – nonsensical. i mean, jeb is good at turning a phrase, but intra-left politic analysis really is not his strong suit, and that line about “most conservative Democratic candidate in a generation” should disqualify you from providing serious political analysis.

      the fact that there’s nothing written about how she won’t be allowed to do anything because of the house and senate is telling. it’s all “she didn’t try hard enough” or “her policies were too neoliberal for True Progressives (TM) to show up.” nothing about constraints on the office, checks and balances, the median ideology/partisan affiliation of the country – my god, imagine what would happen to him if bernie ended up president in a squeaker. if the brotastic part of the bernie-voting population hadn’t already disavowed him for trying to appeal to hrc primary voters, their collective freakout after a 15 $ min wage not passing after a BLISTERING SPEECH he gives using The Bully Pulpit (TM) would be a sight to behold.

      • FlipYrWhig

        See, the Bully Pulpit is sort of like Excalibur. Only the right person has the power to wield it properly.

        • efgoldman

          See, the Bully Pulpit is sort of like Excalibur.

          And you have to use a green lantern at the same time to see what you’re doing.

    • thequeso

      I very happily intentionally forgot about Jeb Lund right around the de-Bruenig-ing when I decided to stop listening to increasingly annoying leftists on Twitter. BroPair too.

      I am sad he is back in my internet field of vision.

      • XTPD

        You didn’t happen to follow Dan Denvir, did you?

      • mongolia

        it’s like those guys (thinking mobute, bropair, billmon, breunig, etc.) are in a competition to see whose best at intentionally misunderstanding the caricature they created of their “opponents” – typically liberal non-whites and/or females

    • most conservative Democratic candidate in a generation

      OK, I’m trying to make sense of this. “Generation” is a vague term. I don’t think it’s true in any case; Clinton’s platform is to the left of any Democratic platform in decades, including Obama’s; her record in the Senate is similar to Kerry’s and substantially more progressive than Gore’s.

      But let’s say “generation” means 20 years. That seems reasonable, right? That means we’re including Bill Clinton. You know, the guy whose administration provides most of the “evidence” for Hillary’s supposed conservatism. And we’re talking 1996 “end welfare as we know it”, “era of big government is over” Bill Clinton. Cruise missile diplomacy Bill Clinton. Streamlining the death penalty Bill Clinton. DOMA Bill Clinton. Gramm-Leach-Billey Bill Clinton.

      The guy whose administration provides all the “evidence” for Hillary’s conservatism in the first damn place.

      Anyone who claims that Hillary Clinton in 2016 is a more conservative candidate than Bill Clinton in 1996 is a goddamn liar. I’m not even going to leave space for “idiot” there.

      • Lord Jesus Perm

        Most of his ilk have yet to realize that Bill and Hillary are in fact two different people.

        • mongolia

          don’t be silly. of course everyone knows a president’s wife can have no opinions of her own, and in reality has identical beliefs to her husband in all matters

        • tsam

          Most of his ilk have yet to realize that Bill and Hillary are in fact two different people.

          Well, YOU try being a lazy shit who doesn’t want to challenge your own prejudices and see if you can tell the difference.

      • Venerable Monk

        Thank you for this. I had similar feelings, but could not muster such a collected and factual reply. It seems the term “generation” as used here selectively excludes any other democratic candidates from the past calendar term that any sane person would label a generation.

      • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

        I love this formulation – it’s like, “Hillary Clinton: responsible for all the bad of Bill Clinton, with none of the good things things Hillary Clinton did. Or Bill Clinton.”

        • Craigo

          “Hillary Clinton: responsible for all the bad of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, with none of the good things things Hillary Clinton did. Or Bill Clinton.”

      • ColBatGuano

        I eagerly await his explanation of how John Kerry was far to Clinton’s left when he ran in 2004. I’ll need popcorn.

