Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

It comes down in the end to how you view the prospect of facing Trump. If you see it as an unlosable election, you probably go for the safest pick possible--a familiar senator or someone. But if you instead see something incomparably strange and unpredictable ahead, where you can't just sit back and end up getting blindsided by something, you pick someone less obvious.

eh, it's pretty hard to put an "idealistic" spin on her role in the coup in honduras.― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), 28. marts 2016 03:31 (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is really vague, and yet I'm 100% sure it's untrue.

If she is genuinely naive enough to think that democracy and freedom would flourish under a brutal military dictatorship that's arguably more worrying than a cynical calculation to shore up American interests.

Also, I've seen no evidence she had anything to do with the coup. And I checked for it the last time this kind of vague insinuations bubbled up in this thread. Although that time it was only her behaviour after the coup that was misconstrued.

Misconstrued how?

it's a coup, they're misconstrued, c'mon

The political version of the croque monsieur

should probably go in the quiddities thread too:

It was about 9 p.m. on a recent Saturday, the first I had off in two months, and I was sipping an organic vodka and rosemary cocktail at a restaurant in Fort Greene, Brooklyn.

My cellphone rang. Bernie Sanders wanted to talk. He was worried that reporters were starting to conclude that he had no chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

“I don’t want to disturb the media narrative too much,” he said wryly, with his unmistakable Brooklyn inflection. “But don’t write us off.”

The Sanders campaign is unlike any other this election cycle. The packed rallies of liberals, young people and union workers; the anger at Wall Street; the indie rock anthems; and the kiwi slices consumed aboard his campaign plane characterize a movement that feels both unexpected and yet perfectly aligned with this cultural moment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=homepage&module=Ribbon&version=origin®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Home%20Page&pgtype=article

x-posts: It was insinuated that the Americans supported the coup because they insisted on new elections instead of reinstating the overthrown president. Without bringing the constitutional crisis into the equation (and also leaving out the fact that he would have had to step down in november 2009 anyway, as the constitution doesn't allow for re-election)

Clinton admits to having strategised with other LATAM leaders to work on a transition of power, rather than allowing Zelaya back - which went against the EU, UN and OAS line on the legitimacy of his removal and contradicted Obama's own statement that he was the proper president of Honduras. Even if you want to read some kind of noble intent into the statement that she was working towards ensuring free and fair elections in continuing to provide political and material support for the interim government, it clearly didn't work. The elections were rigged and the country has seen a horrific, ongoing wave of political murders ever since.

Propping up dictatorships is part of the job description but if she's an idealist, she's an incredibly naive and inept one.

Ah I was wondering about the ilx favouritism shown but that'd be it

x-post: Link? There was a transition of power at the exact time that it was supposed to be, according to the constitution. Which is a pretty significant detail, imo.

Wait, do you want me to provide a link to the effect that the 2009 Honduran election was not free and fair or a link to prove that there has been a horrific wave of political murder? Are you disputing the idea that there was a coup?

No. I'd like a link to Hillary discussing her own role.

It's in her autobiography, Hard Choices, though the key quote is this:

“In the subsequent days I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary Espinosa in Mexico,” Clinton writes. “We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”

None of this is really disputed, even by Clinton supporters.

I'm sure Fred can step up to the plate though.

well she said "free and fair" so that checks out

@ShariVari: No, I'm not disputing any of that either. But I don't find that quote supports a lot of the insinuations out there about her role in the time after the coup, not to say anything about any alleged 'role in the coup' as said by JD upthread.

Also, just out of curiosity, where is that quote from? The fact that it includes 'Clinton writes' makes me think it's not taken directly from the book ;)

hey look what happens when you google things

https://books.google.com/books?id=XJDHAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA266&lpg=PA266&dq=%22In+the+subsequent+days+I+spoke+with+my+counterparts+around+the+hemisphere,+including+Secretary+Espinosa+in+Mexico.%22+%22We+strategized+on+a+plan+to+restore+order+in+Honduras+and+ensure+that+free+and+fair+elections+could+be+held+quickly+and+legitimately,+which+would+render+the+question+of+Zelaya+moot.%22&source=bl&ots=hpeKCn9zw0&sig=kjU9cUDCRm1RDurCKYX76EGn9o0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBrYWcxuPLAhVCSyYKHaIGCr4Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20the%20subsequent%20days%20I%20spoke%20with%20my%20counterparts%20around%20the%20hemisphere%2C%20including%20Secretary%20Espinosa%20in%20Mexico.%22%20%22We%20strategized%20on%20a%20plan%20to%20restore%20order%20in%20Honduras%20and%20ensure%20that%20free%20and%20fair%20elections%20could%20be%20held%20quickly%20and%20legitimately%2C%20which%20would%20render%20the%20question%20of%20Zelaya%20moot.%22&f=false

but maybe that was THE GHOSTWRITER protecting her??!!!!

crut, that's not how ShariVari quoted it. I wasn't disputing the quote at all, I was just interested in knowing where he took it from, and reading the context. ShariVari often has interesting links.

The quote was copied from an Al Jazeera article but reported in the same way by Huff Post, Slate, the Guardian and others.

The whole segment of the book is instructive, though - rolling back the idea that a coup even took place and implying that everything more or less worked out well in the transition back to civilian rule. There is no mention of death squads, the suspension of habeas corpus, the removal of the right to free speech and freedom of association during the election period, the overwhelming condemnation of Zelaya's removal by the international community, etc.

Whether the U.S. had a role in planning the coup is a grey area and it's perfectly possible they didn't (state department people on the ground appear to have condemned it in internal memos) but whitewashing what happened isn't accidental.

How Clinton’s email scandal took root

The FBI is now trying to determine whether a crime was committed in the handling of that classified material. It is also examining whether the server was hacked.

