Predictions!
Here’s a smoking hot take:
@freddiedeboer @lhfang There’s going to be unprecedented bipartisan unity behind HRC, while the dissenters on both sides will be vehement.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 7, 2016
Well, at least one part of that is likely to be correct. I also predict that #unprecedentedbipartisanunity is going to be an extremely useful hashtag for the next four years.
Needs more Lolcats Goodman and Generic White McBroman.
Also, mention of Red baiting.
I think they call it the new McCarthyism.
I thought The New McCarthyism was that DC-based New Pornographers cover band of right-wing Republican staffers.
I thought it was Yoko Ono’s new Wings cover band.
savage.
Dan Savage has a band?
Ben.
I had forgotten to unfollow Mark Ames on twitter after accepting what a misogynist dirtbag he is at heart and just the other day saw him say, before unfollowing, that Kurt Eichwald is apparently a xenophobic hate criminal who’s implicitly calling for the persecution of Russian Americans. (via his reporting of Russian hacking, somehow.)
I’m starting to feel this is actually a useful delusion/paid knee jerk response, as it immediately removes any question as to whether to take someone seriously. Corrupt or stupid is an interesting question to ask, sometimes, but not a particularly important one.
that child rapist has always been unbearable, but the big reveal was when he spent 14 defending Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. “But look at all those Nazis! Everyone knows Nazis want to join the EU because its the loooooooooong game”
What the fucking fuq?
I remember reading Exiled Online for 1-2 years in middle school — 2010-11 — as Taibbi’s past involvement piqued my interest (and while he wasn’t on the site, I found the “Wonkette for assholes” mostly to my liking). I think some of the writers’ skills with the pen (Zaitchik, Jones, Dolan) still hold up — and that their Map of European ethnic hatred is truly a treasure — but I quit the site midway through 10th-grade, over either Dolan’s absolutely dogshit Orwell hitpiece/Hitchens obit or an anti-Semitic headline that called Mexican Jews meatheads (I don’t remember which, specifically).
This also mirrors the reasons why I dumped Byron Crawford after reading all his archives in the 9th grade, BTW (and after his 2011 termination from XXL, he’s degenerated into alt-left UNCUCKED bullshit).
ETA: And for fuck’s sake, I don’t hold Taibbi in high regard apart from his writing skills, but at least on Russia he was never this bad.
[curls up in ball on floor, weeps]
What’s the problem? I said I’d quit the site by 15, and excluding (maybe) Zaitchik & Levine, I don’t think the content itself holds up that well. (Though I still love Wonkette). Hell, if anything my age at quitting the site should be a solid indicator of its quality.
It’s not a problem, it just means you’re probably well under half the average age of those who comment here.
I consider myself a young punk learning from my elders here. I’m 50.
I have socks older than XTPD.
And indeed you are. And what the hell are you doing on my lawn?
Turned 21 October 10th, FWIW, so the dates I was in school may be a bit off. (2011 would actually be my HS freshman/sophomore year, for example).
“I have socks older than XTPD.”
My wife has t-shirts which she has worn a couple of times a month for over 30 years. I sometimes suspect I’ve gone insane and her clothes don’t wear out because she’s a figment of my imagination. I’ll know for sure only if I get audited for claiming her as a tax deduction.
XTPD says:
the cover-up is worse than the crime!
njorl says:
Women in 30 year old t-shirts. The cover-up is the crime!
…middle school in 2010? Jesus, at 35 I thought I was young for the commentators on this site! haha
My kid is 35. Graduated high school in ’99.
Christ and here I thought my 23 year old self was the youngest one here.
*Eichenwald, derp.
Mark Ames is the last person who should be talking about anyone’s morality.
In related news: Friedersdorf tells conservatarians to suck it up and vote for HRC.
I wish all of these conservative “I’m voting for HRC” editorials didn’t always include a chunk of fact-free blithering about emails and the Clinton Foundation. I mean, I get it. She’s a liberal. They don’t like liberal policy positions. I wouldn’t be happy voting for Ted Cruz over Donald Trump but I would if it came down to that. But Young Conor and Frum and their ilk should be honest with themselves about why they dislike Hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udNHsk57f24
The fact that prominent Republicans are literally talking about preemptively impeaching Hillary Clinton is surely central to Glenn’s point.
Yeah, he totally meant “unprecedented partisan hostility“.
I was gonna say. Has Glenn Greenwald ever seen/met/talked to/lived in same universe as modern Republicans?
I can only conclude that Greenwald and others like him are basically people who think “Republican” is a direct translation of “establishment rich white person.”
Someone, in other words, who doesn’t have time for all that policy and party platforms nonsense.
In the past the parties have gotten together on existential issues, so “precedented bipartisan unity” is a thing, and right now we have the “un-” of that. So it goes.
Also rich seeing Greenwald say who is and isn’t a democrat. I’m not all that familiar with Barro’s work, but if he’s a liberal democrat now, good for him! John Cole was a hardcore Republican until the Schiavo mess, and I defy anyone from saying he isn’t a liberal progressive today. Is it shocking that people can change? Should we hold that against them? Only the purest of the pure should be listened to?
Important: what was the “trigger”?
I think Greenwald’s issue here is that he defines politics entirely through a reaction to the post-9/11 security consensus and a dislike of US Foreign Policy in general. Since neither party is really taking steps to dismantle the security state/draw back our military presence, he views them as part of an establishment blob opposed by good, free-thinking populists.
I agree with this take — and continue to think it’s kind of a funny definition of politics for an LGBT person old enough to have lived through AIDS and Reagan.
” Has Glenn Greenwald ever seen/met/talked to/lived in same universe as modern Republicans?”
I dunno, how many are there in Brazil?
I wonder how things are going, given the RW legislative “coup”?
He’s willing to litigate his thesis all the way to the eight-member Supreme Court.
“The fact that prominent Republicans are literally talking about preemptively impeaching Hillary Clinton is surely central to Glenn’s point.”
I could be wrong, but I would bet money that you have to have actually been sworn into office, before you can be impeached. if that weren’t the case, I can guarantee there would be articles of impeachment introduced with the first gavel on Nov. 9.
I don’t think he’s including those prominent Republicans in his statement.
“In a sign of unprecedented bipartisanship, sources tell us that Hillary Clinton will nominate Senator Jeff Sessions to fill the SCOTUS seat once held by Antonin Scalia.”
/Villager Media Spokesperson
You say that like Roy Moore wouldn’t be the obvious bipartisan choice.
Louie Gohmert? James Inhofe?
James O’Keefe.
Josef Mengele for his humanity, personal ethics, and judicial temperament.