        • Scott Lemieux

          And that really is the tell. There’s wasn’t a fraction of the dudebro outrage about Kerry, who was literally a member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition. One of the Chapo Trap House boyz recently argued that Hillary Clinton’s wealth was a legitimate issue while Kerry’s wasn’t because getting rich selling ketchup was OK but getting rich through interest default swaps wasn’t.

      • efgoldman

        Anyone who claims that Hillary Clinton in 2016 is a more conservative candidate than Bill Clinton in 1996 is a goddamn liar.

        Not necessarily. They could believe they are truth-telling and just be plain stupid as a bushel basket of potatoes.

        • I considered including that option but rejected it, because the vast majority of “evidence” for HRC’s conservatism comes from her association with Bill.

      • (((Hogan)))

        “Generation” is a vague term.

        Think of it as meaning “since I started paying attention.”

        • Craigo

          So generation = 15 months, or about how long ago Sanders declared his candidacy.

      • Alex.S

        It’s not just that — it also assumes that Hillary Clinton’s views are static from approximately 1992. It’s not that Clinton is conservative, it’s that their vague memory of Hillary Clinton is as someone who is more conservative (look at all the conservative things that happened during Bill’s administration!) and that she can’t change.

        From my perspective, Hillary Clinton is slightly more liberal than Barack Obama in 2016. And Obama is significantly more liberal than Obama from 2008.

        • Scott Lemieux

          That’s not how politics work! Political leaders have fixed, immutable views and the nature of their coalitions and constituencies is irrelevant. Lyndon Johnson was a conservative Democrat in the Senate, and that’s how he governed as president. Everyone knows this.

    • CP

      Jeb Lund’s latest Deadspin rant has to get in digs at Hillary for being the “most conservative Democratic candidate in a generation” and that raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour is equivalent to keeping the current minimum wage.

      Ah, fuck him.

      I’m in a part of the country where that actually would only be a $1.00 increase, and you know what, I’d be fucking happy to have the extra cash. Other parts of the country where it’s even lower, even more so.

      Yes, I’d much rather it be $15.00. Yes, we can and should still keep working towards that. No, it’s not inherently wrong to accept a lesser increase that’s still a significant…

      … oh, fucking hell, why do I even bother?

      • tsam

        I’m in a part of the country where that actually would only be a $1.00 increase, and you know what, I’d be fucking happy to have the extra cash. Other parts of the country where it’s even lower, even more so.

        yeah–I’m thinking the difference between 7.25 and 8.25 is HUGE to people who use every damn penny they earn just to get by, and any unexpected expense blows the budget to pieces.

    • Origami Isopod

      Arrayed against all of the above were Hillary Clinton and the sex-positive and diversity-promoting Democratic oligarchy. They wanted Trump for an opponent the first moment it seemed possible, and it’s not hard to see why. Trump obviated the need for anything beyond his opposite.

      And, on the left, even if we do not see a “reconstitution of organized labor as a multiracial and intersectional movement of men and women”…. [Jackoff Bin link omitted]

      Fuck this guy.

  • This is not an adolescent rebellion against the concept of voting, or a Naderite rejection of lesser-evilism.

    Fine, you’re just a dick.

    • Stephen Reineccius

      Praise!

  • thequeso

    The women of Gizmodo Media are going HAM on the Deadspin idiots

    My other favorite moment was when the Internet dunked on my idiot male coworkers. – Ashley Feinberg

    My other favorite moment was when the Internet dunked on my idiot male coworkers. – Lindsey Adler

    My other favorite moment was when the Internet dunked on my idiot male coworkers. – Diana Moskovitz

    My other favorite moment was when the internet dunked on my idiot male coworkers. – Hannah Keyser

    • Jordan

      lol, that is also great.

    • kped

      Oh god that is beautiful. I wonder how the guys are taking it, other than smelling each others farts for comfort.

      • Craigo

        Mansplaining the fuck out of everything, I imagine.

    • The women of GM are, as the kids say, giving me life right now.

    • Origami Isopod

      And the Deadspin guys are getting snarked hard in comments…

      Every dude in this post (except Drew) is that tedious asshole in your undergrad polisci seminar who won’t shut up about how they *get* politics and you don’t.

