Home / General / The Unlamented Political Demise of an Asshole

The Unlamented Political Demise of an Asshole

Comments
/
/
/
941 Views
Governor of North Carolina Pat McCrory introduces candidate for U.S. Senate Thom Tillis (R-NC) at a campaign stop in Raleigh, North Carolina October 29, 2014. REUTERS/Chris Keane (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS) - RTR4C3VE
Governor of North Carolina Pat McCrory introduces candidate for U.S. Senate Thom Tillis (R-NC) at a campaign stop in Raleigh, North Carolina October 29, 2014. REUTERS/Chris Keane (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS) – RTR4C3VE

Pat McCrory has concluded that despite his best efforts the election is not close enough for him to steal:

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) on Monday finally conceded in the state’s governor’s race after dragging the election out for almost a month with complaints about alleged voter fraud.

In a video statement, McCrory said that it’s “time to celebrate our democratic process and respect what I see to be the ultimate outcome of the closest North Carolina governor’s race in modern history.”

Of course, the North Carolina legislature will try to do what it can to prevent the majority will from determining election outcomes in the future.

It should also be noted that this race is a pretty major problem for assertions that IDENTITY POLITICS cost Clinton the election. Mark Lilla’s fevered imagination aside, the rights of the transgendered were not a prominent feature of the Clinton campaign. But they were a salient issue in North Carolina, and…the result was one of the few bright spots for the Democrats on Election Day. Mean-spirited attacks on minority rights are not, in fact, always popular and mobilizing against such attacks can be good politics.

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

    mccrory is a type: late 50/early 60 something white guys who came of age with reagan and have lived in the right-wing bubble ever since.

    • D.N. Nation

      Who are snake-handling whackadoos but act like their fevered religiosity is some sort of centrist, pro-business, common-sense politics.

      • rea

        We late 50’s-early 60s types did not come of age with Reagan–more like Nixon.

        • (((Hogan)))

          McCrory was a late bloomer. Or developmentally stunted, whichever you prefer.

          • N__B

            Stunted Bloomers would be an awesome name for a steampunk band.

        • howard

          i should have said politically of age: mccrory, for instance, would have just turned 24 when reagan was elected.

        • DrDick

          Indeed. The bastard even drafted me.

      • howard

        and who have grown accustomed to feeding rage-addicted voters.

        • artem1s

          who are addicted to feeding rage-addicted voters

      • rm

        I’ve met snake handlers who are much more kind and sane than McCrory.

        • benjoya

          i’ve met snakes who are much more kind than mcCrory

          • rm

            I’ve handled snakes that were more kind. And some of them bit me.

    • DamnYankees

      Unfortunately, that “type” consists of tens of millions and largely controls electoral outcomes in this country.

      • howard

        exactly.

      • Sev

        Well, the snakes have valid reasons for being unhinged.

  • John not McCain

    Drove through NC recently on the way home from a funeral. I noticed the “Welcome to NC” signs have an interesting motto on the bottom:

    “The Nation’s Most Military Friendly State.”

    Just awesome. You’d think one of the neighboring peckerwood states would object, but I guess not.

    • Ahuitzotl

      I’ve seen signs claiming this in Alabama and Arkansas as well, so …

  • aturner339

    I think this nailed the real fear “anti identitarians” like Lilla have. Not that race and sexual orientation are not salient for swing voters but that racism and bigotry are so powerful they can’t be openly challenged.

    This goes a long way towards proving that view wrong.

    • ThrottleJockey

      Obama was always wary of racializing politics. I think it’s a strategic choice not a One Size Fits All decision. These things sometimes work. Similar action led to Arizona passing the MLK Holiday too.

      Perhaps the best thing for Dem politicians to remember is that there message has to have something for everyone politics being the process of addition.

      • aturner339

        US Politics has never been unracialized but yes Obama was always careful to avoid being forked against “white america” as a concept. I don’t think I suggested abandoning all tactical prudence. Just not assuming that throwing minorities under the bus is the only option.

        • ThrottleJockey

          Agreed.

    • PhoenixRising

      racism and bigotry are so powerful they can’t be openly challenged

      And while this does cut against that (incorrect) belief, it also suggests that openly challenging racism and bigotry works best in a context described by PPP in depth:

      A bigot who ran for office in moderate/indifferent to ‘those issues’ clothing (like a certain person soon to be confirmed by the EC unless they come to their senses) who allows psychos driven by their prejudices in the GOP (wait, I repeat myself) to hijack the government to enforce those prejudices CAN be beaten.

      The specific WAY he was beaten, that is a lesson to anyone thinking about the future direction of Democrats, holds a lot of promise. Moral Mondays went on for 40 months. And it worked.

      Making voters face the fact that they were fooled, not by talking badly about the conman who swindled them out of their votes or explaining once again how he’s injuring the community, but by embodying the attacks (targeted direct action/non-violent CD) on their ‘identities’ (ability to function under the governance of the state) by laying down in the statehouse and making the state police drag them away.

      Obviously I have more to say about this but I’mma leave it right here: a network of parents whose children require complex, expensive medical care (that we cannot pay for because no one could) are planning to adopt this tactic in the event of an attack on the ACA. Because it will work. It may not stop the legislation but it will make Trump and GOP congresscritters look like what they are.

  • BartletForGallifrey

    I believe the correct response here is: “Bye, Felicia!”

  • Orphos

    the rights of the transgendered

    Erf. Let me identity politics on this and say please don’t do this.

    I mean, if this is a clever reference to McCrory then by all means.

    “If we have to protect the rights of the transgendered,” McCrory said in a press conference, “who’s to say the government won’t come back and tell us we have to do the same for women and blacks and other minorities? What then?”

    • Vance Maverick

      Can you spell out your objection and preference? Not arguing with you, just want to know.

      • McAllen

        You really shouldn’t say transgendered, as if transgender was a verb and you’re using the past tense. The better phrasing here would be “the rights of transgender people” or something like that.

        • rm

          Thank you. Even though it’s not the responsibility of people in a community to educate the world, it is also true that if simple requests like this aren’t explained, many of us won’t learn the nuances.

        • You really shouldn’t say transgendered, as if transgender was a verb and you’re using the past tense.