“Get used to saying, .Justice Mengele’ ”
/Stephen Bannon
(BTW, I have increasingly been bookmarking specifically ‘optimistic’ predictions by Altcucks On Twitter. My funnybone hopes to revisit those twitter accounts Nov 8, 9, 10, 11…)
Head of EPA and NOAA’s Office of Climate Services, respectively.
Nah, Bill Sali for EPA head.
Ah, Bill Sali. Truly, a Republican who manages to lose an election in Idaho is a national treasure.
I never head of him, and I’d take that for a parody, but hell, I can’t imagine many of the theories and conspiracies RWNJs manage to hold in their alleged brains at the same time.
Most establishment republicans *hated* Sali, personally and viscerally. He won his primary with 26% of the vote, and then barely eeked out a victory in 2006 with heavy national support. He then *barely* lost to a democratish person in 2008 (the guy he lost to – husband of my 8th grade english teacher!).
Judge Roy Moore, Judge Roy Moore
Writing for the Lord
Judge Roy Moore, Judge Roy Moore
Never met concord
He steals from the poor
And gives to the rich…
+ all you lupins!
it’s kindof surprising to see Greenwald still understands nothing about actual politics.
you’d think he’d be able to figure some of this stuff out, after a while.
It was surprising to me as well.
Until I realized that GG thinks he already knows everything that is to be known.
It’s hard to learn new things when you think you already know everything. Even worse when you think you’re the only truth teller in town, so you preemptively reject anything they say that might not match 100% with your beliefs.
He’s not the only one; Freddie makes two.
Yep. He made the unmakeable jump from “many GOP Congresspeople agree with, or at least could personally live with, some of Hillary Clinton’s political positions,” which is perfectly true and reasonable, to “many GOP Congresspeople will publicly side with Hillary Clinton on some political positions,” which is the absinthe-addled fever dream of a madman.
(Is GG imagining that the Pres will promote bombing Iran? Finland? Nauru?)
has Greenwald Jumped the Trump?
(Is GG imagining that the Pres will promote bombing Iran?
A *lot* of Bernie fans – in fact I’d say the vast majority of them – believe Clinton is just itching to start a war with Iran.
You have shown before that the majority of Bernie fans – of your acquaintance – are notably dumb.
He has a lot of practice in cluelessness.
He’s figured out a lucrative niche. He doesn’t give a shit about “actual politics”, he knows how his bread gets buttered.
One cannot learn what one does not wish to learn.
Those two need to get a room…at a reeducation camp.
I kid.
I know! The reeducation camps will all be open bays.
There’s so much potent total wrongness in so few words here, I feel like it’s the weapon at the end of The Butter Battle Book. Glenn, the reason why people have turned on you isn’t because you bash Obama and HRC now, but because your POV and way of expressing it has morphed into Jonah Goldberg crossed with Michael Tracey. Yeesh.
Speak for yourself. I turned on Greenwald precisely because he started doing that. And I’m someone who has trashed both those people plenty myself.
Greenwalds trashing got more and more insane as time went on, though. It was like, in 2008-2009 he was talking about how Obama wasn’t going to do nearly enough to dismantle the national security state and in fact would probably help entrench it, leaving hideous tools lying around for the next Republican to use if they so desired, and I was like “yeah, okay, man is making some good points.”
Then he slowly morphed into just… outright lies coupled with delusions. If you’re trashing Democrats, there had better be some substance there, fucko. If there isn’t, people on the left are gonna abandon you.
Actually, you and I are in agreement; my “now” was more nebulous “post-2008.”
GG takes direct personal offense at being disagreed with. For a lawyer I can see that almost being a useful trait, tho not really. But as a pundit/activist/journalist it means that eventually, whoever you are, he’ll find the time to spend a few thousand words showing you that no, he’s the self-righteous one here.
He has a pack of flying monkeys he’ll sic on you, too, in addition to appearing personally to take umbrage.
That pack continually shrinks, tho. Eventually they want for the harder stuff and find Milo being banned from Twitter to be a deep offense against freedom of speech.
And he’s left to yell at his former audience for us having more attachment to our beliefs and principles than him. He’s done it to me here, in these “pages”.
It’s actually not a useful trait for a lawyer. Not even for a litigator. Good lawyers solve problems for their clients. Lawyers who take personal offense at being disagreed with are the kind that can take one problem and turn it into multiple problems.
Especially if you’re a litigator, isn’t being disagreed with . . . kind of how it’s supposed to workk?
Pretty much. Taking personal offense at being disagreed with is unprofessional and counter-productive in litigation. So, for that matter, is taking personal offense at actual personal insults (which every litigator experiences from time to time). It is an irrelevant distraction that makes the offended lawyer less effective in serving the interests of his/her client.
I meant that in the hypothetical I can see in some giant firm or maybe in a class action based practice someone like that could be kept away from others mostly and still put to some valuable use, but in reality there’s always other people you have to speak with.
I had this issue once. Was a good learning experience though. It taught me that there’s a middle ground between being a pushover and going nuclear. And that my job is to achieve an optimal outcome for my client as efficiently as possible, not prove I have the bigger legal dick.
OC was just a pompous dickhead. Dime a dozen but for some reason this guy really set me off. Lot of time wasted on petty slap fights. And needless motions. Not frivolous motions, but issues that could’ve been resolved via a better working relationship. I looked back when we were closing the file and realized how much time I had wasted on my ego. I probably set it off it by getting a little too acid in a motion but it was simmering before then.
In my experience having wet-paper-fragile skin and taking personal offense at every slight is a terrible trait for a lawyer. Our job is to take punches for our clients with some level of grace. The other side’s job is to punch as hard as they can. We have to keep cooler heads in order to serve the interests of our client, which are almost never the same as our own fragile fee fees.
Oh, ye of short memories. Greenie got comprehensively pantsed by Marty Ledermen and a few others way back in 2005.
Ahh, but you must understand, if someone “on the left” abandons him, they just weren’t pure enough.
Soon there’s just going to be him and the rest of the chicken farmers.
Well said, Murc.
I don’t know when i stopped reading him. He was still at Salon, and it was the Bush years. I kind of caught on that while a lot of what he said was good and true, there was also a lot of clear bullshit, and he couldn’t write worth a damn. If he ever made a good point, one of the good bloggers would summarize him in a less shitty package.
My biggest issue with him isn’t even that, it’s that he’s a petty jerk who constantly punches down at people way less influential then he is at the slightest provocation. That one thread he appeared in from a few months ago is one example, the whole “Obama rapes a nun” incident was another.
Politics aside, the dude is just kind of a jackass.
I never turned on Greenwald.
