Late Night No-Sympathy Open Thread: Don’t Go Away Mad…

When Bernie Sanders inevitably bumps up his non-stop nationwide grifting tour to a rerun presidential campaign, he might as well headline it RESPECT THE WHITE PENIS, because there isn’t one of his ‘positions’ that isn’t already being presented by a better (and in many cases more effective) candidate already. But, hey — maybe after last week’s debacle(s), genius ex-Repub media guru Steve Schmidt can persuade Howard Schultz to ‘defer’ his own vanity campaign in favor of supporting the dude voted Most Likely to Undercut Successful Opposition to Trump 2020!

And then these two can duke it out (quite possibly literally) for the undercard position as Sanders’ ‘In case of senile decline, break glass’ vice-presidential candidate:

******
Also, speaking of political traditions I hope 2020 will finally put into their coffins, let’s hear it for the end of the Great Whitebread-States Media-Mulcting Processionals:

30 replies
  1. 1
    trollhattan says:

    New poli-thread so will repost from below. Shutdown avoided?

    Key lawmakers said late Monday they had reached a tentative agreement over immigration rules and funding for border barriers, a deal that if signed by President Trump would avert another government shutdown set to start at week’s end.
    White House officials did not have an immediate comment on the preliminary deal, which would fall far short of Trump’s demands for funding to build more than 200 miles of wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. And while congressional negotiators said they were hopeful Trump would sign off on the deal, they said they had not been given assurances.
    The breakthrough in Congress came after a slog of meetings between top negotiators in the House and Senate. The deal is still being vetted with their colleagues, but top lawmakers expressed optimism they had resolved major differences.
    “The fact that it looked like there was going to be another shutdown imminently” brought renewed efforts on Monday, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) told reporters after announcing the deal.
    Asked if the White House would support the agreement, Shelby said, “We think so. We hope so.”

    Gotta say, the more legit Dems declare their candidacy the less chance of some aardvark sauntering and gumming up the works.

    ReplyReply
  2. 2

    @trollhattan: I guess you could feed the aardvark to your unicorn. What do unicorns eat anyway?

    ReplyReply
  3. 3
    Baud says:

    Good news about Iowa. Makes the caucus a little more democratic.

    ReplyReply
  4. 4
    Mike J says:

    I’m willing to vote for an old white guy, just not THAT old white guy. Or that one. Or that one. And certainly not THAT one.

    ReplyReply
  5. 5
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Mike J: I LOL’d… well, I chuckled. Actually.

    ReplyReply
  6. 6
    Mike J says:

    @Anne Laurie: I do think Jay Inslee would make a great president, but I don’t think he has much of a chance. I’d prefer senators from swing states stay in the senate.

    ReplyReply
  7. 7
    Jay says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA:

    Rainbow skittles and Nazis.

    Arrdvarks not on the menu, boys.

    ReplyReply
  8. 8
    Darrin Ziliak (formerly glocksman) says:

    Fuck Iowa.
    It has a very outsize influence on the primary process, which is part of the reason corn and dairy subsidies are so high.

    I’d much rather do a series of 4-6 regional primaries, starting off with a block of coastal states.
    After all most of the population lives in the Eastern or Western regions, not fucking Flyover country, and I say this as a resident of Indiana.

    ReplyReply
  9. 9
    AnotherBruce says:

    @Baud: As a native Iowan, I say fuck the Iowa caucus. It’s anti Democratic. In fact, fuck all caucus’s. Goddamn Wilmer thrived on that shit. Caucus is a way to destroy one person one vote. The Democratic Party should not allow this.

    ReplyReply
  10. 10
    Mel says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA: “Hamberders” with a side of pixie dust?

    ReplyReply
  11. 11
    AnotherBruce says:

    I’ve lived in Washington state for awhile now. The caucus they had in 2016 was a sweep in favor of the BS coalition, but when the state put out a non binding ballot, the BS coalition was crushed. So fuck all caucus’s everywhere.