      *

      I’m not voting out of protest because no one from the DNC personally came to my house and blew me.”

      *

      Really wish we’d drop this “my vote doesn’t count” stuff in the election where one side is actively trying to delegitimize the result preemptively and the popular vote difference may be a mitigating factor.

      • Origami Isopod

        Oh, and speaking of Gizmodo, some feel-good news: a lot of the 4chan goons are unable to vote for their Stern Daddy today… because they have no idea how voting works. Including the fact that you have to register beforehand.

        • XTPD

          Fascist frog tears are the most delicious (also mentioned this downthread).

        • blackbox

          Those comments are just trolling/LARPing, though. I don’t doubt there are alt-right idiots who don’t understand voting, but those crying_frog.jpg threads are by and large not real. Also, one should say /pol/ when discussing /pol/, not “4chan.”

          • sparks

            The funnier article is actually just below, where it’s said 4chan is going broke over adblocking.

          • Origami Isopod

            Heavens, we wouldn’t want the entire site full of creepy neckbeards to be tarred with the same brush, would we?

            I lurk there myself sometimes, but the only thing I have less patience for than “Not all of Reddit is like that!!” is “Not all of 4chan is like that!!”

            • Craigo

              “Not all of Stormfront think the Holocaust was a good thing. Some think it didn’t happen at all!”

            • blackbox

              Both of those statements are true, even if you write them in a way that implies distraught hand wringing.

        • Captain Oblivious

          You also have to be at least 18.

    • Halloween Jack

      going HAM

      hard-ass motherfucker?

    • tsam

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=571BuZeeQjE

      Why your idiot coworkers cryin’?

  • Anyone have a link to the original discussion thread referenced in the OP?

    • (((Hogan)))

      It’s in the first line of the OP.

    • Scott Lemieux

      I actually don’t know which thread it was — anybody?

  • XTPD

    On the lighter side of the darker side…

  • Ronan

    Well, going from this

    http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

    It seems White and black.turnout is similar(historically). Both vote at greater rates than Latinos(perhaps this is due to voting restriction on recent migrants?)
    The wealthier turn out in greater numbers than the poor. So the premise of this post is arguable.
    How much can you generalise from media banter?(which is a conversation of the privileged, and positions are as likely driven by professional and social relationships )

  • Related: this twitter thread about the “enthusiasm gap”, and how it frequently seems to reflect the prejudices of male journalists who simply don’t seem able to grasp how much the ability to vote for a woman means to women voters, and how much Clinton herself represents the cost and demands of achieving anything in a misogynistic system.

    • petesh

      If the li'l ladies really cared about politics ... No, I can’t be sarcastic about it. The misogyny is deep, so deep that many people cannot even admit they suffer from it, just as the racism that infected responses to Obama was hard to name and face. HRC is tough, and she’s going to have to be tough, but at least she has Obama’s excellent example to follow.

      • Origami Isopod

        I’m reminded of all the self-important male political bloggers who used to tell feminist bloggers in the previous decade, “You really ought to blog about real politics.”

    • CP

      The best observation I’ve heard this election cycle is that Hillary Clinton voters have been hands-down the most under-reported, under-covered, under-analyzed, under-rated voters in this election cycle. (Quite a testament to the actual biases of the “liberal” media).

      And that’s mind-boggling when you consider that we were the single biggest chunk of voters in the primaries, and also that this is mostly the same coalition as Obama’s, which won the last two elections in a row.

      • FlipYrWhig

        But loud rallies are the quintessence of politics! Without them, how would we know who was excited and who had momentum? “Asking lots of people” and “tabulating the results” aren’t really the kind of thing a self-respecting journalist does.

        • CP

          It’s exactly the sort of thing a self-respecting journalist does.

          It is not, alas, the sort of thing a self-respecting pundit does.