I start off with a general grudge against pretty much anyone who voted for Bush over Gore. But for some reason (that I should probably discuss with a licensed therapist) it’s an even bigger grudge if they later expressed surprise and dismay at the outcome.
… after we make Clinton a One-Term President
Redeem coupon promptly for coupons.
“In a sign of unprecedented bipartisanship, sources tell us that Ammon Bundy has been approached to be the next head of BLM.”
/Ghost of David Broder
* applies to both the Bureau of Land Management and Black Lives Matter, of course.
Wins thread.
Greenwald should stick to – – whatever it is that he does
He is. “Hot take”, “Onliest true leftist” is what he does.
I’ll take “Brazilian Cabana Boy Wrangler” for $1000, Alex.
“Professional Aggrieved Contrarian”
Good lord.
This is classic stuck-in-the-90s thinking. The last time a Clinton was in the White House, a Clinton who (hopefully) governed to the right of where Hillary Clinton will govern from, he got some bipartisan cooperation. That’s true. He got budgets passed. He got some Supreme Court nominees confirmed. He was able to take a hacksaw to the social safety net and do a whole bunch of deregulatin’ with the assistance of the Republicans. Those are things that happened.
He also got impeached by a Republican Congress that was markedly to the left of where it is now, if you can believe that, and was de-legitimated at every single turn.
So the bipartisanship of the first Clinton Administration was pretty small ball to begin with (getting budgets and Supreme Court nominees done is the governmental equivalent of keeping the lights on) and Clinton II: The Re-Clintoning will be facing a much more hostile Congress. MUCH more. Does Glenn really think that she’s going to get “unprecedented” bipartisan cooperation?
For god’s sake, the Republicans wouldn’t even jump at the bait Obama offered them on their policy priorities, and they weren’t as extreme then as they are now. Even if Clinton tries to give away the store, the Republicans won’t let her! They’ll demand she give away the store and also burn it down and also stand on the Capitol steps and announce to the country she’s a doodiehead while doing a little dance.
Yeah, but, some normally right-leaning editorial pages endorsed Clinton so checkmate, libs.
Well, according to a high school acquaintance I see in my Facebook mini-feed from time to time, the establishment conspired to create an unacceptable candidate so that the masses would be tricked into voting for the candidate they really wanted. So, presumably, all this lack of partisanship is just part of the plan, a show for the masses while Clinton and Ryan meet in smoke-filled rooms after work to share cigars and laugh about the rubes.
I was a Republican in high school, if you can believe it. Mostly that’s my own teenage idiocy, but this was also a contributing factor: the high school skewed decidedly left wing, and quite a few people in it were this kind of left winger, i.e. a fucking moron for whom everything was a plot by the military-industrial complex and God knows who else. (See also the night Bin Laden died, when a hundred-page thread developed on Facebook that started off respectably as “is it wrong of people to celebrate Bin Laden’s death?” and ended in “was the CIA behind the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers that was sold to the sheeple as a terrorist attack?”)
In the early days of the internet, I used to be a little susceptible to government-led conspiracies, not a full-throated supporter, but the you know, sure I can kinda see that happening kind. But then they just seemed less and less plausible. It doesn’t hurt that I do a fair bit of business with the feds and I see how shit is done. If the government bureaucracy is so slow to react and inept, how in the hell are they orchestrating massively complex conspiracies with no whistleblowers?
“””THEY””” GOT TO YOU1111
WHAT IS IT LIKE IN HERE IN THE JADE HELM CAMPS?
But Josh Barro will support Hillary Clinton, and surely he’s a far more consequential figure than Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell.
and now that he has switched party affiliation to D, he doesn’t even qualify for membership in the enormous pro-Hillary wing of the Republican party in Glenn’s head.
the Real Republicans have become more unreal…
He got budgets passed.
After a government shutdown that blew up in Gingrich’s face.
He got some Supreme Court nominees confirmed.
Before the Republicans retook the Senate.
He got “bipartisan” cooperation on the things the Rs wanted to do anyway, like welfare “reform” and tax cuts.
(I don’t disagree that things will be even worse this time around, but let’s not forget how bad it was last time.)
But they didn’t filibuster! Can you FEEL the comity?
James Comity.
The question answers itself.
“In a sign of unprecedented bipartisanship, sources tell us that Rudy Giuliani has been telling friends privately that should HRC win the election, he would be willing to accept the post of Attorney General in an HRC administration.”
/NY Post
Giuliani went from being a very good district attorney, to a decent mayor, to a terrible mayor, to an amazingly terrible right-wing nutjob. Still not really sure what happened.
I think we just got to know him better.
I’m not sure what you’re basing your assessment on and would be interesting in hearing. My take:
1. He liked to showboat as US Attorney. E.g., frog-marching a bunch of banksters out of their offices in cuffs when it turned out that he didn’t even have enough for indictments ion some and had a bunch of overturned convictions on others. (Not defending the banksters, just discussing the prosecutorial conduct.) E.g., posing in his Al Pacino Cruising outfit with D’Amato.
2. He was a repulsive mayoral candidate, and race-bated against Dinkins every chance he got. There was a police protest against the mayor where there were hundreds of cops in front of city hall shouting racial slurs and he was there and got up to talk and said nothing about that.
3. He was a decent mayor in that he was more energetic and organized than Dinkins, but his energy and organization always went in authoritarian directions.
Here’s the polite NYT version of the cops rioting.
1. Yep, he showboated, but he pulled off some impressive victories. Convicting and imprisoning the heads of the five families was extremely significant, and it’s hard to feel too much sympathy for the bankers.
2. Agreed. He was a terrible candidate.
3. Right, and Dinkins was policy-wise a better mayor — a lot of the things Giuliani is credited with started with Dinkins. But Dinkins just did not have a forceful personality and had a tendency to get walked all over by both police and community groups. But Giuliani did decently in the sense of letting good Dinkins-era reforms continue, and not running the city into a ditch.
We’re mostly in agreement. I don’t feel much sympathy for the bankers, but I am strongly repulsed by prosecutors who abuse their power.
Your assessment of his mayoralty is about where I am, but that’s quite far from his claims and his supporters wet dreams about him.
The Peter Principle in action?
His second day as mayor.
but we know that Huma was given Immunity111!!
Donaooollld Donoalllddd Donnn
Ernest T. Blogger
National Unity Government!
This is true for, and expires after, 8 November 2016.
This is true in perpetuity. The leftists will talk (“Full of the sound and the fury, signifying nothing”) and the Trumpistas will continue beating the shit out of people, restricting voting rights, etc.
Both Sides Do It, after all.