          A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik, notes (in section 7.15, p. 413 of 1779) that “There are many adjectives that have the same suffixes as participles in -ing or -ed […]. These will be called PARTICIPIAL ADJECTIVES [… .] They include forms in -ed that have no corresponding verbs”, such as unexpected, downhearted, talented, diseased: “When there are no corresponding verbs, (*to unexpect, *to downheart, *to talent, *to disease), the forms are obviously not participles (cf. Note below).” The Note adds that “Nouns can also have adjective derivatives in -ed, e.g., hard-hearted, talented, four-legged, flat-bottomed, bearded.”

          Thus there is no logical force in your “as if” phrase; I would guess that you (and perhaps those for whom you speak) believe that there is because at some early, impressionable stage you fell under the baleful spell of Prescriptivist Grammarians, and have not yet had that spell broken by the Descriptivists (like Quirk et al.). I would say, “Go, and sin no more”, but, hey, my guess is just that, not (unlike Quirk et al.’s book) the result of analyzing huge corpora of actual spoken and written English.

          • McAllen

            My point is that given the adjective “transgender” exists, using “transgendered” makes it sound like you’re referring to a verb form of transgender that does not exist. If someone referred to something as “greened” I would assume they were referring to a verb “to green” that I wasn’t aware of.

          • Orphos

            \

          • Jordan

            I think this is the first post I’ve ever read that makes me feel sympathetic to prescriptivists.

          • delazeur

            It’s worthwhile to make an effort to address people the way they want to be addressed, and for that reason I avoid “transgendered,” but at the same time it is interesting to note the weird undertones of prescriptivism and virtue signaling going on here, especially since the people doing those things are usually opposed to them in other contexts.

            • McAllen

              I really don’t think it’s prescriptivist to say transgendered isn’t the way to say or write the word, anymore than “greened” or “democrat” (as an adjective) would be.

              • delazeur

                It’s absolutely prescriptivist. There are a number of examples in this thread of adjectives that end in “ed” that are clearly not verbs (wjts’s “gendered” being an excellent example), so I’m not sure what your point about “greened” is. However, transgender people clearly deserve deference here, so the prescriptivism is entirely reasonable.

                • McAllen

                  My point is that there are also a lot of adjectives that do not end in “-ed,” that transgender is one of them, and that it’s not prescriptivist to say so.

                  Look, imagine a lot of of straight people started referring to gay people as “gayed” people. That would be weird, right? And if gay people responded “Um, that’s not the right word” it would be obnoxious to call them prescriptivist and say “Well, actually there are a lot of participial adjectives,” wouldn’t it?

                • delazeur

                  No. It would be prescriptivism, AND it would be reasonable.

                • (((Hogan)))

                  Only if you consider prescriptivism as such offensive. I would think it depends on who’s doing the prescribing and what reasons they’re offering.

                • nixnutz

                  There’s a good article on the history here.

                  I think there’s a good descriptivist case that “transgender” had rapid uptake in the trans community going back to the 80s and that’s good enough. But your arguments based on other adjectives in English fall down badly because of the obvious example of “gendered”.

                • delazeur

                  Perhaps a better way to say it is this: saying that “transgendered” is wrong because transgender people dislike it is reasonable prescriptivism, while saying that “transgendered” is wrong because “transgender” isn’t a verb is unreasonable prescriptivism. There is an understandable tendency to use the latter approach (as you did above) because it seems more objective and less emotional, but ultimately that just caters to people who don’t accept that the views of actual transgender people matter.

                  [Welp, nixntuz beat me to it.]

                • nixnutz

                  wjts had already made the important point but I wanted to include that link because it’s interesting. I really did assume that the term that sounds more natural was older but that doesn’t seem to be the case, at least in the relevant context.

                • rm

                  Usage (which in this case is a usage rule related to showing respect to a stigmatized community) is not prescriptivism. It is a prescription that one term is preferred for specific reasons.

                  Prescriptivism is the more general approach to usage that says some usages are grammatically incorrect even though they make sense. This has nothing to do with the issue here.

                  Also, participial adjectives are participial because they are verb participles doing the job of adjectives, for fuck’s sake. Even if there is not an original verb.

                • McAllen

                  All right, we may just have different definitions of prescriptivist here. Let me try to explain why I’m finding this thread annoying. You say:

                  saying that “transgendered” is wrong because transgender people dislike it is reasonable prescriptivism

                  but that’s not really why transgendered is wrong, anymore than “greened” is wrong because painters dislike it. It’s just not the word. It could have been the word–there’s nothing inherently ungrammatical about it. But there’s nothing ungrammatical about transgender either (gendered is an adjective, but so is gender, as in gender roles). Saying that transgendered is wrong because trans people dislike it makes it sound like we’re suspending the rules of grammar to preserve transgender people’s feelings.

                • delazeur

                  Saying that transgendered is wrong because trans people dislike it makes it sound like we’re suspending the rules of grammar to preserve transgender people’s feelings.

                  It’s as much about grammar as not calling Black people “colored” is about grammar. You made up a grammar rule (“‘-ed’ only applies to verbs in the past tense”) in order to justify proscribing “transgendered”; the fact that your rule is clearly not true in general is just icing on the cake.

                • BartletForGallifrey

                  ignore

              • BartletForGallifrey

                Saying that transgendered is wrong because trans people dislike it makes it sound like we’re suspending the rules of grammar to preserve transgender people’s feelings.

                This is starting to look an awful lot like a new twist on JAQing off.

                • McAllen

                  Honestly, this is entirely possible. I’m definitely getting more heated than I should be, and I probably should have bowed out four comments ago or so. I’m bowing out now.

                • delazeur

                  I’m not sure how this can be anything like JAQing off given that everyone here agrees that “transgender” is the correct term. The disagreement is over whether its correctness is purely grammatical.

                • BartletForGallifrey

                  The disagreement is over whether its correctness is purely grammatical.

                  And irrelevant and comes off as litigating how people decide to refer to themselves.

                • delazeur

                  And irrelevant and comes off as litigating how people decide to refer to themselves.

                  Are we reading the same thread? I am arguing: (1) that how people choose to refer to themselves is the only relevant factor in determining how people refer to them; and (2) that even if grammar was a relevant factor the specific grammatical argument presented doesn’t stand up on its own merits. The first thing is the only truly important part, but the second part holds interest to the language enthusiasts who hang out around here (of which I am one). I believe I have been reasonably clear about these two things from my first comment, and definitely from my second comment.

                  Would you care to point out which part of the above is litigating how people decide to refer to themselves?

                • BartletForGallifrey

                  My original charge of JAQing off came from the following statement: “Saying that transgendered is wrong because trans people dislike it makes it sound like we’re suspending the rules of grammar to preserve transgender people’s feelings.”