      • blackbox

        Hillary Clinton voters have been covered some, voters a lot like the hand wringy idiots quoted in the OP. Hillary Clinton supporters have been completely ignored. Yet another component of the pathetic and systemic MSM failure this cycle.

    • Enthusiasm Gap articles are crap and pure projection.

    • Bruce B.

      I love a good vivid demonstration of what I’ve known for some time, about just how much of America’s problems come from male journalists in a little bubble not being able to – or interested in – seeing outside it.

  • ironic irony

    Can we just give these muthafuckas each a stuffed purity pony so the adults can do the actual work of governing and ensurin that democracy works? So tired of their bullshit.

    • CP

      If you give a muthafucka a pony, he’s gonna want a unicorn.

  • John Selmer Dix

    Scott, I think the story is not as clear-cut as you make it seem. I’m going to address the young (< 30 years old) electorate, because I have polls handy in front of me. Given the precarious financial situation of the young, the compounding and long-term effects of a bad presidency, as well as their likelihood to experience the worst effects of climate change, you could argue the young are the most vulnerable.

    And it’s not a coincidence that it was only male staffers who were engaged in either the “voting is for suckers” line or the ostentatious nose-holding that grossly distorts the actual political history and positioning of Hillary Clinton. #Notallmen of course, but no women is the most telling point

    This may be a significant statement about the male staffers, but not in the country as a whole. There is no evidence for a gender gap. Men and women are about equally likely to vote for Clinton across the board. In fact, while 18% of white men plan to vote for Trump, 26% of white women plan to vote for Trump.

    Given Trump’s violent anti-immigrant rhetoric, Latinos and Latinas would be very high up in the ranking of “vulnerable.” And yet, latinos support for Clinton is also strangely low, both compared to other minorities, or Latino support for Obama in previous elections (76% for Obama vs 57% for Clinton!). She is particularly having trouble with Latino women, getting only 50% of their support as opposed to 65% of Latino men.

    And to get directly to the question of not voting, we see that the percentage that claims they will not vote goes:
    Latinos: 17%
    African Americans: 12%
    Asian Americans: 10%
    Whites: 7%

    The idea that “not voting” is a sign of privilege is a moral tale, but it does not seem to actually reflect how people vote.

    • Ronan

      A convincing rebuttal

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        you are both, I think, missing the point of the post. The more vulnerable members of the electorate who are voting for Clinton are doing so without all the nose-holding with one hand and wanking with the other that is displayed not only by Esper upthread but also the Deadspin guys

        • Captain Oblivious

          This.

          These courageous brogressives want a pat on the butt and an attaboy award for their noseholdery.

          Fuck ’em.

        • John Selmer Dix

          First of all, who cares? A vote is a vote.

          Second of all, this is not true as far as my anecdotal evidence goes. I am a Latino immigrant, and while I have citizenship and financial stability, I’m friends with many Latinos who have neither, and they are not exactly Clinton megafans. I’m not a Clinton megafan either, though I cast my useless for anyway (my state will certainly go red).

          Third of all, I don’t think this is true in a broader sense, either. That same report shows that, with the exception of African Americans (who are split 50-50%), most do not think she is not trustworthy. Only 18% of whites find her trustworthy, with this number rising to 30% for Asian Americans and 34% for Latinos. I would have liked to see these numbers for only people who claim they will vote Clinton, but the report unfortunately doesn’t show that. In either case, the best Clinton seems to get is 50% trustworthy. Whether that’s “nose-holding with one hand and wanking with the other,” I’ll leave for others to decide.

          • jim, some guy in iowa

            “first of all, who cares?”

            you’d have to ask the people who want to make a point of telling anyone who’ll listen how much they dislike Clinton even as they vote for her. Are the non-megafans of your acquaintance doing that or are they just going out and voting?

            again- the point really isn’t about who is or who isn’t a megafan. It’s about who understands the stakes and do the best they can without subjecting everyone around them to their need to be recognized for it. My take on what Scott wrote, and it’s borne out by what *I’ve* seen, is that the more privilege you have the more you want to be congratulated for simple little things like “voting for the lesser evil”

            • Craigo

              My take on what Scott wrote, and it’s borne out by what *I’ve* seen, is that the more privilege you have the more you want to be congratulated for simple little things like “voting for the lesser evil”

              Like the fratbros who think they’re woke because they didn’t grope the girl who passed out at the party. Common sense and decency should be baselines, not high bars to clear.