One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. The FBI has accelerated the investigation because officials want to avoid the possibility of announcing any action too close to the election.

Well there's not a whole lot else for them to do

this ought to be "self-recommending" but idk if i have the energy for it -- patricia lockwood goes to a trump rally

https://newrepublic.com/article/131936/lost-trumplandia

thanks for posting that, i'm enjoying it immensely

Can anyone explain clearly to me the current delegate "math" situation? What I really want is to see what the dem primary looks like without superdelegates, i.e., assuming the superdelegates will switch to whoever has the majority of vote/caucus-based delegates, what percent of the remaining vote/caucus-based delegates does Bernie need to get a majority of them?

I know that it's 1243 to 975 in non-super delegates right now. I'm unclear on how many non-super delegates remain.

iirc, he needs to win ~58% of remaining pledged delegates

ignore the dumb title/url: http://www.npr.org/2016/03/27/472056754/despite-the-math-bernie-sanders-has-already-won

Going into the day, he would have needed 58 percent of all remaining delegates for a pledged majority. Coming out, he would need 57 percent. With superdelegates factored in, he needs a whopping 67 percent of all remaining delegates. (The Sanders campaign is focused on winning a pledged majority, because superdelegates can switch their allegiances. The Sanders team believes they will do that if he wins a pledged majority.)

be sure to read the article, though, especially the latter half where it details how well he would need to do in key upcoming primaries

Truly, use the Fivethirtyeight delegate tracker - it's really good:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

The only thing that's confusing is 538 "targets". These "targets" are based on candidates' past demographic results. Most of Bernie Sanders' wins will come from certain demographics; ditto for Clinton. In states with tons of young people and progressives, for instance, he is expected to do well. He will have a high "target" there. In states with lots of POC, olds and moderates, Clinton will do well. Her target will be higher there. If a candidate is trailing their target, they are falling short of what they need to (eventually) clinch the nomination, given state-by-state demographics.

The targets are relevant/interesting because they factor in future races. Demographically, Sanders is expected to do well in many of the races yet to come; he is still behind where he ought to be if he hopes to clinch.

the problem with those "targets" is i don't think they've updated them since the beginning of the race. so bernie actually needs to outperform those targets by quite a bit to get to a majority

x-post to article about 147 FBI agents under its Republican head, Comey investigating the email thing

http://nypost.com/2016/03/20/will-hillary-get-charged-or-what/

unnamed "career agents" say...

<i>the problem with those "targets" is i don't think they've updated them since the beginning of the race. so bernie actually needs to outperform those targets by quite a bit to get to a majority</i>

Yes - because he is at a deficit he needs to outperform the target in each state.

But the targets are v helpful because they put the candidates' delegate counts into perspective after a given state primary/caucus. "Bernie wins!" is irrelevant. But seeing how well Clinton/Sanders did vs their target lets you understand how momentum or expectatons are shifting.

yeah

58% - 57%, by the way, is rounded. I think he made up closer to a percentage point and a half on Saturday and I have the remaining pledged delegates needed at 56.7%.

(The Sanders campaign is focused on winning a pledged majority, because superdelegates can switch their allegiances. The Sanders team believes they will do that if he wins a pledged majority.)

This is OK for public consumption, because it places a burden of expectations on the party, but it does not describe the Democratic Party as I know it or the designated role of superdelegates to save the party from the enthusiasm of its progressive voters.

did this already get covered here? http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-republican-convention-213770
this is going to be so much fun

(xpost) Isn't that more or less what happened in 2008 (leaving aside the word "progressive"; it's fair to say that the enthusiasm was on Obama's side).

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/silver-superdelegates-1.png?w=575&h=465

Obviously, Clinton's superdelegate lead is much larger this time.

The Patricia Lockwood article is v good

That Politico piece is ridiculous. A whole lot of contorting to avoid the fact that way more actual individual primary voters have voted for Trump than for any other individual candidate. The author should have just extended his dumb "95 yards of a hundred-yard dash" analogy by saying the "not-Trumps" won the race because Ted ran 65 yards, Marco ran 45 and Kasich ran 30 or some such foolishness.

i think he makes a few valid points though. the degree to which non-trump republican voters seem to actually hate trump seems unusual. and they make up a majority of the republican electorate.

for sure, and the party is well within its rights to deny him the nomination according to the agreed-upon rules, I just think it's disingenuous to so blatantly evade the fact that he's gotten significantly more votes so far than anyone else.

berniebro on fb breathlessly pinging me w/ every update on this hillary email case. he claims he doesn't actually want her to be indicted but it seems pretty transparent. i told him to msg me again when they actually indict her but he couldn't help himself :(

i wish she hadn't set up the server in her bathroom. that detail makes the whole thing way better fodder for the conspiracy-minded aka republicans

That Politico piece is ridiculous.

If you say so. But the American political system has never been a direct democracy. It always interposes representatives and procedural rules between the mass of citizens and the power to make decisions. Trump is basing his argument on principles of direct democracy, but even then it is a weak argument, if he does not command the votes of either a majority of voters or a majority of delegates.

In a parliamentary system, someone in Trump's position would have to make a coalition and share power, which is what he'll effectively be expected to do at the convention: seek coalition partners who will allow him to control an actual majority, not just a plurality. If he can't put together a majority coalition, but Cruz or someone else can, then fuck him, he has lost the nomination and it is fair and square.

"fair and square" are not legal principles - they're in the eye of the beholder. and when your system is built on legitimacy what matters is perception not the arcane bylaws of a political party (esp when part of what is under threat is said party's authority as a representative of its voting base)

I just like that they're in an unresolvable bind. They won't be breaking any rules by denying Trump, but they will have a mutiny. And if they give it to him, they'll have Trump. Good luck.