                  I’m just fine with suspending the rules of grammar to preserve transgender people’s feelings, and rather think that not doing so makes one an ass. And as the person to whom I was speaking *agreed* that it was getting overheated, I’m not sure why you’re het about it now.

                  Regardless, I’ll certainly defer to any trans person here on this issue, but I imagine I would find it unpleasant to have people discussing the grammatical implications and *correctness* of how I refer to myself. Well, not so much “I imagine” as “trans people elsewhere have expressed discomfort with such discussions.”

                • delazeur

                  And as the person to whom I was speaking *agreed* that it was getting overheated, I’m not sure why you’re het about it now.

                  Don’t mind me, I was confuzzled. Apologies, good day, and all that.

            • BartletForGallifrey

              It’s worthwhile to make an effort to address people the way they want to be addressed

              That really should be the end of it.

              • Marek

                Harrumph.

                • BartletForGallifrey

                  Gesundheit.

              • delazeur

                Well, yeah. That is the end of it, as a practical matter. The “transgendered is ungrammatical” argument is where it gets weird, and is what the rest of my comment responded to.

          • wjts

            I agree completely and, perhaps most relevantly, would note that “gendered” is in common usage as a participial adjective (e.g. “gendered language”).

            That said, lots and lots of transgender folks have said that they would prefer to be described as “transgender” rather than “transgendered” and their opinions on the matter carry more weight than the musings of a cisgendered language enthusiast.

            • delazeur

              That said, lots and lots of transgender folks have said that they would prefer to be described as “transgender” rather than “transgendered” and their opinions on the matter carry more weight than the musings of a cisgendered language enthusiast.

              Yup.

              This is reasonable in a way that inventing rules to make English more like Latin is not.

              • GFW

                I would *guess* that the preference for transgender over transgendered is because, by the usual ways English works, the latter sounds like it was something done to them, while the former sounds more intrinsic.

                I’m not saying that adjectives ending in -ed have to mean that, but they often do and thus tend to carry that implication. (Examples: charmed, entertained, flattered, moved… Counterexamples: gendered, more?)

                • McAllen

                  Thank you, this makes the point I was trying to make in my first and second comments much better.

                  saying that “transgendered” is wrong because transgender people dislike it is reasonable prescriptivism

                  I would argue even gendered has the implication of something being done to the object (e.g. “gendered clothing” is gendered by society).

                • delazeur

                  I would *guess* that the preference for transgender over transgendered is because, by the usual ways English works, the latter sounds like it was something done to them, while the former sounds more intrinsic.

                  I’m not saying that adjectives ending in -ed have to mean that, but they often do and thus tend to carry that implication. (Examples: charmed, entertained, flattered, moved… Counterexamples: gendered, more?)

                  I’m inclined to think the grammatical argument is a post hoc justification. Transphobes obviously use “transgendered” as a slur or a dog whistle, and the grammatical argument was created to explain discomfort with the term to an unsympathetic audience. The real reason, which many people won’t accept if it isn’t dressed up as a grammar rule, is basically the same as the reason we don’t call Black people “Colored”. (I don’t think I’ve ever seen this grammatical argument applied to “Colored” but I would be curious to see an example if anyone has one.) Similar to “transgendered”, if you call someone a homosexual or refer to the Democrat party you aren’t really grammatically wrong, but I still know what you’re doing and I will tell you that you’re using the wrong words.

                  For what it’s worth, Lee Rudolph’s post above has some good counterexamples to the grammar “rule” in addition to gendered.

                  I would argue even gendered has the implication of something being done to the object (e.g. “gendered clothing” is gendered by society).

                  I’m not sure that the concept of being transgender is any less of a social construct than gendered clothing.

                • Hob

                  “The usual ways English works” include common and easily understood adjectival forms like “red-haired” and “hard-hearted”, which no one mistakes for being about someone “hairing” or “hearting” someone else. “Transgendered” fits perfectly well into that pattern if the intended meaning is “this person has a gender, and that gender is best described as ‘trans'”. As delazeur says, none of the above means that it’s a good word to use! But the grammatical arguments continue to be bogus – so I wish people wouldn’t repeat them, just because making people even more confused about how English works (or “works”) is not a good thing to do, unless it’s for laughs.

      • Orphos

        GLAAD has a nice reference PDF if you’re interested http://www.glaad.org/sites/default/files/allys-guide-to-terminology_1.pdf .

        • Jordan

          Wait, LGBT isn’t a good thing to use? That hasn’t been my experience, even for people who aren’t familiar. Am I wrong?

          • Orphos

            Perhaps a Vox article is better for this issue then. http://www.vox.com/2015/2/18/8055691/transgender-transgendered-tnr

            • Jordan

              oh definitely, that explains referents pretty clearly for anyone with questions about how to correctly refer to trans people.

          • BartletForGallifrey

            Where are you getting that?

            • Jordan

              the original link that Orphos provided puts “LGBT” in the “terms to avoid” column for people who aren’t already familiar/supportive.

              • It may simply mean that if you aren’t familiar with the cause, you may not know what the acronym means. (I had to explain it for my dad the other day…)

                • Jordan

                  Thats probably true, but my personal experience has been explaining it to potentially sympathetic but otherwise unaware people has worked out well. But my personal experience obviously doesn’t mean that works for everyone, so if there was a good reason to *not* do that I’d want to know.

          • The Great God Pan

            LGBT is insufficiently inclusive. We are now up to LGBTQQIAAP (not joking). The next step will probably be deleting the hopelessly binary and mainstream L and G to make room for the latest cool, cutting edge (and basically straight) identities like girlfags and hetero-romantic demisexuals.

            • Jordan

              hilarious comment bro /s

              • I wouldn’t have put it in exactly those terms, but I think there’s a legitimate debate between “lumpers” and “splitters” here. A lot of trans people I know reject “LGBT” and similar constructs entirely. Others are in the camp that just says “queer” and encourages defining that as widely as possible.

                Our current focus on respecting people’s lived experiences, letting people define themselves, etc. does result in a situation where people so inclined can seize for themselves the right to speak for people whose lives they have no real connection to. I can think of two examples from my own life. One was a person who used a claimed identity as a weapon and shield in the course of abusing friends and family. The other just had the charming tendency to believe themselves a complete authority on gay/lesbian/bi/trans/etc. existence of all kinds, despite not having any lived experience in that regard.