Well, he’s not all wrong. There will be unprecedented bipartisanship, in the sense that dissidents on both sides will be vehement and unanimous in their denunciation of Crooked Hillary. The “behind HRC” thing is the only wrong part of that sentence.
perhaps ‘behind’ is correct, in that HRC will probably just turn her back on all the screamers and keep on chugging along, doing her Clintony stuff.
get behind me, asshats.
Twitter: #PodestaMails4753 1!11!!
…
…
…
…
Twitter: #PodestaMails69480 !!11!!
Greenwald, Silver, Jill Stein. All selling clicks and cultivating a mini-cult around their truth telling truthness of trueness. This must be how he handles running a website wholly owned by a French oligarch with ties to Indian fascists.
Including Nate Silver in this list is a weird choice
Yeah, I’m not a 538 fan but he’s nowhere near the same level.
I am a fan of 538 but I think Silvers model is wrong this time. Which is not a problem because even good models can be wrong but you can still learn a lot from it (at the very least, the difference between a model and reality helps you capture aspects that might have changed from when the model worked, or nuances in the thing being modeled that were never considered before).
Adding him to this list is just wrong.
Silver’s mistake this time was putting too much weight on uncertainty. He always leaned on it a bit more then other aggregators(maybe because of his history in sports stats?), but has really leaned on it this year and it’s skewed things.
I don’t think he deserves the level of vitriol he’s been getting, but I do hope he learns something from his screw ups this year.
Maybe he’s referring to the Lone Ranger’s steed, not the pollster?
“Aarg. We don’t know what’s ‘appened to ‘im. He didn’t used ta leave pubic hairs all over the soda cans. We didn’t even have cans back in our day.
Arrg, ol’ Long’s mind has gone scurvy, it has. Arrg”
Thats true. I am being a bit unfair.
But he has been selling clicks. “FLORIDA ON KNIFE EDGE” is clickbait.
Running Nevada as red is clickbait.
“TRUMP COULD WIN EC AND LOSE POPULAR VOTE!” is clickbait.
That he has become increasingly aggressive as other aggregators point out that his models ‘VOLITILITY MEANS UNCERTAINTY’ hedge on a possible Trump win (Surprise, there is more volatility further out from an event, when he had no problem with putting her up to 80! ) just suggests to me that he knows that hes hedging and hates it that others have found him out for it.
Definitely been click baity.
But that’s hardly comparable to the fantasies GG and Stein have been peddling.
All of those are read straight out of the model, though. I have some serious gripes with their coverage, but none of those particular things — especially Nevada showing as red — are a stretch based on the data.
It is if in your model you introduce two fudge factors.
Fudge factor 1. “VOLATILITY” is how he explains it. The problem is if the election is so volatile, uncertainty should be higher further out not lower. He should have had a model that said 50/50 until October and then started slowly edging up to Clinton.
Fudge Factor 2. Trend line. He makes trend line adjustments that are based on how he feels a trend would go. Its circular logic. “We have data, and I adjust the data and the adjust data fits”
Oh and I guess 3. His correlation is literally grounded in the 2012 election.
This seems deeply unfair to Nate Silver.
Call Silver’s model a hedge, say he’s too spastic these days and focuses on noise over signal, sure, but it’s not fair to lump him in with hacks and cranks like Stein. Really the worst thing he’s done is pettiness toward Sam Wang.
And Wang has been somewhat bitchy toward Silver in the past as well (though I’m not sure who started it).
This is true. The degree of bipartisan unity will reach an unprecedented low starting roughly 10 milliseconds after the networks call the race for Hillary.
Indeed, there will be several Republican members of Congress agreeing with Democrats that President Hillary Clinton shouldn’t be summarily executed, and maybe even one or two agreeing that she shouldn’t be immediately impeached.
Beyond GG’s cluelessness, I also enjoy the post he’s responding to by Lee Fang mocking Barro and Beck. Regardless of how you feel about those two, that Paulites like Fang and GG feel they’re able to determine who represents the left broke my irony meter.
GG is not a Paulite.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/
(And yes, he makes a pro-forma statement about not actually *voting* for Paul for President, but he’s clearly *hugely* supportive.)
“In a sign of unprecedented bipartisanship, sources tell us that Donald Trump will be asked to run the official WH Twitter account.”
/John Barron
ITYM Milo Yiannopoulos.
No they can’t do that he’s banned from the platform
How do you liberels always have you forgottin that when Hillaree is President, we’ll kiss the first amendmint goodbuy11!!?
Ernest T. Blodger
I’ve been wondering about this bipartisan-ish scenario and wondering how outlandish it is. Assume Clinton wins, the Senate is at least 50-50 Dem, and the house is below +20R. Is it really impossible to find 10 republicans to join the Democratic caucus? Presumably they’d be promised a lot of DNC support for reelections as Democrats in their swing-ish districts, committee roles, pork for their constituents, etc. They wouldn’t be popular nationally, but they only have to win their own district.
I’m pretty sure this won’t happen, but I’m even more sure my betters on this noble blog can tell me why.
Fwiw, something like this happened in the New York State Senate…followed by a variety of ethics investigations and prison time…but it happened nonetheless.
Yes it would be. Because they would be immediately primaried out by the Nazis. There is a reason why the GOP has become more conservative without losing seats it gerrymandered. There arent enough human voters in Republican districts to make normalcy a viable tactic.
Its exactly why they went completely insane over the last 10 years and the Democrats maintained a broadbased coalition that self aggrandizing assholes like Greenwald/deBour/that angry kid who was detained for trying and failing to attack Anne Coltoure and now retweets Russian memes are mad at.
Because they would be immediately primaried out by the Nazis.
Presumably if such people existed (and I could imagine there might be a couple, but 10 doesn’t seem plausible), they’d be running in the D primary next time.
This is not an incentive for two reasons. In ascending order or importance.
1. The districts of too many GOP Representatives have been gerrymandered for GOP control due to the GOP takeover of so many state houses in 2010 coinciding with the Census.
2. Far too many of GOP in Congress these days are people who believe all the GOP talking points about the Democrats being pure evil who just want to weaken America because Socialism. These people are even more frightening than the cynical power-seekers.
I’m not saying it’s an incentive, I’m swaying lawtalkingguy’s assessment of the future dangers of such a path is fundamentally confused.
Gerrymandering of the recent GOP variety actually tends to produce somewhat weaker GOP districts than would otherwise exist. The more Democrats who live in GOP-controlled districts, the fewer Democrat-controlled districts you get. The ideal is something like 53-47 GOP-Dem.
There is a strong incumbency advantage in House elections. It seems just plausible to me that a popular incumbent could beat the spread. That said, if I were said incumbent it would seem like a huge risk for not enough payoff.
