I will keep doing, but not worth it! The 2016 Presidential Primary Voting Thread

btw off-topic but i just wanted to paste this wonderful "this isn't really on topic for my book but nobody but me will ever read this archival source so i want to remind you what a tool he is" bit from walter johnson's excellent /river of dark dreams/ (on the material realities and political economy of american slavery) re: an apologist narrative for one of the failed missions to Cuba:

But rather than following this litany of factors through to the seemingly obvious conclusion that the mission's failure was overdetermined by catastrophic shortcomings in virtually every area of military science - leadership, tactics, intelligence, operations, supply, and so on - Schlesinger repeatedly emphasized how close, at any given moment, the mission had been to success. In remarkable run-on sentences full of logic-herniating conditional imponderables ('who can say what would have happened if...'), Schlesinger emphasized the contingency of everything that had happened, while nevertheless maintaining the likelihood of what would have happened if what actually happened had not and what should have happened had. A relatively mild version of his effort went something like this (a moral drawn from the battle of Las Pozas): 'If any one of these ifs had occurred, as they all ought to have occurred, how different might, how different probably would have been the turn and the result of the whole enterprise!'

I kinda feel like this Pope shit is more crazy like a fox. I feel like conservatives have been holding back about Pope Coolius Dudeicus III for a minute and are silently digging the #shotsfired

moving shit around in scrivener

hey could we have a thread where we compare and contrast various research and writing software? cos i could sure use that.

I feel like conservatives have been holding back about Pope Coolius Dudeicus III for a minute and are silently digging the #shotsfired

silently?

xpost i would probably type some long posts there, if that isn't already obvious. though not today. oh god, this paper! i gotta go you guys peace out.

Xpost silently is wrong I just mean they would never put it so aggressively and they are digging that Trump did

Sanders' answers have been awful tonight. He doesn't want to connect with the interlocutors.

Some of that may be a function of a guy who feels he has yet to introduce himself to many

So before answering the specific question he gives a mini stump speech

By contrast, Kasich over on cnn gazes thoughtfully into each town hall questioner's eyes (and offers them a cabinet post, if they're attractive women )

oh man anyone who doubts there's misogyny going on should read the comments livestream on the young turks broadcast of this town hall

The release-the-transcripts is a FOX News red herring. Drop it.

I called out a bunch of my friends for the "release the transcripts" bullshit. Sounds a lot like "release the Occidental College papers" or w/e.

We know what she's telling them and what she'll tell Henry K in Martha's Vineyard. What's the mystery?

yeah it's nagl, and a weird use of energy unless he has some inside informant indicating that something at least as damning, or significantly more damning really, than a romney "47%" line is actually buried in those. comes off as a weak way to insinuate something about clinton without actually saying anything specific, which is sorta beneath the campaign-of-ideas-and-hope this campaign wants to be (and does best as).

to be fair, a Sanders supporter asked her.

It pains me to admit it, but HRC is at her best tonight: no equivocating, direct, weaving in fighting worse like BASTA. She stumbled only when she stapled herself to the goddamn Human Rights Campaign and questioned Sanders' loyalty to the Democratic Party (boos from the audience).

i will say that as someone voting for bernie tomorrow (early voting) im v glad that hrc is working hard to shore up her progressive cred this primary. its probably disingenuous but its a good look for her.

*fighting words

There's an almost too good to be true anecdote about Sanders that he lost his first political race -- a run for student counsel -- but got his opponent to adopt his position on raising money for korean orphans.

one who doubts there's misogyny going on should read the comments

c'mon daria, we know the internetz.

Single payer sure would help me with the killer copays for the chemo, but i'll be dead by the time you guys get it (never).

People are alive thanks to the ACA

Several million people will be dead in 20 years due to climate change, and a billion or two in 50.

You're right. Let these people die for the sake of a false binary.

yes, we would never date

bye guys; it's baseball season, and the cocksucking election still won't be done when the World Series ends

i want to accelerate my exit from planet earth sometimes. not like, in a bad way, but it's pretty logical to me

yall hush, life is precious

yes, we would never date

― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaijrcMEoGk

i expect a stream of trash comments next to a livestream of nfl or something and ignore accordingly. but was shocked by the outpouring of obscene insults about clinton, much of it gender based, in the comment feed that's made up of people who decided to watch a dem candidate townhall on the youtube channel of a liberal program (and they only have praise for sanders)

people suck

men suck

internet comment sections everywhere full of angry men and i really do try never to read them

both true; the latter a little moreso xp

the pet shop boys are alright though #notallmen

angry assholish men on the internet seems to be fairly universal. I admit you see it more than you should among ostensible Bernie supporters, but you never really know who those people are (18-year-olds? Ex-paultards?). If the patriarchy is everywhere, it's in Bernie Sanders' camp to an extent too, I just never thought it was fair to make it seem as though Sanders' male supporters were especially guilty of this. I'd imagine less so on average, although I have certainly seen it. If the claim is that Clinton is losing votes from people who would support a male equivalent, you'd kind of need a male equivalent for comparison. IDK who that would be, Chuck Schumer? Sanders isn't a particularly good comparison point because he's so far to the left of her.