                • Jordan

                  Absolutely.

                  That is not what I got from that original comment from pan.

            • delazeur

              I have also seen QUILTBAG, which is conveniently pronounceable. What irks me about the acronym nomenclature (much more than the unwieldiness) is the focus on taxonomy, as though an identity cannot exist if there isn’t a specific name for it that distinguishes it from all others.

              • rea

                I have eaten a GBLT sandwich (it is made with Gouda cheese).

              • The Great God Pan

                I don’t think QUILTBAG ever really caught on. QUILTBAAG might be more popular, as it includes the all-important second “A” for Allies (aka straights). They don’t like being left out.

                • delazeur

                  QUILTBAAG might be more popular, as it includes the all-important second “A” for Allies (aka straights). They don’t like being left out.

                  Fuuuuuuuck.

              • GeoX

                My problem with “quiltbag” is that words ending in -bag tend to be negative: douche-, scum, dirt-. Those are not associations that anyone needs.

            • Richard Gadsden

              In the UK, LGBT+ is popular, because it avoids the problem of accidentally leaving anyone out.

              I know people who pronounce it “plus”.

              • Steve LaBonne

                In this country “LGTBQ” is widely accepted, with “Q” variously interpreted as “queer” or “questioning”. The numerous LGBTQ folks in my church seem comfortable with it.

        • Origami Isopod

          Avoid highly charged, argumentative terms like “hate” and “bigotry,” which are likely to alienate people.

          Yeah, nah. ‘Phobes are bigots.

    • Arla

      I strongly suspect that it was in fact a callback to McCrory’s statement, since I’m pretty sure based on his prior posts that Scott knows transgender is an adjective, not a verb. That said, I’d appreciate if he perhaps change that turn of phrase to a link to McCrory’s statements so folks don’t get the wrong idea.

  • Denverite

    It’s going to be a lot harder for him to run his grift whereby he takes bribes to use his prison workers for unpaid labor (or not) now that he’s out of office. That said, things really have gone downhill since Andy Dufresne disappeared, so maybe it’s not much of a loss.

  • Warren Terra

    I am very disappointed that McRory has decided to abandon his party's bold proposal to finally achieve Parliamentary Government in North Carolina. Idealistic and high-minded government reformers aware of the theoretical advantages of Parliamentary Government had proposed the legislature should choose the executive without reference to the people who'd thought they were directly electing one, and had passed laws that would have made such a move technically legal. But McRory lost his nerve, or maybe lost his faith in Government Reform.

    • alexceres

      +1

      this wouldn’t do much good out west, but we could finally be rid of republican officials in much of the NE

      It amazes me republicans claim to support democracy while endorsing a repeal of the 17th amendment. What’s the over / under on years until they cast all pretense aside ?

      • BartletForGallifrey

        while endorsing a repeal of the 17th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments

        FTFY.

        • N__B

          And 1st.

          • kped

            If those amendments mattered, they’d be carrying guns. But they aren’t, so they don’t.

          • Warren Terra

            It isn’t so much that they want to get rid of the First Amendment (it was very useful in slaying campaign finance, and Clarence Thomas insists it still allows states to have official religions, just not the feds), as that getting rid of the First Amendment would put the Expurgated Second Amendment (none of that “well regulated militia” nonsense!) in first place where it belongs.

            • rm

              Maybe it’s that they want the First Amendment to mean the opposite of what sane people read it to mean. E.g., keep government out of religion means that corporations should rule over the medical care of their employees because of their deep religious corporate convictions. And free speech and assembly confined to Free Speech Zones.

              The Negative-First Amendment.

        • alexceres

          Those amendments are for Other People who Don’t Deserve a Vote and are Probably ILLEGALLLLLLLL. Or missing a penis. Which should be illegal. Except in marriage.

          The thing that twists my mind is the the 17th amendment is about white guys getting to vote for senators themselves. And they still hate it.

          My best guess is most of these people have no idea what the political positions they support actually are, they just repeat whatever Fox & friends tells them they should think. Like Trump bringing back all the jobs.

          So glad they can burn the rest of the country down with themselves.

          • Just_Dropping_By

            The main critique of the 17th Amendment that I’ve seen is that it centralizes power in the federal government by removing the state governments’ ability to select legislators whose primary loyalty would (presumably) be to the states as institutions, rather than to individual voters. Direct election of senators runs against the intention that the Senate serve as a representative body for the member states of the USA, not individual voters.

            • alexceres

              Which would be a fine, albeit odd, position having pretty much nothing to do with democracy.

              “Take MY vote away! Freeedumb!” is still bizarre.

              • Just_Dropping_By

                Except it’s not bizarre if someone thinks that their interests would be better represented at the state level than at the federal level.

                • rm

                  Someone who has found that campaign bribes spending and propaganda gets a lot more bang for the buck on the state level.

                • BiloSagdiyev

                  Responding to rm here, because that’s how this comment system breaks sometimes:

                  And that ease of bribing at the state legislator level (hint, fewer of them) exactly why the Constitution was amended during the Populist era. So once again, this is all about the yeaning for the Money Power to be in charge of all things.

                  But it doesn’t explain the average RWNJ thinking this is a necessary reform. Other than all the other times they thought they were rich.

            • Richard Gadsden

              If you removed the 17th, you’d get the German Bundesrat. But you’d want to remove lots of power from the Senate.

        • Philip

          I assume 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 23, 24, and 26 are also on their to-kill list. Plus a rewrite of that pesky 10th amendment to say what they’ve always known Jesus Washington Reagan really meant when he wrote it.

          • N__B

            Are we really sure they agree with the 13th?

            • BartletForGallifrey

              I think 2nd may be the only one we’re 100% sure on. And even that needs a rewrite to clarify the individual right to own a machine gun.

              • kped

                Pfft, if your 2nd Amendment doesn’t let me own a nuke, it’s a liberal watered down pussy version.

            • Mellano

              Bonded laborers have to be housed and fed. Those plantation owners were giants among men, and few today would even dream of matching their achievements.

          • ScottK

            I bet they could find some people who might do better having soldiers quartered on them, just to help keep them out of trouble. You can tell who these people are because of the way their darker hue suits them to sneaking around at night and other surreptitious activities.

        • Darkrose

          And when they figure out a way to outright repeal it, the 13th is probably gone. I wrote fanfic in a world where that happened; at the time I thought it was purely speculative.