Yes. Since True Believers (Republiklowns) and real, well-informed liberals (Democrats) are the people most inclined to vote in off-year primaries, the turncoats would be facing the worst of both worlds.
where they would lose too because a moderate Republican today is a Gingrich Republican in the 90s. Kasich is a ‘moderate’ Republican who just had a ‘moderate’ 2 trillion dollar tax cut instead of the unhinged 4 trillion dollar tax cut and the plan to basically reintroduce the gold standard.
There are no moderate Republicans, anywhere. There are just ones who wont say racist things overtly to get elected and the ones who do.
I don’t think all Republicans can be “outteaed”. Some GOPe/cuckstablishment Republicans barely hold onto purple districts (as the district behaves whether or not gerrymandered)
If teacuck wins the next GOP primary over cuckstab incumbent in the purple district, the R-Leaning seat becomes vulnerable to D win in a massive general election battle.
Yes.
And even if they wanted to, we’re going to get wiped out in 2018. The hell would they want to sign on for that?
Foo. I wanted to watch the hazing videos.
Yes. See also, Gerrymandering.
All this is true, but (on the assumptions stated, which are not unreasonable):
1. The far right will not be able to pass damaging legislation.
2. Court nominations will pass, probably after nuking the filibuster.
3. It’s not impossible that Pelosi will manage to work Ryan into a situation where at least the basics of government, principally the budget, get passed. (Ryan might want to consult with his predecessor about the advantages of leaving office.)
4. Less likely: Ryan might display increased aptitude at managing the House.
Nontrivial chance that Ryan has figured out he’s never gonna be President and is already planning on how to peace out rather than even try to herd the cats.
Ryan is 46, so theoretically he could plan a long game, but he’s never shown much aptitude for that.
A long game would likely involve a Senate seat or a Governorship somewhere.
I agree with this. My wife’s relatives in Wisconsin love Paul Ryan, and the governor’s mansion in Madison is going to be empty in 2018. If he wants to stay in Washington, Tammy Baldwin is up for reelection in 2018.
Paul Ryan, failed Speaker of the House, is not going to be president at 50. Paul Ryan, beloved second-term governor of Wisconsin, has a chance to be president at 54.
Also, even if he never becomes President, there’s a lot more prestige.
Probably less thankless work than herding GOP cats in the House, too.
I’m not that familiar with WI politics, but isn’t Baldwin very popular?
What makes him popular statewide, as opposed to his district? Even though Snotty Walker has won three elections, I don’t think you can possibly call him “beloved,” would you?
Despite the media trying to convince us otherwise, Ryan isn’t a very smart man. A prime example of this is how he managed to make enemies of everyone through his behavior with Donald Trump.
If he was smart he would have behaved more like McConnell who has supported Trump far less than Ryan, but has not made enemies of Trumpkins like Ryan has.
Ryan also has the benefit of a fawning, insanely credulous press that really, desperately wants him to be the sane Republican daddy they long for. He’ll be back.
What the shit would it take to finally kill ZEGS’ Very Serious Credibility?
Being turfed by his krazy kaukus, which is likely going to happen. There goes his visibility and his power base.
Disagree efgoldman. If he gets turfed by the krazy kaukus, he becomes even more elevated. “The last sane Republican”.
“Sure his budgets don’t make the slightest mathematical sense, and sure he’s a zombie eyed granny starver (ht Charlie Pierce), but…he means well, and if he’s too sane for the krazy kaukus, we must support him.”
It is really unclear what’s going to happen in the House, it’s true. The Teahadists have enough power to prevent any R they don’t want from being Speaker, barring a Dem crossover for some mythical “moderate centrist” Republican, who’d then spend the next 2 years playing constant defense against their own party. So that ain’t happening, who’d want the gig in that position?
The House is going to be a mess no matter what, which is probably a net positive at least in terms of the ability of Repubs to use it.
eta: Maybe there’s 10 who could be convinced to do a Jeffords and switch to independents, who then vote for a Dem Speaker, on the condition that the Dems leave their seats unopposed by the party in the next election.
Maybe?
Yes
SATSQ
Longest search to fill a minyan ever.
As the resident LGM Greenwald defender I’ll say he’s wrong if he means electeds (I don’t think he does, but you’ll have to ask him!)- certainly not the House and in the Senate “unprecedented” only if you mean slightly less hostile than they were to Obama. I do think the rest of the conservative establishment might think fighting hippies and trumpkins is more important than fighting HRC, though I wouldn’t describe that as unprecedented either.
This is reasonable, but I would like to point out that the conservative establishment is slowly becoming the teahadis and Trumpkins.
Also, much of the conservative establishment became the establishment by crusading against the Clintons for the last 30 years. Turning that ship around in a couple of weeks or months is not easy.
Some would say “impossible.”
That should correctly be past tense.
what establishment? these people are Trump supporters precisely because they can read their own internal polls of their own constituency. Its Trump or die. Only people with an incredibly deep, strong brand in their home territory like Kasich will survive but people who flirted with Nazis overtly will just get run over by Nazis saying overtly what Cruz or Cotton say covertly.
i’m not going to bother reading any more of that thread, but i assume he was making some Very Serious Lefty point about how all the establishment hawks and spooks will line up behind her, with the Wall St types not far behind. because she’s basically a Republican, doncha-no.
And to further split that hair real thin, it is probably true that the actual civil service establishment, the people at State and CIA and whatnot, will line up behind her. (I don’t recall hearing that Obama had any particular problem with rogue intelligence agencies or his State department undercutting him.)
But that’s only a small part of the establishment and not usually meant by the term.
Your assumption is faulty:
Of course there are no citations, because this is Twitter, but I’m sure they wouldn’t have mattered anyway because Greenwald is always wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/30/heres-the-growing-list-of-big-name-republicans-supporting-hillary-clinton/
The “C” in “HRC” stands for “Clinton,” just as a reminder.
There’s a certain segment of the conservative establishment that is behind Clinton for one reason: she’s the only thing that can stop Trump from further damaging their brand. Once she’s done that, what possible reason would they have to continue to support her in any way? Once November 9th rolls around, any further support for Clinton makes no sense.
GG might have a point, in the short term, if he is talking about the mainstream media, who have endorsed HRC to an unprecedented extent. But the relief they express won’t last long. And, as usual, if I am being kind, GG has an absolutely tin ear about his own linguistic aberrations. If he phrases something in such a way that a fair reader can misunderstand his point, that’s his fault, not the reader’s.
i haven’t seen a lot of endorsement of Clinton. i’ve seen a surprising about of outright bashing of Trump, though. they’ve taken a side, but it’s the side of “OMG!” they’re not championing Clinton’s policies or her story or her in any way; they’re freaking out about the possibility that a degenerate loser like Trump could win.
Trump’s endorsements are running lower than any Republican ever. Clinton has endorsements from many papers that normally support Republicans (same link).
If you have a little more time, Business Insider has what may be a complete list of paper with circulations over 20,000:
That’s nice, and a little surprising, maybe, but do the endorsements really matter much anymore? Have they for the last few cycles?
I don’t think they do, but they are an indicator that the (ahem, cough) “sensible center” has come to consensus, which may be what GG was addressing.
As the resident LGM Greenwald defender I’ll say he’s wrong if he means electeds (I don’t think he does, but you’ll have to ask him!)- certainly not the House and in the Senate “unprecedented” only if you mean slightly less hostile than they were to Obama. I do think the rest of the conservative establishment might think fighting hippies and trumpkins is more important than fighting HRC, though I wouldn’t describe that as unprecedented either.
Even interpreting Glenn as talking only about media/unelected establishment figures, I think he’s clearly wrong. As djw says, once Trump loses they’ll comfortably pivot to explain why it’s illegitimate for Hillary Clinton to PACK THE COURT with JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS in about a half a second.
In addition, I think it’s very odd to focus your sense of whether Clinton will be opposed on pundits and marginal establishment figures like Jeb! From any Republican with any power or influence, Clinton will face near-universal opposition from before she’s inaugurated.
I…don’t agree in the slightest. Less hostile than to Obama? They are already talking impeachment! Chaffetz already has years of hearings setup. They are talking about never letting a SC nominee go through if they keep the senate.
I await the Breastfeeding Criminalization Act of 2017.
Wot, some kind of secret plan? “We’ve fucked it up three times in a row, might fuck it up again in four, but believe me, after sixteen years, we’ll be in the White House by 2024! MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!”
I have a number of friends who are already convinced Clinton is toast in 2020. (These include people who took the time to endure caucuses for her.) I’m more sanguine, but I really hope they’re wrong, because a Republican win in 2020 would likely be a House/Senate/WH wipeout, equivalent in badness to if they won this year.
I’m getting real tired of always being on the brink of the apocalypse here. We have to win every. Single. Time. They just need to get lucky ONCE.
This is way to early to be talking about, but I see no reason why the GOP won’t just nominate another unelectable fire-eater. On paper you’d think it would be a good year because the Democrats would have held the presidency for 12 years but there’s really no guarantee.
Can we finish this election cycle before panicking over the next one? Pretty please?
I stopped worrying about this cycle and started worrying about the next one last summer.
More seriously? I’m of the opinion that we ought to already be worrying about 2020. I dislike the permanent state of campaigning as much as anyone, but it seems to me that depending on each individual candidate to rebuild a national campaign apparatus every four years is… not ideal. It seems like it is asking for trouble. Indeed, it is causing trouble for the Republicans right now; they’re used to the candidate putting together his own apparatus and when he refuses to do so they’re left with their own, inadequate, infrastructure. I recall hearing in 2008 how amazing the infrastructure Obama was putting together was compared to what Kerry had and thinking “… why did we need to wait four years for someone to come along and throw that together like six months before the election? Why wasn’t it being built out earlier?”
I’m not sure how we’d go about doing this, but it seems like the ratio of institutional apparatus/campaign built apparatus ought to be reversed. Candidates should have the freedom to put their own stamp on any individual campaign, but they should be better able to snap themselves into a pre-existing apparatus rather than need to build their own every single time.
We ought to have a permanent structure in place, people who do this full-time at the behest of the party and who, when they come back from the holidays in January 2017, will call a meeting with a big white board that says “GOTV 2020” and say “Okay. Let’s begin.”
Downticket races matter.
They matter for local and state governing, but they matter even more because this is where national candidates come from.
Donald Trump, of course, being the exception.
What we really need is something to fulfill the role played by unions in the New Deal coalition or evangelical church networks for the Reagan coalition – grassroots institutions that aren’t part of the party machinery per se but nevertheless play a vital role in keeping the demographics they represent energized, informed, mobilized, and GOTV’d. Allies in civil society are critical to the “structure” of a winning coalition.
sign me up
That needs to say “GOTV 2018,” because an awful lot of the reason we’re constantly one shitstorm from Cesspool Apocalypse is that sane non-nihilists lose so much ground in midterms nowadays. The permanent party infrastructure needs to target the midterms. The permanent party infrastructure needs to target state races. As I’m really, really hoping tomorrow will show us in a good way, if our voters turn out, we win.
Four years is a long time, but…the press will start gunning for her at about 9 am Wednesday morning. Not one flagship piece of legislation will pass. Any problems in Obamacare can’t be tweaked. God forbid we have a recession, she can’t pass stimulus. Starting in January 2019, no more appointments either.
That’s how bad it will be if she does everything perfectly.
Clouds linger over future Clinton administration.
“Inside the Controversial, Hotly Debated Supreme Court Nomination Hillary Hasn’t Made Yet.”
“Legislation Hillary Clinton Will Surely Introduce An Unprecedented Breach of Washington Decorum.”
“Voters Deeply Disillusioned With First Term That Won’t Actually Start For Three Months.”
There are a few things that will be different in 2020 versus today.
On the good side:
-4 more years of demographic drift.
-Assuming we win the Senate now: a SCOTUS which has more or less effectively reinstated the VRA.
-I doubt the racists and the neoliberals will have made friends again inside the GOP.
-Even if we lose, the SCOTUS will not hang in the balance
On the bad side:
-4 more years of one-party fatigue.
-No historic first in the offing.
-Opponent will not be Trump
I’m somewhat pessimistic, but that’s 4 good things and only 3 bad things, so overall it will not be quite as terrifying as this year.
It’s the redistricting election – if anything the stakes are even higher.
Yarp.
That argues for work at the state level between now and 2020.
Also, redistricting lasts for 10 years, a SCOTUS appointment generally lasts longer.
Doesn’t the actual process of redistricting take a bit longer than that? The census itself takes place in 2020, no?
Yes, but the state legislatures who do the redistricting based on the new census will be elected in 2020. And the redistricting is almost always completed before the next election.
Opponent will not be Trump
Don’t be so sure.
Eh, even if he still wants it then, he’ll have loser stink.
His brand, which is all he has to sell, will be gone. He will be shown publicly, on the record, to be a fraudster, a serial sexual harasser, maybe a rapist, a tax evader (at least, maybe criminally so) and definitely not, or no longer, a billionaire. All PLUS the loser stink.