"questioned Sanders' loyalty to the Democratic Party (boos from the audience)"

She said, truthfully, that he was a self-identified non-Democrat.

youtube comments are generally the worst comments out there

Don't see this linked here already, and it's Fox, but it doesn't seem like we can treat this campaign as pie in the sky at this point: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/269944-sanders-ahead-of-clinton-in-national-poll

angry assholish men on the internet seems to be fairly universal. I admit you see it more than you should among ostensible Bernie supporters, but you never really know who those people are (18-year-olds? Ex-paultards?). If the patriarchy is everywhere, it's in Bernie Sanders' camp to an extent too, I just never thought it was fair to make it seem as though Sanders' male supporters were especially guilty of this. I'd imagine less so on average, although I have certainly seen it. If the claim is that Clinton is losing votes from people who would support a male equivalent, you'd kind of need a male equivalent for comparison. IDK who that would be, Chuck Schumer? Sanders isn't a particularly good comparison point because he's so far to the left of her.

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:23 PM (35 minutes ago)

here's a comparison that lesser-evil proponents should be able to appreciate: sure bernie's supporters can be assholes, but they're probably nowhere near as trump's!

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/March2016PrimariesPollingProject.pdf

super tuesday is gonna be pretty brutal for the bernmeister

If the claim is that Clinton is losing votes from people who would support a male equivalent, you'd kind of need a male equivalent for comparison.

I don't think this is really the claim though? Like... "sexist ranting on the internet is bad" doesn't imply "because the sexists would be voting for my candidate if they were not sexist."

Angry assholish men on the internet are everywhere, but it's not really surprising that the first female president is having an effect like a magnet on iron filings. Which is not to say that Sanders' campaign should just shrug about it, but the idea that they're good people and so the level among the fans should be lower there seems odd at best.

here's a comparison that lesser-evil proponents should be able to appreciate: sure bernie's supporters can be assholes, but they're probably nowhere near as trump's!

― k3vin k., 19. februar 2016 06:01 (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, one of the gamergate targets, for example wrote on twitter complain that she got way more abuse when writing negative stuff about Sanders than about Trump. Prob BerneBro's - which is a very real phenomenon, and people were complaining about it for a long time before the phrase was coined - are more technically attuned than Trump ditto's, so to speak?

Here's an example that might suggest Clinton is losing votes for sexist reasons: When O'Malley didn't manage to get enough support to get beyond the thresholds in the local Iowa caucuses, it was reported that most of the support went to Sanders. Even though politically, you would think they'd be much more aligned with Clinton.

Also, of course HRC is losing votes for sexist reasons, come on! That is inevitable, and hardly Sanders' fault, the only way that wouldn't happen was if no men ran against her.

i mean, i'm sure she is losing some votes for sexist reasons. my point was that people on this thread discussing sexist asshole comments by bernie fans weren't really getting concerned about the lost votes but rather the sexist asshole behavior. but i feel like every other post i've made in the last 24 hours i have to go "no, no, my point was..." which makes me think either i am typing in esperanto or i have left the planet earth.

up for 23.5 hours! and about to send in these papers and go to bed. but clearly i urgently needed to respond to frederik b first.

P sexist of Bernie to run when you think about it

DC: Um, I was responding to man alive and kevin k...

I've quite enjoyed your rantings over the last 23,5 hours, btw :)

Five Thirty Eight article doing good wonkish work on why Cruz has an uphill battle - the evangelical states that he'll do best in are more likely to assign delegates proportionally rather than winner-takes-all.

This Politico piece about the slow death of the Bush campaign is worth reading.

man, the fact that trump's numbers haven't been hit at all after a debate where he blamed george bush for 9/11 seems like evidence that his 'I could shoot somebody on 5th avenue' brag wasn't an exaggeration.

Again, nothing he says will reduce his numbers, but it can sure as shit keep them him from adding enough to make up a majority.

Watched a bit of the CNN town hall last night, and at one point Trump more or less said to a voter "So you're not voting for me--whatever." Different.