          • BiloSagdiyev

            Nothing is ever settled. There is no such thing as progress, only temporary battle lines. The freaks are running loose. Anything and everything is possible, especially things from our own history coming back. Say, is there an armory at Harper’s Ferry?

  • DamnYankees

    No matter what, the most important takeaway from this election is that we should learn nothing from mainstream Democrats like McGinty and Hassan and Cooper and Ross running ahead of, or barely behind, Clinton, while Berniecrats like Feingold and Teachout did substantially worse.

    We must not read any evidence into this. Only your pre-election intuitions must stand, regardless of contrary outcomes.

    • Jordan

      A lesson could probably be learned about calling Russ Feingold a “Berniecrat”, ya.

      • ThrottleJockey

        Yeah I was going to say the same thing.

      • Jackov

        It is curious that Teachout keeps coming up but never Nolan.
        After all, Nolan ran a populist campaign against a racist millionaire screaming about Syrian refugees and outperformed Clinton by 12 points.

        • PhoenixRising

          If you want someone to hear of Nolan’s triumph, and use it to create meaning, you’re gonna have to explain who s/he is. Thanks!

          • Jordan

            he is talking about Rick Nolan from Minnesota. Among other differences, he was an incumbent.

    • BartletForGallifrey

      Also, neolib Wall Street-loving Schumer running *13* points ahead of Clinton.

      Incidentally, the upstate New York presidential and Senate results further feed my theory that the American people have no fucking clue what they want and/or are paste-eating dipshits.

      • mds

        Hey! If this is anyone other than Steve Allen, you’re stealing my bit!

        • BartletForGallifrey

          Uh…you have a bit?

          If it’s “calling upstate New York a bunch of paste-eating dipshits,” that’s not a unique stance.

          • mds

            Harping on the Upstate Disconnect(TM) over Clinton has been one of my shticks when “economic anxiety” is being bandied about in LGM comment threads. I usually flesh it out by not only considering Schumer 2016 vs. Clinton, but Clinton 2006 vs. Clinton. These people thought Hillary Clinton was the fucking bee’s knees ten years ago. Which is what leads me to blame Upstate paste-eating dipshits and the mainstream media.

            As someone who used to live in Metro Rochester, I probably should have considered it ominous foreshadowing in 2014 when (1) Louise Slaughter almost lost; and (2) local TV personality and stupid racist shitstain Rich Funke got elected to the state senate. Though I don’t know what I personally would’ve been able to do differently, other than take advantage of a slightly more favorable scoring framework for New Zealand immigration.

            • BartletForGallifrey

              And then there was that brief moment when a Democrat won in Jefferson County, prompting my father, who grew up in Watertown, to declare the End Times.

              • mds

                For President? I.e., Bill Clinton in 1996, joining LBJ ’64 in the Hall of Legends? Because Jefferson County has been A-OK with a Democratic US senator for quite a while, except for Schumer in 1998 and Hillary in 2000.

                It’s actually kind of weird looking at places like Allegheny County on these maps, repeatedly switching between deep red and blue. I have a theory that the American people have no fucking clue what they want and/or are paste-eating dipshits.

                • Jackov

                  You apparently wandered into Pennsylvania.

                  Allegany County NY has not voted for a Democrat in a presidential race since LBJ. Schumer won the county twice with 43% and 47%
                  and is the only D Senate candidate to do so since at least 1960.

                • BartletForGallifrey

                  They had a Dem for Congresscritter. Bill Owens. I couldn’t give the CD, because it changed. I want to say it was 23 and is now 21, but could be the other way around, or something else entirely.

                • BartletForGallifrey

                  Schumer won the county twice with 43% and 47%
                  and is the only D Senate candidate to do so since at least 1960.

                  Clear evidence that they’re CRYING OUT for democratic socialism.

      • Steve LaBonne

        Definitely “and”.

      • Bill Murray

        Also, neolib Wall Street-loving Schumer running *13* points ahead of Clinton.

        That lesson would be well-funded, incumbents often do very well. Also, Schumer won by less than Gillibrand did against the same opponent in 2012, although both did better than the Democratic presidential candidate in the same election (Gillibrand ran 8-9 points better than President Obama and got the highest percentage in a statewide New York election ever and more votes than Schumer).

  • xq

    It should also be noted that this race is a pretty major problem for assertions that IDENTITY POLITICS cost Clinton the election.

    Is it? McCrory’s problem wasn’t just that his policy was transphobic, but that it cost the state economically. That seems consistent with the view that prioritizing economic arguments over “identity politics” is the way to win elections.

    • Jordan

      The only reason it was an economic problem was *because* it was an “identity politics” issue.

      • McAllen

        Exactly. Far from suggesting liberals should put less emphasis on “identity politics,” it suggests liberals should fight hard for identity issues, and tie them in to economic issues.

        • ThrottleJockey

          This. Its important to intertwine them. That’s hard in the abstract mind you.

          It’s a lot easier when the NCAA pulls out of your state.

        • Jordan

          Right, exactly. It *worked* AND it did the right thing. Work on connecting the two and push it.

    • DamnYankees

      This is a chicken and egg thing – if liberals who cared about these issues hadn’t make a huge stink in the first place, it wouldn’t have cost the state anything economically. The stigma attached to this bigotry is what caused the economic hit, and that stigma didn’t just come from nowhere. It was created by activists.

      • leftwingfox

        Exactly.

      • xq

        Yeah, but if the way to win on these issues is to cause an economic hit, we need the cooperation of business–and they just don’t seem to care as much about reproductive rights or police shootings as LGBT rights.

        • rm

          Yes, but businesses can be made to care. They don’t have convictions (except the very devout Hobby Lobby, sentient AI), so if it becomes a matter of protecting the brand or avoiding financial loss, they’ll adopt a good policy.

          • CP

            They don’t have convictions (except the very devout Hobby Lobby, sentient AI)

            This is one of those Sane Billionaires vs. Insane Billionaires thing. A lot of businesses are run by conservative assholes who will happily cut their own nose to spite their face. A lot of others will see sense as long as their bottom line is affected. So, make sure the bottom line is affected.

            See also the “I want to do it, now make me do it” line from FDR, the ultimate Sane Billionaire.

        • BartletForGallifrey

          and they just don’t seem to care as much about reproductive rights or police shootings as LGBT rights.

          One might, if one were cynical, think that that’s because businesses are run by white dudes and some of them are gay.