    ReplyReply
  12. 12
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @AnotherBruce: Ron Paul’s entire 2008 strategy was built on gaming caucuses.

    ReplyReply
  13. 13
    Smiling Mortician says:

    @Mike J: Inslee might not have much of a chance, but at least he’s not a senator from a swing state.

    ReplyReply
  14. 14
  15. 15
  16. 16
    TriassicSands says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA:

    What do unicorns eat anyway?

    Unrealistic dreams?

    Someone should tell the Democrats: There’s only one president. There are 435 Representatives.

    This just out of B-F Nowhere — Biff Jablonski, itinerant pool guy and one-time 4th grade class secretary has announced he’ll run for president as a Democrat. Seeing that as a challenge, all 123 other residents of B-F Nowhere also entered the race. And one golden retriever was thought to be considering a run, as well.

    ReplyReply
  17. 17
    TriassicSands says:

    @AnotherBruce:

    I’ve been attending WA caucuses for many years now and I really enjoy them. They’d be a lot better if more people approached them in the way they are supposed to — concerned citizens get together to discuss candidates and issues and make public pitches in favor of their preferences hoping to persuade others. But most people who do show up do so to cast a quick vote and go home. That’s a waste of time.

    And because it is difficult for lots of voters to get to their caucus, caucuses are a poor way to choose a candidate. If we had a more involved, better informed electorate and made caucus day a statewide holiday, they would be more defensible.

    Contrary to your experience, Bruce, in my 2016 caucus I think we actually accomplished something quite positive, though on a very small scale. We had several young voters who had boarded the Bernie Bandwagon and they swore they would not vote for Clinton in the general election if she got the nomination. Through concerted efforts on the part of several older attendees the young voters were forced to see the shortsightedness of such an attitude and all agreed to vote for Clinton if she got the nod. No, they wouldn’t work for her, but they’d vote. Based on what they said and their sincerity, I think they probably all held to that promise.

    ETA– And HRC actually won my caucus. There weren’t a lot of avid Clinton supporters, but many of them had paid attention and seen what an empty vessel Sanders was…

    ReplyReply
  18. 18
    Starfish says:

    @TriassicSands: it is undemocratic nonsense that keeps the parents of infants and children from voting. Spouse went to feel the Bern, and I went to the one after.

    ReplyReply
  19. 19
    TriassicSands says:

    @Starfish:
    As I said their limitations make them unacceptable today to choose a candidate for president.

    But they aren’t undemocratic, they’re a form of direct democracy that is great for small communities. They have a number of positive attributes that primaries lack…completely.

    First, caucuses are designed to encourage voter involvement because individual voters are expected to come prepared, make the strongest case they can for their candidate and issue preferences. Discussion follows and multiple votes are taken. Minds can be changed, opinions strengthened. They encourage informed citizen involvement. All a primary does is get a person to show up for a short time to cast a quick ballot. The voter can be badly misinformed and often is. The problem with our democracy is not only that Republicans have abandoned democracy. The problem is that so many people don’t bother to vote and those who do are so often poorly informed. There are mountains of evidence supporting that.

    When the ACA came out, the majority of Democrats I spoke with about the new law had no idea what it did or why an individual mandate was necessary. They almost all opposed the law. The hadn’t taken even the few minutes it takes to understand why the mandate was critical to the plan’s success. Often, after I explained why there had to be a mandate, they’d shrug their shoulders and say they still didn’t like it. Polling showed that the only major feature of the ACA that voters really didn’t like was the individual mandate. But they sure liked making insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions.

    The current state of our democracy is dismal because our electorate is, on average, abysmal. The real problem with caucuses is that even if you made it so that the vast majority of voters could attend a caucus (multiple caucuses, holidays, even reimbursement for lost wages) the majority of American voters wouldn’t show up or if they did they wouldn’t have done the necessary preparation to fulfill the purpose of a caucus.

    ReplyReply
  20. 20
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @TriassicSands:

    They’d be a lot better if more people approached them in the way they are supposed to

    And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.