Also, what’s left of the RWNJ Republiklown establishment will try to rig the primary process so someone like him cannot win.
All of which will make him far to the left of where the RWNJs will have moved the goalposts over the next 4 years. Hell, I wouldn’t even be surprised if David Duke is considered too far to the left in 4 years.
Also (and more likely IMO): Even if we lose, the SCOTUS will not hang in the balance
LGBT? Hispanic or Asian? Perhaps neither is actually in the offing, but either might be just over the horizon!
Just think: They’ll likely nominate some goober like Cotton or Cruz. Those two repellent rats have 0 chance of winning a national election. They are just equally inhuman and unlikable.
Just like Castro said about Batista in 1958: “If I lose, I’ll try again and again and again. If Bastista loses, he’s through.”
But to address your point: it is a concern of course. To the extent that Clinton’s win this year (knock on wood) can be in part attributed to the odiousness of Trump, I REALLY don’t want to run against another Trump even if there’s a possibility it could help. Because someone like him CAN get elected. Although maybe Trump or Trump’s shadow doesn’t go away, and the 2018 midterms will make the 2010 Tea Party class seem sane and non racist. And in 2020 the GOP goes all in on naked white nationalism and ethnic cleansing, and every presidential candidate is to the right of Trump on race. God forbid.
Maybe the Republicans will overplay their hands and it’ll blow up in their faces like it did in 1998. I have a feeling 2020 could be a nail biter, but I’m not going to entertain the notion that a Clinton loss in 2020 is a fait accompli. I’ll just have to watch and see how the first two years go.
If Greenie and Greenie traded places, would anyone other than Golic notice?
I just hope that the stability-loving rich Americans have as much pull with the Republicans in Congress as everyone thinks.
I don’t see how we get through the first year without a government shutdown that might also entail a debt default, and I’m optimistic enough to believe that Clinton will win and carry the Senate with her.
If it wasn’t evidently clear that they don’t during the debt ceiling games that the Republicans were playing, the nomination of Trump should have settled it.
The stability minded rich Rs have no control whatsoever. The inmates have taken over.
Hell, we may not get through this year without one of those. Next budget showdown is December.
More seriously I don’t think that’s likely, Republicans like to take the holidays off just like everyone else. You know, in the traditional way, kicking back with a glass of nog, surrounded by your third wife, resentful kids, and sixth mistress. Maybe visit your secret attic family.
Hard to do that while you’re holding the world hostage.
But it is a possibility.
Doesn’t the president have the ability, under the constitution, to force the congress into session?
Yeah, but Obama is only gonna do that if there isn’t some sort of continuing resolution. If the Republicans keep the lights on, he’s not going to pin them in DC. His own caucus would be pissed at him, and while he might only care about them for another two months I can’t see him doing that.
Mint the coin!
Can anyone with the requisite decoder ring help me parse what Freddie is up to here?
1. Oh look I found some random on twitter spouting kumbaya BS
2. ???
3. Republicans win the presidency, thanks to DEMOCRAT PERFIDY
Easy.
Step 2 is “I want step 3 to read ‘Republicans win the presidency, thanks to DEMOCRAT PERFIDY.'”
Remember when he was quitting the internet? That was a good 5 days.
I like how he’s still banging away on the HR Compliant thing months after that controversy played out.
Oh, I have no idea where that HR-compliant thing comes from! Do you mind sharing your knowledge?
Matt Bruenig was being a dick to people on Twitter, was told by one of his employers to knock it off, didn’t, got fired, got a Kickstarter, made some coin. This was an assault on free speech and by not coming to Matt’s immediate defense two seconds after he got canned, liberals on the Internet were part of the wider conspiracy to silence leftist voices. Leftist voices like Frederick’s, the most important leftist voice of all. All you liberals were coming for Freddie! But he’ll show you! He’ll show all of you!
Thanks for the explanation!
Those dang HR people, not wanting you to call people scumbags.
I never got it really. Matt was acting as one of the public faces of a think tank trying to influence progressive policymaking in DC, while simultaneously getting into public slap fights with some of the same people his organization needed to have a good working relationship with. It’s not that hard to see why they’d can him.
I take no position over whether he should have lost his blogging job, which would depend on whether he had fair notice, was given multiple chances, etc. But the idea that it’s per se unreasonable for a think tank to request that its paid bloggers not lob gratuitous (and, in some cases, dishonest) insults at people the think tank is trying to influence is absurd.
There’s an argument to be made that what you’re doing off the clock, if legal and not brought to working hours with you, is none of your employers damn business.
(I do not know if this applies to Bruenig in any way; I suspect he was probably tweeting while he was supposed to be working, as many of us do.)
It makes them feel like the independent ideological martyrs they think they are.
Hey, as someone significantly contributing to the corporatization of higher education, maybe the HR Compliant thing is a brag for Freddie.
OT — just for fun, I surfed over to NYTimes.com, to see how they are covering the last day before the election.
Full-page headline: Last Sprint in Tight Race After Twist in Email Case
Subhed/bulletpoint: Clinton, Cleared on New Emails, Keeps Small Lead in Polls / “The F.B.I.’s email finding in favor of Hillary Clinton is likely to keep resonating on Monday as she and Donald J. Trump head to key states to make their final appeals.”
Guys — it’s the Times’ last day to meet their quota on **TEH EMAILZ** mentions!!
What, you don’t think Wednesday’s headline will be “Clinton Wins Despite Emails”?
Should the results be Clinton over Trump, I fully expect the NY Post to avoid using a headline like “Clinton Wins . . .” but instead go with “TRUMP IS A LOSER!!!”
Thursday’s Post will feature a photo of Donald’s head exploding after reading Wednesday’s headline.
I want to see a pic of an exultant HRC holding up a newspaper with this headline on it:
TRUMP A REAL JERK
The RW grift machine will milk teh emailz for at least a year or two:
Tell all books from Regnery press, signed personally by Jason Chaffetz at CPAC;
Documentaries directed by James O’Keefe, streaming at Breitbart;
Blog posts at Gateway Pundit, Powerline and others;
And of course, always with the plea- “We just need a few more donations to blow this conspiracy wide open!!”
After this husk is sucked dry, they will latch onto a new host.
Because even if we win the Senate, the next 8 years will be a nonstop shitshow of selective leaks to the NYT, chock full of insinnuendo and accusations, followed by the full wingnut wurlitzer.
Or “Clinton Wins, But E-mails Overshadow Results.”
What, you don’t think Wednesday’s headline will be “Clinton Wins Despite Emails”?
We’ll see that on the Wednesday after election day, 2020.
That’s not even a difficult prediction.
That was a good reminder to cancel my subscription.
The next time there is a debt ceiling crise, expect the Repugs to refuse to raise it except under the most severe concessions.
Clinton will refuse and at the last minute be forced to go around Congress and use trillion dollar coin or 14.5 Amendment argument. This then gives the Repugs the ability to paint Clinton a “tyrant” who is overriding the will of Congress and might even lead to impeachment.
I’m not sure about this. The Republican Party has, thus far, avoiding doing anything to piss off any of their valuable constituencies. The reason they’ve caved in every single previous debt ceiling fight is because some of their most powerful constituents actually don’t want the global economy to implode.
Reading his tweets, he’s talking about foreign policy–specifically the support for war in Syria, support for the Saudis, support for the Israelis and so forth. You know, the issues that are less often discussed here as opposed to the moral outrage regularly expressed at world historical figures like Freddie DeBoer and Susan Sarandon.
Glenn is obviously wrong–the Republicans will trash Clinton. But he’s not entirely wrong–she has picked up support from Republicans who like war and from fruitcakes like Michael Morrell who defended the torture policy, told Charlie Rose we should be killing Russians in Syria, and more recently said we should be stopping Iranian ships from sending weapons to the Houthis. If this blog weren’t so deeply into its tradition of two minute hates, you could criticize GG for overstatement while also talking about the issues which he clearly has in mind.
To the extent she has pickup up Republicans, war-likers or any other variety, it is only because some Republicans think Trump is an existential threat to the Republic and the planet, war-liking notwithstanding. It doesn’t make her one of them
Since Glenn doesn’t really care about domestic policy, he’s inclined to believe that no one else does, either
See folks– even when Glenn Greenwald is obviously wrong, he’s still right!
And even if he was right, he’d be wrong.
There is no universe under which the term “unprecedented bipartisan unity” could be successfully applied to what you’re discussing here, which is to say even the very narrow foreign policy frame. To argue such ignores not only the history of post-Cold War FP, but also (even more abjectly), the partisan dynamics of Cold War FP. If this is the context you’re trying to provide, it’s altogether possible that it makes Glenn’s comment even less defensible.
But then I suppose this isn’t surprising coming from a commentator who boasted of his own ignorance of foreign affairs as late as 2004. If you don’t know any of the precedents, then every damn thing is unprecedented.
OT, but anti-Semitic troll cleanup on ails The plot against America, con’t.
Trump doesn’t have policy. He has schtick.
And HRC’s not in the business of telling random Republican hacks who throw her nominal support that they suck, because she’s a politician.
Meanwhile, if Trump wins, it’ll be Obama’s third turn!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/relax-democrats-a-trump-win-would-be-a-third-obama-term/2016/11/07/1ebeb984-a4fd-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html
WaPo really went all in with the stupid with their op-eds today.
Marc Thiessen is not much of a thinker.
Serious question here: I thought newspapers fact checked op eds for obviously incorrect claims. This is just a patent falsehood.
They don’t fact check reporting, why would they do so for op-eds that they disclaim represent the paper?
Hot take: This key endorsement will swing the election to Trump
http://linkis.com/vGNI7
Meanwhile, for the sake of national security and the dignity of the presidency, Mr. Trump should think before he speaks.
Go home, Waterbury Republican-American. You’re drunk.
Final map:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/2G6ZB
Get used to having this map seared into your nightmares. Trump wins by going right up through the Rustbelt in an unprecedented fashioned by churning out the Reagan Democrats–just as none other than Michael Moore predicted months ago.
The “missing white voter” comes out and puts their collective thumb on the scale for Trump, utterly shocking the world and the smug “progressives” who thought they had it all locked up due to demographics.
Turns out non-college white voters pack an extra punch in the Electoral Collegr.
Sweetest thing of all? This is entirely possible even if Trump loses the popular vote.
The heartland will come through…
It seems the GG has decided to do a parody of GG. How cutting edge is that?
…
Gary? Gary Ruppert?
Bookmark it, libs!
Oh, no, not Michael Moore. *SOB* My hero.
I do have a couple of things to quibble with in your map:
(1) I really don’t think NE-2 is a complete tossup.
(2) On the other hand, I think WI is likelier to be a dead heat than a Trump lock.
(3) Michigan? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha—No.
Still, if Wisconsin unpleasantly surprises at the Presidential level, that makes it 274-264 Trump. Which … fair enough, I suppose. You concede PA and VA, showing more evenhandedness than I would have expected. You could probably have left out the “He’ll win the Electoral College even if he loses the popular vote, because white people FTW!” bit, but I guess that’s what makes it trollin’.
So from Rustbelt Revenge’s** mouth*** to your ears, voters who don’t like fascism. The ball is in your court.
**Ironic that the “revenge” of the Rustbelt comes by means of more support for a multiple bankrupt who prefers Chinese steel to American, running with the party that’s more responsible for hollowing out manufacturing, against the party that engineered the auto industry bailout over Republican objections. That is irony, right?
***Wait, that’s not a mouth.
Michigan going R while Pennsylvania goes D makes no sense in any way.
I meant to have PA and NE-2 red.
Virginia has been ruined by illegals and Asian birth tourism.
Parts of Fairfax County look like East Asia. There are gas stations on Centreville with Asian script on the signs now.
Yeah, I figured. Thanks for admitting it. You probably can safely flip MI to Democratic, then. Hell, with PA (“Chinese steel … Mmmm-mmmm!”) in the Trump column, you could afford to be generous and allow for WI to stay D. 284-254 isn’t that bad, especially if he’s losing the popular vote.
And taco trucks
JenBob! Where you been, Buddy? Your local Piggly-Wiggly run out of pancake mix?
I agree, which is why I flipped MI for my summary. In RR’s linked map, Trump wins with 289 instead. He could have made it even more lopsided if he had put PA in the R column and left MI Democratic. This was why I bothered to comment: It’s a genuinely eclectic trolling maneuver. Based on the latest polling, WI is apparently toying with being fucking stupid during presidential years, too, though moreso downballot. NH has stayed stubbornly close as well, and as for ME-2, well … They voted for LePage over their own congressman for governor, so yeah, they apparently like voting for stupid assholes for executive positions.
So compared to, e.g., replies to Nate Silver’s tweets (“Virginia is totally in the bag for Trump!”), this stinkbomb seems downright mild.
That you Unlimited Corporate Cash? I thought your checks had stopped clearing.
There’s going to be unprecedented bipartisan unity behind HRC, while the dissenters on both sides will be vehement.
Having a rough Pon Farr, Spock?
Any mention of Glenn Greenwald on this site is good for 300+ posts.