          One might, if one were especially cynical, even find it galling that the left has spent hundreds of millions of dollars (not to mention time and energy) on gay marriage, while the rights of those of us with uteri are stripped away beyond anything we could have imagined.

          One might find oneself filled with boiling rage that Indiana’s “religious freedom” act inspired national boycotts and protests, while Indiana’s imprisonment of Purvi Patel and Indiana’s horrific rules on fetal remains (now adopted by Texas) were received with collective shrugs. (One might also wonder why California and New York aren’t currently boycotting the hell out of Texas for requiring women to bury their miscarriages.)

          You know, theoretically. One might.

          • xq

            One might, if one were cynical, think that that’s because businesses are run by white dudes and some of them are gay.

            My guess would be that this has a whole lot to do with it, yeah. From the perspective of Democratic campaigns, though, it is what it is. The fact of the matter is that anti-LGBT laws do cause economic backlash while abortion restrictions largely don’t, so there’s opportunities to politically exploit the economic backlash to anti-LGBT laws but much less so for abortion restrictions. Perhaps there’s something abortion rights activists could do to change that, but it’s not really something political campaigns can do.

          • PhoenixRising

            Very specifically to this example, Mitchell Gold doesn’t have to put up with this shit in his home state–he can make his product and market it form anywhere.

            However, your contention that ‘the left’ did jack shit for marriage equality beyond lip service once LGBT families and the issue organizations we funded at great personal sacrifice moved public opinion to make that tenable is laughably incorrect.

            It does lead to my current hope for the Trump administration: that American straight women are going to finally figure out that they are an interest group and start acting like one.

            • BartletForGallifrey

              However, your contention that ‘the left’ did jack shit for marriage equality beyond lip service once LGBT families and the issue organizations we funded at great personal sacrifice moved public opinion to make that tenable is laughably incorrect.

              Uh…where did I contend any such thing?

              • PhoenixRising

                the left has spent hundreds of millions of dollars (not to mention time and energy) on gay marriage

                Say what?

                • BartletForGallifrey

                  Oh, I see. I was misunderstanding what you said.

        • McAllen

          Obviously it’s useful to have businesses on your side, but I think it’s possible to create economic pressure through strikes or (well-organized, collective) boycotts even without businesses being initially on board, though I’ll certainly grant it’s difficult.

        • Jordan

          Absolutely, and that is a real problem. As Bartlett says, that type of thing hasn’t worked for other critical issues.

          But perhaps that is a thing to work on? I dunno, if it works it works but I’m also squeamish about holding out hope for corporations just lead by rich white men.

          • BartletForGallifrey

            Bartlet’s point was actually that it isn’t tried for other critical issues.

            North Carolina passes anti-LGBTQ law: Cuomo and de Blasio Ban Travel to North Carolina Over Anti-LGBT Law

            “In New York, we believe that all people — regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation — deserve the same rights and protections under the eyes of the law. From Stonewall to marriage equality, our state has been a beacon of hope and equality for the LGBT community, and we will not stand idly by as misguided legislation replicates the discrimination of the past. As long as there is a law in North Carolina that creates the grounds for discrimination against LGBT people, I am barring non-essential state travel to that state.”

            Indiana imprisons woman for having miscarriage: crickets.gif

            • Jordan

              Its certainly has been tried, over and over again. But it hasn’t captured the attention or efforts of the elites, so it hasn’t worked.

              But I do definitely agree that this hasn’t captured elite attention and pushback. Can it be made to happen? I dunno, maybe?

              • Steve LaBonne

                It’s been tried? There are corporations refusing to do business in states with misogynistic reproductive health laws? Out of state governors and mayors have traveled to those states to announce public employee travel bans? News to me.

                • BartletForGallifrey

                  No, not so much, nope.

                  So weird!

                • Jordan

                  Ya, sorry, that wasn’t clear.

                  Its certainly been tried by activists (to get corporations to do this). It hasn’t worked, but it also hasn’t been a huge push by elites. It certainly hasn’t been tried by meaningful corporations, and it certainly hasn’t been tried by state governors.

                  Now that the gotchas are addressed: is this a thing that activists should pursue? Could we get, say, california or massachusetts to ban travel to states with those sorts of laws? Perhaps some of the silicon valley companies? Is it worth the effort? I think those are real questions worth addressing, even if relying on corporations to push justice of any sort is iffy.

    • (((Hogan)))

      Or maybe with the view that “identity politics” and economic issues have significant overlap.

    • sibusisodan

      McCrory’s problem wasn’t just that his policy was transphobic, but that it cost the state economically.

      But it only cost the state economically because of the protests at this law which singles out a certain group of people…

    • DrDick

      It really is not an either/or proposition, but a both proposition. Focusing solely on one or the other risks alienating strong Democratic constituencies.

  • teamcinzano

    He still has time to do great damage to the state. The legislature is about to have a 4-day special session, nominally on the issue of Hurricane Matthew storm damage. All indications, though, are that they want to add two new seats to the state Supreme Court, which they lost control of in the election. McCory will appoint those two new judges.

    • mds

      All indications, though, are that they want to add two new seats to the state Supreme Court, which they lost control of in the election.

      Yeah, I remember that coming up when the tantrum over absolutely everything not going their way on Election Day first started. Is there any attention being paid to it on the ground? Installing McCrory by legislative fiat was apparently a bridge too far; any chance of them blinking on this flagrant abuse of democracy, too?

      • teamcinzano

        There is plenty of attention being paid. Once Cooper’s lead exceeded 10,000 votes, the election wasn’t technically contestable anymore, so the necessary pretense for the legislature to move by fiat wasn’t there any longer. What’s done in a special session, with a super majority, is much harder to stop though.

  • Peterr

    It should also be noted that this race is a pretty major problem for assertions that IDENTITY POLITICS cost Clinton the election.

    Some say that the true Identity Politics story of this election is how Plutocrat-Americans allied themselves with Racist-Americans to entice Misogynistic-Americans to help snooker Clueless-Americans into supporting their chosen candidate.

    Key to this theory is the First Rule of Identity Politics: don’t talk about Identity Politics. At least if these are the identities you are concerned about.

    • DrDick

      I would agree with this. White identity politics helped Trump’s turnout, while Clinton failed to inspire the Democratic base, who stayed hone in large numbers.

      • BartletForGallifrey

        The Democratic ba—oh, never mind. I quit.

        • DrDick

          Almost half of all voters did not vote, most of them Democrats (see my link above). Clinton lost because Democratic turnout was way down.

          • (((Hogan)))
            • Rob in CT

              To be fair, you need to adjust for pop growth (or to be more precise, the growth in eligible voters).

              Back of the napkin math I did just after the election suggested just over 3% pop growth. 3.2 or something like that.

              Obama’s 2012 total adjusted up 3.2% is 68,027,899. Say she’ll end up 2.5 million below that. That’s -3.6%.

              • (((Hogan)))

                Which is smaller than Obama’s raw fall-off from 2008 to 2012 (3,580,921).

                • Rob in CT

                  I do think 2012 is the better benchmark, though. In 2008 the GOP was absolutely drawing dead. They comprehensively shit the bed (Iraq War, Katrina, failed attempt at gutting SS) and then the economy tanked.

                  We underperformed 2012, though not by so much that I think it validates the idea that the Democrats must radically change course (to match my personal preferences, natch!) or that HRC was the worst candidate to ever run or whatever.

                  Adjustments need to be made. But they’re fairly small, IMO.

                • BartletForGallifrey

                  When looking at dropoff we should also consider how many people were disenfranchised this year as compared to 2012.

                • (((Hogan)))

                  My point, and building a bit on what BfG said, is that I don’t think this is primarily a failure of the base to turn out. The most striking difference between 2012 and 2016 is the number of third-party votes, and holy mother of Cthulhu, that’s a big freakin difference. The base wasn’t the problem; the leaners were the problem.

                • BartletForGallifrey

                  The base wasn’t the problem; the leaners were the problem.

                  What we’re learning here is: Democrats have short memories. They forgot, after eight years of Clinton, just how bad Republicans can be. They forgot, after eight years of Obama, just how bad Republicans can be.

                  And now we all have to suffer.

                • Rob in CT

                  Oh, agreed, it’s the “leaners” who defected/stayed home.

                  Add in Trump matching Romney (if you adjust Romney’s vote total upward by ~3% you get Trump’s vote total almost exactly), via replacing his defectors (and there were some) with people who came out of the woodwork to vote for Fuck You!, and there you go.

                  ETA: raw votes are now up to +5.3% from 2012:

                  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

                • BartletForGallifrey

                  But not, I’d guess, the “centrist” leaners. Moreso the lefty leaners. Fucking Jill Stein got nearly a million more votes than she did in 2012.

                  ETA: And turnout rate is up .5%.

              • DrDick
                • (((Hogan)))

                  Dave Leip has the total votes cast at 136 million, which is ten million more than the CNN article. I’m not sure how to pick here.

                • Rob in CT

                  What Hogan said. That CNN article was probably going off of the vote total on 11/11, which is far lower than it is now.

                  Turnout was up.

              • PhoenixRising

                Does your napkin have room for what share of that 3% can vote, by age or citizenship status?

                If we can’t agree to kill the myth, based on NYT exit polling and one interview, which seems off base compared to county-by-county numbers using certified results, that Clinton lost because Democrats who could vote chose not to, could we at least use a bigger napkin?

                • Rob in CT

                  Well, that’s why it was back ‘o the napkin. Pop growth is not actually the right thing to use. I was hoping it was close enough for blog comment work. ;)

    • MPAVictoria

      Clueless-Americans is probably by far the biggest voting demographic.

  • Brien Jackson

    If anyone still doubts that Dudebro leftyism is racist/misogynist, check out Lee Fang bitching about “safety pin boxes” on Twitter yesterday.

    • BartletForGallifrey

      Not so much “bitching about” as “attacking black women about”.

      Relatedly, I was retweeted by Arthur Chu yesterday on the topic of the dudebro left and immediately deleted my tweet, because the alt-lefters lurk on his feed to find people like me to harass.

      Being a woman on the internet is fun!

      • Brien Jackson

        Someone yesterday flat called them out for never attacking men the same as women…which I can attest to myself.

        • BartletForGallifrey

          I believe Dana Houle has commented that the treatment he gets when his profile picture is him vs when it’s something else is…very different.

      • Origami Isopod

        Which is one reason I don’t do Twitter. I honestly don’t have the patience for a platform that requires me to block hordes of abusive assholes every time I happen to attract the sympathetic notice of a bigger fish in the pond.

      • kped

        Chu isn’t @’ing people anymore for that reason. He said he doesn’t want his trolls to troll other people. Admirable, but it sucks that this harassment works.

      • Darkrose

        I have a pre-emptive blocking strategy on Twitter. When I see someone being an ass in someone else’s mentions, I block them.

        • BartletForGallifrey

          Blockchains are a lifesaver.

          • Brien Jackson

            Now now, if there’s one thing I learned from the Sady Doyle Wars (well, besides that she should totally just kill herself already, of course) it’s that block chains are basically the same thing as gas chambers.

            • BartletForGallifrey

              Sady’s mentions are where I get some of my blocks!

              • Brien Jackson

                Can’t go wrong with that

            • The simple fact that blockchains/lists fill Cool Twitter Guys with such profound indignance is exactly why I use and love them. They object to them because they actually work.

              Curiously, they also think those of us who use them are far too stupid to notice the connection between blockchains *effectiveness* and the accompanying keening and wailing from guys on Twitter with ironic profile pics. They also do not seem to grasp that we don’t *care* if they think us blockchain users are totes dishonorable snowflake pussie neoliberals.

    • LeeEsq

      What’s wrong the old symbol of the clenched fist? It seems to have been a sign of resistance to tyranny since the Bronze Age if Wikipedia is correct.

      • MPAVictoria

        Or the Three Arrows of the Antifascist Circle.

        • LeeEsq

          You know you might be an old-school leftist when you here an instrumental version of “O, Christmas Tree” play on the radio and you begin singing the Red Flag softly to yourself.

          • Richard Gadsden

            As a British Lib Dem, I tend to sing slightly different lyrics (these were written in 1965, FYI):

            The people’s flag is slightly pink
            It’s not as red as most folks think
            We must not let the people know
            What socialists thought long ago

            Don’t let the scarlet banner float
            We want the middle classes vote
            Let our old-fashioned comrades sneer
            We’ll stay in power for many a year

            … there are other verses, which you can probably google given the lines I’ve given you, but that’s as far as I can get from memory.

    • McAllen

      I don’t know what’s the most repulsive belief White Leftist Twitter holds, but “Black Women recognizing they need money to live and trying to get it are capitalist sellouts!” is certainly up there.

      • Brien Jackson

        Good socialists like Fang sleep on the streets and starve it would appear.

      • “How dare they insist they should receive payment for their work! Who do they think they are, people?”

    • D.N. Nation

      The only proper grifting for Fang would be for someone to get fired for being a rageaholic jackass on Twitter and then fire up a Kickstarter.

    • Steve LaBonne

      I’ve said this before, but the dudebro “left” reminds me of nothing so much as the pre-WWII French “left” that so easily transitioned to the far right and enthusiastic collaboration with the Nazi occupiers.

      • PhoenixRising

        Everyone I see identified as ‘the dudebro left’ appears to be quoting one of Orwell’s composite characters in ‘Homage to Catalonia’, so…me too?

      • Entirely agree. How curious it is they find so much to agree on with the alt right. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

      • I compared third party voters this cycle to the Weimar communists who refused to form a coalition with the centre-left because “Nach Hitler, uns”. I have seen nothing since to convince me there’s anything inaccurate about this analogy. Yours may be even better, though.

      • Brien Jackson

        Well i just saw greenwald’s “defense” of Keith Ellison, and good God he’s already warming up to the anti-Semitism.

    • Drexciya

      Lee Fang status as an accepted leftist fascinates me. Here he is, making the exact same argument with regard to identity politics (and Jamelle Bouie, of course) that Jonathan Haidt made in response to an article that blames the existence of neo-nazi’s on assertive black/brown politics and the existence of pluralism.

      • BartletForGallifrey

        You forget that Glenn Greenwald is the arbiter of true leftism.

        • Drexciya

          The funny thing about that (and connected to his and the broader left’s noxious, ongoing and racist attack on Marissa Johnson for the cardinal sin of making Sanders look bad for ten minutes) is that one of his/their go-to insults about her is that she’s a former conservative. It’s interesting how that’s disqualifying for her and the authenticity of her leftism, but isn’t disqualifying for their boss, who was not only much older before he supposedly transitioned to the left, but had substantially more noxious views.

          • Well, these are people who think it’s somehow meaningful that Hillary Clinton was a “Goldwater girl” as a teenager.

      • Drexciya

        He then goes on to say that white racism is a response to the racism directed to whites. Seriously.

        • BartletForGallifrey

          I currently have twitter blocked in an effort to focus on my casebook (obviously it’s working very well!) (ps let’s switch to comments that can more easily be followed later on). What’s his justification for that?

          • Drexciya

            From his tweet:

            @RickyRawls When you tell voters they are racist/evil because of their skin color, and ignore their material concerns, they respond w/hate.

            What’s irksome about this is that establishment liberals who humor these writers would understand this as exactly what this is if a conservative writer had said it. But since who said it is a part of the “left,” it’s just a good faith proposition that people can disagree with, because they’re coming at it using necessary principles.

            • tsam

              Goddamn. These fucking fakey leftist dudebros are actually worse than unabashed racists. Doing it with a self-congratulatory, conceited overtone makes me fucking violent. I’ve had seriously all I can stand of these fuckers. Their little fantasy of a white left that runs the whole goddamn show is pure white supremacy. There is not even a hint of nuance or complication to it. I don’t know how they don’t feel gross and disgusted at finding common cause with people like Bannon.

            • PhoenixRising

              That is the most power ‘and’ I have even seen in my life. Damn thing is doing more work than John Henry!

            • I think that’s a quote from an old Ron Paul newsletter he had handy.

        • Darkrose

          I clicked the link only to find that I’ve already blocked him. I feel like this was the right call.

        • kped

          Wow…i hadn’t seen that. White people are racist because people call them racist…i mean, even if American history wasn’t a thing this would sound stupid. I Ziad Jilani and Glenn Greenwald have competition for dumbest and most insufferable person writing for The Intercept.

          • McAllen

            This is straight up the same logic as apologists for abusers saying “He wouldn’t hit you if you wouldn’t keep mouthing off.”

            • leftwingfox

              Yep. Also the logic of Gamergate. “I’m not sexist, therefore I’m going to attack you for calling (some) gamers sexist.”

          • There are no similarities between this sort of thinking and the reasoning of abusers.

            ETA should have refreshed before posting.

      • Brien Jackson

        Of course, Fang is most famous for deleting a bunch of anti-Greenwald tweets once he started cashing checks from The Intercept.

        It starts making sense when you stop thinking of this crew in terms of ideology and just view them as narcissistic bullies.

      • D.N. Nation

        These people and the Bouie hate.

        • McAllen

          It really exposes them. What about Bouie could possibly be objectionable to a leftist, except his focus on race?

          • kped

            Other then his focus on race…his race.

          • tsam

            Bouie points out the racism in them. So instead of making an effort to learn from it, they just attack and discredit him.

            All of us white guys have had to learn painful lessons with our racism. We have a choice in those situations–these are the people who are so invested in being right about everything that they’ll use anything to rationalize their own racism.

    • I notice that he and his followers are convinced that “Clintonistas” are opposed to Keith Ellison as DNC chair. Either he is suffering from profound epistemic closure or I am, because the worst I’ve heard about Ellison’s campaign from liberals is that it’d be better to have someone who can treat it as a full time job.

      • Brien Jackson

        Known Jewish billionaire Haim Saban said he’s anti-Semitic!!!!!!

  • I assume he’s already been assured a position in the Trumpadmin, but congrats to N.C. for getting rid of that ugly wart.

  • dl

    what is in the mind of someone who voted both Cooper and Trump? hates people with glasses?

    • BartletForGallifrey

      Paste.

      • PhoenixRising

        Nah, that’s what’s in her mouth.

        I suspect that Trump/Cooper votes were a LOT of married white moms.

        That’s my own demographic so I’m ashamed to type it, but it is what I think.

        Can’t wait to see some county breakdowns to test that idea.

        • dl

          why do you think so?

  • 4jkb4ia

    Not sure that Mark Lilla was speaking about rights of the transgendered as part of the Clinton campaign as much as the reduction to absurdity of the cultural left–no different from what David Brooks said about both sides in the entire sorry mess.
    Otherwise point is valid. The people who were actually affected/punished by this legislation decided they didn’t like it however much it may have been a bogeyman for both left and right otherwise.

  • 4jkb4ia

    I remember that a transgendered person spoke at the DNC. I don’t remember if it was in prime time or not.

  • Pingback: Donald Trump's Callous Bullying Is What the Republican Party Is - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

It is main inner container footer text