    • Gregor Sansa

      We’ll see how well those poll numbers Bear up. I for one am skeptical.

      • John Selmer Dix

        I’m really not qualified to take these polls and propagate it into any kind of election results. In fact, given that it doesn’t distinguish by geography, I don’t see how anyone could without straitjacketing it into a model. It does, I think, give a good snapshot of voter mentality.

    • Venerable Monk

      I think the disconnect here is that Scott’s not addressing the entire electorate (or even the less than thirty electorate). He’s specifically calling out the folks who have stated publicly they won’t be voting for Clinton because [insert purity claim here]. I see no claims of this slice of humanity being representative of one race or gender, but the reverse. We do see that fretting over voting for Clinton on a leftier-than-thou basis is a fairly reliable marker for one of several axes of privilege.

      • John Selmer Dix

        That’s not how I read it. How do you read the title of this post?

        • Venerable Monk

          That’s the trouble with headlines. There’s not really enough room for the kind of nuance you can find in the body of a blog post. [Seems like a ton of privileged people are being vocal on the internet about X] implies => [relatively few people without privilege are being vocal on the internet about X], but it does not imply => [all people without privilege enthusiastically support Y]. How people vote demographically is not at issue here. It’s about how people are justifying and rationalizing their voting choices in pubic spaces, which is a different topic, and also a different subsection of the population.

          • John Selmer Dix

            How people vote demographically is not at issue here. It’s about how people are justifying and rationalizing their voting choices in pubic spaces, which is a different topic, and also a different subsection of the population.

            How do you think the 12% of African American youth or the 17% of Latinos rationalize their choice not to vote? Do you think they ever do it in public spaces?

            • Venerable Monk

              I wouldn’t know. Making observations about vague trends in hedging and rationalizing on social media isn’t a science. Obviously, the slice of people with internet access and a platform to lay down their thoughts is not perfectly representative the larger population. You may be confusing an exercise in polling with an effort to identify a noteworthy behavior and explain it.

    • xq

      In fact, while 18% of white men plan to vote for Trump, 26% of white women plan to vote for Trump.

      They say this isn’t significant, which means there sample is pretty small. It’s pretty clear there’s a gender gap among the electorate as a whole.

      • John Selmer Dix

        They claim it is “marginally statistically significant,” which I should have made mention of. My apologies for leaving that out.

    • FlipYrWhig

      And yet, latinos support for Clinton is also strangely low, both compared to other minorities, or Latino support for Obama in previous elections (76% for Obama vs 57% for Clinton!)

      If I’m not mistaken, the Clinton figures derive from polls of likely voters, while the Obama figures are from votes finally cast. That’s not an apples to apples comparison. Some of the unlikely voters will vote, and the voters who don’t vote won’t be part of the final tally. (Also, Latino millennials saying they’re for Johnson and Stein–same Table 2–seem high.)

      • John Selmer Dix

        You’re absolutely right that it is apples to oranges… I hadn’t caught that.

        Nevertheless, unless you have a good reason to believe that Latino voters are more likely than other demographics to be coy about voting for Clinton, it’s still meaningful.

        Also, why do you think the millennial Latino votes for Johnson and Stein are high? I think within error (I’m ballparkin’ here) support for Stein is flat and low across the board.

    • Scott Lemieux

      Men and women are about equally likely to vote for Clinton across the board

      What the fuck are you talking about? This is crazy.

      • efc

        Scott, I think the story is not as clear-cut as you make it seem. I’m going to address the young (< 30 years old) electorate, because I have polls handy in front of me.

        From the source John Selmer Dix posted

        As one recent news article states, “We could be looking at the largest gender gap in a presidential election since at least 1952,” as men prefer Trump to Clinton, and women strongly prefer Clinton to Trump. In contrast to that statement, we simply find no evidence of a gender gap among Millennial voters. Figure 2 below presents the percentage of young men and women, by race and ethnicity, who plan to vote for Hillary Clinton. As this Figure clearly shows, it is simply not the case among young adults that overwhelmingly women are more supportive of Hillary Clinton than men.

        Pg. 13

        • Scott Lemieux

          Oh, I see, I misread that. I still think the massive gender gap overall is far more important.

  • lhartmann

    I highly recommend the Rude Pundit’s take on why he is voting for Hillary. After noting his concern about her hawkishness and closeness to corporate interests, he spends an extremely long paragraph (maybe two sentences, but a long run-on) in which he says he is voting because of her *character*.

    that’s the way to go.

    • Yeah. I mean, I voted for Hillary because she’s the Democratic candidate; I was satisfied with voting for her because her platform is the most progressive in my lifetime; I was pleased to vote for her because she seems like a decent, hard-working person who will be guided by her conscience in using the powers of the Presidency; I was excited to vote for her because she will be the first woman President.

      She has positions I disagree with now. She will do things I disagree with once in office. Progressive Democrats need to keep pressure on her just like they have with Obama. We need more progressive Democrats in local and state governments. We need more progressive Democrats in Congress. We need more progressive activists, writers, policy wonks, and fundraisers. We need to fight vote suppression. And we need more non-electoral political/direct action movements like Black Lives Matter to make change where the political system moves too slowly and to give representation to people to whom bourgeois politics denies a seat at the table.

      All of those things are important. Doesn’t change the fact I was proud to vote for her.

      • Craigo

        +1

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        thanks for writing that

        I really don’t get it- most everyone who voted for Clinton is going to have some issue with something that she does while she’s President. that’s *politics*

      • rea

        I said something like this about Obama 8 years ago. I want a presidential candidate who will disappoint me, because anyone who agreed with me on everything would be unelectable in this country as matters presently stand.

    • Aaron Morrow
  • wengler

    Is this where we punch the most anti-Trump demographic?

    • Brien Jackson

      Over snarked white dudes with internet writing jobs?

    • Who’s talking about punching black people? What the fuck is wrong with you?

    • Scott Lemieux

      I love how “criticizing the arguments of individual writers, which a majority of their colleagues disagree with” quickly becomes “punching” a “demographic.”

  • eclare

    I insulted a stranger on Facebook for the very first time ever yesterday after he called me “precious” for pointing out that his reason for not voting – that the President is chosen by rich elitist electors rather than the people – was stupid, since the electors themselves are chosen by popular vote. I was perfectly polite and didn’t even say he was stupid, so I was pretty ticked off that his response was a condescending insult.

  • Brett

    Guess what? As if by clockwork, the Last True Honest Champion of the Left showed up in the replies of Madeleine Davies of Jezebel to tell her what’s what. Guess Freddie learned nothing from when he did that to Sadie Doyle.

    • Origami Isopod

      Assumes Freddie is capable of learning.

      • Brett

        Even I’m not that optimistic.

        • Scott Lemieux

          Given that he immediately went to his “your disagreement with my stupid arguments is an attack on The Left” shtick, we can safely say he’s learned nothing.

    • Oh my god, he is just getting smeared across the pavement.

      • Captain Oblivious

        Ducks. Barrel. Gun.

        Too easy.

      • Origami Isopod

        Not that he’ll acknowledge it.

    • TroubleMaker13

      I love how after dropping into her thread with his signature unsolicited bullshit mansplaining, and then promptly getting his ass handed to him, he flounces off with this:

      I wish that liberal Democrats would stop their relentless assault on the left.

  • Harkov311

    Wait a minute, Hillary Clinton is center-right? Compared to whom? Who would they call center-left then?

    • blackbox

      She’s center-right of King Goat’s imaginary perfect dem candidate, I guess.

      • Has our royal caprid friend even been making a recognizable ideological argument of that variety? They dismissed Sanders as been too far left to be electable, for example.

        That’s why I think “King Goat” is actually Governor Lincoln Chafee.

        • Who made him King? I didn’t vote for him…

          Besides, why do we even NEED a King Goat? I thought we were a semi-anarchist collective…

          • Origami Isopod

            Who made him King?

            Mickey Kaus.

            Kind of like Caligula and Incitatus, but with more bestiality.

        • blackbox

          That’s the magical thing about King Goat’s imaginary candidate: he is the negative space between actual candidates. Hillary is too right. Sanders is too left. The “just right” candidate exists only in his mind.

    • petesh

      Who would they call center-left then?
      Chomsky. The antediluvian sellout supports voting, even for Hillary.

    • Matt McIrvin

      Center-right on a Canadian or North European political spectrum, which people sometimes like to pretend is the world norm.

      • Craigo

        I’d actually argue that she’s centrist as far as the OECD political spectrum goes, but it’s a matter of degree. (Remember when Bayrou wanted to call his centrist party the Democrats?) In some countries you’re definitely right.

      • Scott Lemieux

        Center-right on a Canadian

        This really isn’t true. Do you seriously think that she’d oppose single-payer in a country that already had it? Northern Europe, maybe, but Clinton would be center-left in Canada.

        • Craigo

          Of course we think she’d oppose single-payer, because we, like most of the internet, have decided to forget the single biggest policy fight of Clinton’s career.

        • Steve LaBonne

          Apart from local differences in what will fly with the general electorate (eg. health care), there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the US Democrats and the Canadian Liberals.

        • Morat

          And I have to say, if you look at European center-left parties, how much opposition did they put up against austerity? Where they didn’t join in grand coalitions to implement the center-right agenda (Germany, Netherlands), they mostly just did it themselves, if slightly moderated (France, Spain).

          The Dems’ recovery plan was Keynesian. Boost infrastructure spending, expand the welfare state, extend unemployment benefits, don’t worry about inflation. And that was more or less true for Labour in the UK, but most of Europe did the opposite. 20% unemployment and <1% inflation? So what? Worry about inflation! Jack up the VAT!

          It's not an accident that the reception of SYRIZA's economic plan by center-left American economists was, "That sounds reasonable," compared to the supposed social democrats of Europe that treated it like the Greeks were calling for dekulakization. Nor is it a coincidence that support for those social democratic parties is in freefall.

          I mean, if the context of being under a pro-austerity EU means we can excuse the supposedly socialist Hollande's austerity (or Dijsselbloem's plan to confiscate insured bank deposits in Cyprus!), then why wouldn't the context of high-veto-point US excuse Clinton's nominal opposition to single payer?

  • kped

    These douche bags are insufferable:

    I wish I could say the same for many of my male loved ones and colleagues, liberal men—many of whom are white—who are all in favor of progress and moving the needle, but only, apparently, until it reaches a place where it no longer benefits them directly. “I waited three hours to vote,” a female coworker announced proudly this morning. “Too bad your vote doesn’t matter,” responded a chorus of male voices. How damning, disappointing, and predictable.

    http://jezebel.com/the-pride-and-privilege-of-symbolic-voting-1788712231

    I’m glad that the women are not biting their tongues, and that these petty assholes are being embarrassed.

  • XTPD

    Excessively cautious optimism: Slate’s poll tracker says so far Clinton’s leading in all the swing states (as well as Wisconsin & Pennsylvania).

    Still probably gonna be blotto by 11 PM.

    • Craigo

      The Votecastr project seems questionable. They’ve been having problems all day, and the methodology is suspect.

      (National campaigns do much the same thing, but they’re better funded, staffed, and have better modeling and collection.)

  • Pingback: Donald Trump Will Destroy the Federal Regulatory State. Just Ask Him. - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • Pingback: Fairfax County, USA – Jacobin Dev()

It is main inner container footer text