    ReplyReply
  21. 21
    Another Scott says:

    @Jay: Good. Thanks for the pointer.

    Colbert at the White House Correspondents Dinner, also too.

    Artists have to stand up to power and make them uncomfortable and get them to see reality. That’s one of the major functions of writing and performing and art.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

    ReplyReply
  22. 22
    kindness says:

    Who is it that is whispering in all these people’s ears telling them they have a shot at the presidency? And what kind of meglomaniac does one have to be to believe what these people are saying is plausible?

    I just don’t get it.

    ReplyReply
  23. 23
    stinger says:

    @TriassicSands: Thank you for your spirited defense of caucusing! At ours, the biggest challenge always is helping attendees understand how it works. Once they understand it’s not just “cast my vote and go home,” most people really get into it. It’s especially useful for helping younger voters understand concepts such as “compromise” and “consensus”. There are ways around most of the practice’s drawbacks, such as providing on-site childcare, holding multiple sessions, and employing Facetime/phone-in technologies.

    ReplyReply
  24. 24
    cmorenc says:

    @stinger:

    Thank you for your spirited defense of caucusing! At ours, the biggest challenge always is helping attendees understand how it works. Once they understand it’s not just “cast my vote and go home,” most people really get into it. It’s especially useful for helping younger voters understand concepts such as “compromise” and “consensus”.

    The purported benefits for the fraction of the electorate who actually attend caucuses are enormously outweighed by the fact that they facilitate a militant faction to skew the results from extent of actual support among the broader electorate. What exactly did caucuses teach Bernie – bros about compromise and consensus? For every one of ’em who took the suggested lessons from the caucus experience, I’d wager there were at least ten who became even more stubbornly dug in from attending a caucus.

    ReplyReply
  25. 25
    Brickley Paiste says:

    This obsession with Sanders is kind of sad.

    I see more posted about him here on this blog than anywhere else on the internet.

    You all should charge him rent since he’s living inside your head.

    ReplyReply
  26. 26
    opiejeanne says:

    @cmorenc: They disrupted the second tier caucus where the delegates met, so badly that no one could speak unless it was to praise Bernie. Other people I knew who were supporters of Bernie described worse than what we saw, and our experience was pretty awful.

    Give me a primary any day. That was a ridiculous exercise in chaos.

    ReplyReply
  27. 27
    TriassicSands says:

    @stinger:
    I agree with your comments. I didn’t respond to Gin&Tonic’s snark because there didn’t seem to be any point.

    @cmorenc:

    What exactly did caucuses teach Bernie – bros about compromise and consensus?

    If you read my comment then you would know that at my caucus they learned some important lessons, the most important being that it is vital to never lose site of the big picture. There’s your preferred candidate and there is winning the election. In every group there will be people who aren’t open to learning. Alternatively, there may be people who understand the importance of winning but lack the skill or patience to bring others along. It’s not always easy. Part of the problem with Sanders’ most fervent supporters was that many of them were young and too sure of themselves to accept the possibility they could be wrong. In my mind the problem with Sanders wasn’t the policies, which were often better than Clinton’s, but with the candidate himself who was shallow and clearly was unprepared. I seriously doubt he’s changed that at all in the past 2 years. Sound bites and slogans, but no substance.

    ReplyReply
  28. 28
    Mike J says:

    @Smiling Mortician: Way late getting back to this, but The second sentaence was supposed to be unrelated to the first. I was thinking of all the old white guys I would be ok voting for. I like INslee, and my only problem with Brown is we need him where he is.

    ReplyReply
  29. 29
    Mike J says:

    @opiejeanne: Yes, the first tier was disorganized but we muddled through. The second tier was hell with people standing two inches from you and screaming in your face that you were betraying the revolution. Fuck that.

    ReplyReply
  30. 30
    Feckless says:

    White dick?
    Why dont you leave the ad hominems to the Nazis?

    The trumpets bombed a synagogue, considering that do you think it’s okay to keep up the daily verbal assault on the first Jewish candidate for the presidency?

    ReplyReply

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *