Your Superduper Tuesday Open Thread of Intrigue

by

by Ugh

Well.  This primary season is turning out to be a touch different than those prior.  Polls close in all but Alaska/Wyoming by 9pm Eastern, at which point we may find out if the voters have given us the perfect gift for this Presidential election year:  8 months of Trump vs. Hillary!  It's almost to much to wish for.  Alternatively, we may have to wait two more weeks to find out.

Ugh's prediction:  Trump wins all but Texas, which goes to Cruz providing him with objective cover to stay in the race (as opposed to the cover provided by his own ego), and Rubio collects a bunch of seconds and thirds, cementing him as….something, but whatever it is he becomes he stays in the race too because gee willikers why not he's got the ca$h and otherwise he is out of a job!  

Hillary sweeps, or wins enough to effectively end the Democratic race (Bernie will probably stay in for two more weeks anyway).

What say you?  

Also, too, Trump is a con man!  Now you have to vote for Rubio.  Or something.

UPDATE: Amusing. 

459 thoughts on “Your Superduper Tuesday Open Thread of Intrigue”

  4. I’ve been poking around Rubio’s campaign website and it’s just stunning. And the effing press thinks Sanders is promising Unicorns and Rainbows.

    Reply

  5. I’ve been poking around Rubio’s campaign website and it’s just stunning. And the effing press thinks Sanders is promising Unicorns and Rainbows.

    Reply

  6. I’ve been poking around Rubio’s campaign website and it’s just stunning. And the effing press thinks Sanders is promising Unicorns and Rainbows.

    Reply

  13. Good point on VT, of course it’s Sanders home state and if he can’t win there then there’s no point. Will see if the same applies to Rubio should he lose Florida in two weeks.
    8 hours until the first polls close! I’m so excited I might cry and tear my hair out (if I had any).

    Reply

  14. Good point on VT, of course it’s Sanders home state and if he can’t win there then there’s no point. Will see if the same applies to Rubio should he lose Florida in two weeks.
    8 hours until the first polls close! I’m so excited I might cry and tear my hair out (if I had any).

    Reply

  15. Good point on VT, of course it’s Sanders home state and if he can’t win there then there’s no point. Will see if the same applies to Rubio should he lose Florida in two weeks.
    8 hours until the first polls close! I’m so excited I might cry and tear my hair out (if I had any).

    Reply

  16. It’s their own fault Count, showing up at a Trump rally while black. They should have chosen a different approach to showing up at a Trump rally, disguised in sheets perhaps.

    Reply

  17. It’s their own fault Count, showing up at a Trump rally while black. They should have chosen a different approach to showing up at a Trump rally, disguised in sheets perhaps.

    Reply

  18. It’s their own fault Count, showing up at a Trump rally while black. They should have chosen a different approach to showing up at a Trump rally, disguised in sheets perhaps.

    Reply

  19. My mental image of Ugh is ruined. I’ve always pictured someone along the lines of, say, John Stamos, circa 1991, with thick, black, shiny, flowing hair.

    Reply

  20. My mental image of Ugh is ruined. I’ve always pictured someone along the lines of, say, John Stamos, circa 1991, with thick, black, shiny, flowing hair.

    Reply

  21. My mental image of Ugh is ruined. I’ve always pictured someone along the lines of, say, John Stamos, circa 1991, with thick, black, shiny, flowing hair.

    Reply

  22. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/farrakhan-trump-money-jewish-groups
    Farrakhan should be showing up armed big time, and I mean with big f&cking Republican-style NRA weaponry, to support the black students thrown out of Trump’s presence for … standing while black.
    But, haters recognize their kindred haters, so it’s the season for the gathering of all the hateful, resentful conservative filth and vermin of all stripes in America under the big flammable tent of the Republican Party.
    How many more minutes do we have to wait for ISIS to declare it’s endorsement of Trump?
    The same time as Marco Rubio accepts Trump’s invite to be Vice President?
    The Confederate Sessions, the KKK, Farrakhan, the Tea Party, The Republican Party all in one place at one time.
    These people hate everyone and everything.
    The only effective antidote is to hate them back on their terms, with their weapons, but exponentially and finally so.
    The only professional Republican politicians and right-wing media types who oppose Trump are those who don’t believe he will adhere bullet point by bullet point to the Republican domestic, nationalist murder policies and their international war agenda.
    THEY think he’s a liberal.

    Reply

  23. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/farrakhan-trump-money-jewish-groups
    Farrakhan should be showing up armed big time, and I mean with big f&cking Republican-style NRA weaponry, to support the black students thrown out of Trump’s presence for … standing while black.
    But, haters recognize their kindred haters, so it’s the season for the gathering of all the hateful, resentful conservative filth and vermin of all stripes in America under the big flammable tent of the Republican Party.
    How many more minutes do we have to wait for ISIS to declare it’s endorsement of Trump?
    The same time as Marco Rubio accepts Trump’s invite to be Vice President?
    The Confederate Sessions, the KKK, Farrakhan, the Tea Party, The Republican Party all in one place at one time.
    These people hate everyone and everything.
    The only effective antidote is to hate them back on their terms, with their weapons, but exponentially and finally so.
    The only professional Republican politicians and right-wing media types who oppose Trump are those who don’t believe he will adhere bullet point by bullet point to the Republican domestic, nationalist murder policies and their international war agenda.
    THEY think he’s a liberal.

    Reply

  24. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/farrakhan-trump-money-jewish-groups
    Farrakhan should be showing up armed big time, and I mean with big f&cking Republican-style NRA weaponry, to support the black students thrown out of Trump’s presence for … standing while black.
    But, haters recognize their kindred haters, so it’s the season for the gathering of all the hateful, resentful conservative filth and vermin of all stripes in America under the big flammable tent of the Republican Party.
    How many more minutes do we have to wait for ISIS to declare it’s endorsement of Trump?
    The same time as Marco Rubio accepts Trump’s invite to be Vice President?
    The Confederate Sessions, the KKK, Farrakhan, the Tea Party, The Republican Party all in one place at one time.
    These people hate everyone and everything.
    The only effective antidote is to hate them back on their terms, with their weapons, but exponentially and finally so.
    The only professional Republican politicians and right-wing media types who oppose Trump are those who don’t believe he will adhere bullet point by bullet point to the Republican domestic, nationalist murder policies and their international war agenda.
    THEY think he’s a liberal.

    Reply

  25. My mental image of Ugh is ruined. I’ve always pictured someone along the lines of, say, John Stamos, circa 1991, with thick, black, shiny, flowing hair.
    LOL

    Reply

  26. My mental image of Ugh is ruined. I’ve always pictured someone along the lines of, say, John Stamos, circa 1991, with thick, black, shiny, flowing hair.
    LOL

    Reply

  27. My mental image of Ugh is ruined. I’ve always pictured someone along the lines of, say, John Stamos, circa 1991, with thick, black, shiny, flowing hair.
    LOL

    Reply

  34. Heh, indeed.
    “It’s like Dr. Strangelove,” said a tip-top Republican who is closely aligned with the GOP establishment and supported Chris Christie until he dropped out. “People are saying, ‘I’m not gonna tell my friends and family I’m voting for Trump,’ but then they’re pulling the trigger for Trump. I might as well be like Slim Pickens at the end of the movie and just ride the atomic bomb down and see what happens.”

    Reply

  35. Heh, indeed.
    “It’s like Dr. Strangelove,” said a tip-top Republican who is closely aligned with the GOP establishment and supported Chris Christie until he dropped out. “People are saying, ‘I’m not gonna tell my friends and family I’m voting for Trump,’ but then they’re pulling the trigger for Trump. I might as well be like Slim Pickens at the end of the movie and just ride the atomic bomb down and see what happens.”

    Reply

  36. Heh, indeed.
    “It’s like Dr. Strangelove,” said a tip-top Republican who is closely aligned with the GOP establishment and supported Chris Christie until he dropped out. “People are saying, ‘I’m not gonna tell my friends and family I’m voting for Trump,’ but then they’re pulling the trigger for Trump. I might as well be like Slim Pickens at the end of the movie and just ride the atomic bomb down and see what happens.”

    Reply

  37. bobbyp wrote:
    “If the republican party was run like a business, it would be seeking protection in intellectual bankruptcy.”
    Here’s the way the Right wants the business of the country run, courtesy of those in Wall Street finance:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mount-st-mary-glock-bunnies/
    Some want guns on campus.
    I’m beginning to agree, especially on those campuses run by conservatives who threaten to kill underperforming students with a bullet to the head.
    You know, impressionable young people many times are extremely literal-minded and don’t get the whole higher-order metaphor mongering.
    But they should carry anyway, don’t you think.

    Reply

  38. bobbyp wrote:
    “If the republican party was run like a business, it would be seeking protection in intellectual bankruptcy.”
    Here’s the way the Right wants the business of the country run, courtesy of those in Wall Street finance:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mount-st-mary-glock-bunnies/
    Some want guns on campus.
    I’m beginning to agree, especially on those campuses run by conservatives who threaten to kill underperforming students with a bullet to the head.
    You know, impressionable young people many times are extremely literal-minded and don’t get the whole higher-order metaphor mongering.
    But they should carry anyway, don’t you think.

    Reply

  39. bobbyp wrote:
    “If the republican party was run like a business, it would be seeking protection in intellectual bankruptcy.”
    Here’s the way the Right wants the business of the country run, courtesy of those in Wall Street finance:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mount-st-mary-glock-bunnies/
    Some want guns on campus.
    I’m beginning to agree, especially on those campuses run by conservatives who threaten to kill underperforming students with a bullet to the head.
    You know, impressionable young people many times are extremely literal-minded and don’t get the whole higher-order metaphor mongering.
    But they should carry anyway, don’t you think.

    Reply

  40. If the republican party was run like a business
    Except that, for all its enthusiasm for business in the abstract, it is run nothing like one.
    The problem the GOP has at the moment is that they rewrote the rules after 2012. And they are now finding all the unintended consequences of those changes. (We can argue seperately about whether the results were foreseeable or not.)
    There is a reason why any business, when rolling out changes, does so gradually. New products are tested in a few markets. New software goes up on test systems first. Etc. It’s how you catch bugs that weren’t obvious until someone actually tried to use the new thing under real-world conditions.
    Instead, the GOP assumed that they knew what the future would hold, and went all-in on the first hand. Occasionally, you can get lucky with that; occasionally the roulette wheel will come up double 0 twice in a row for you, too. But mostly, it’s a good way to go down in flames.

    Reply

  41. If the republican party was run like a business
    Except that, for all its enthusiasm for business in the abstract, it is run nothing like one.
    The problem the GOP has at the moment is that they rewrote the rules after 2012. And they are now finding all the unintended consequences of those changes. (We can argue seperately about whether the results were foreseeable or not.)
    There is a reason why any business, when rolling out changes, does so gradually. New products are tested in a few markets. New software goes up on test systems first. Etc. It’s how you catch bugs that weren’t obvious until someone actually tried to use the new thing under real-world conditions.
    Instead, the GOP assumed that they knew what the future would hold, and went all-in on the first hand. Occasionally, you can get lucky with that; occasionally the roulette wheel will come up double 0 twice in a row for you, too. But mostly, it’s a good way to go down in flames.

    Reply

  42. If the republican party was run like a business
    Except that, for all its enthusiasm for business in the abstract, it is run nothing like one.
    The problem the GOP has at the moment is that they rewrote the rules after 2012. And they are now finding all the unintended consequences of those changes. (We can argue seperately about whether the results were foreseeable or not.)
    There is a reason why any business, when rolling out changes, does so gradually. New products are tested in a few markets. New software goes up on test systems first. Etc. It’s how you catch bugs that weren’t obvious until someone actually tried to use the new thing under real-world conditions.
    Instead, the GOP assumed that they knew what the future would hold, and went all-in on the first hand. Occasionally, you can get lucky with that; occasionally the roulette wheel will come up double 0 twice in a row for you, too. But mostly, it’s a good way to go down in flames.

    Reply

  49. This Yglesias piece is pretty good, although I think he’s trying a little to hard to fit everything into “THIS” is what is driving the nomination race generally.
    http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11135756/donald-trump-nationalism
    Ouch:
    Marco Rubio is the perfect foil
    Against this populist-nationalist insurgency, the Republican establishment has chosen as its champion literally the single human being in all of conservative politics least suited to co-opting the sentiments of Trumpism.

    Reply

  50. This Yglesias piece is pretty good, although I think he’s trying a little to hard to fit everything into “THIS” is what is driving the nomination race generally.
    http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11135756/donald-trump-nationalism
    Ouch:
    Marco Rubio is the perfect foil
    Against this populist-nationalist insurgency, the Republican establishment has chosen as its champion literally the single human being in all of conservative politics least suited to co-opting the sentiments of Trumpism.

    Reply

  51. This Yglesias piece is pretty good, although I think he’s trying a little to hard to fit everything into “THIS” is what is driving the nomination race generally.
    http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11135756/donald-trump-nationalism
    Ouch:
    Marco Rubio is the perfect foil
    Against this populist-nationalist insurgency, the Republican establishment has chosen as its champion literally the single human being in all of conservative politics least suited to co-opting the sentiments of Trumpism.

    Reply

  52. This is decidedly scarier, and much much longer, than Yglesias.
    The rise of American authoritarianism
    …
    Their book concluded that the GOP, by positioning itself as the party of traditional values and law and order, had unknowingly attracted what would turn out to be a vast and previously bipartisan population of Americans with authoritarian tendencies.
    …
    Authoritarians are thought to express much deeper fears than the rest of the electorate, to seek the imposition of order where they perceive dangerous change, and to desire a strong leader who will defeat those fears with force. They would thus seek a candidate who promised these things. And the extreme nature of authoritarians’ fears, and of their desire to challenge threats with force, would lead them toward a candidate whose temperament was totally unlike anything we usually see in American politics — and whose policies went far beyond the acceptable norms.
    A candidate like Donald Trump.
    …
    For years now, before anyone thought a person like Donald Trump could possibly lead a presidential primary, a small but respected niche of academic research has been laboring over a question, part political science and part psychology, that had captivated political scientists since the rise of the Nazis.
    How do people come to adopt, in such large numbers and so rapidly, extreme political views that seem to coincide with fear of minorities and with the desire for a strongman leader?
    Whee.

    Reply

  53. This is decidedly scarier, and much much longer, than Yglesias.
    The rise of American authoritarianism
    …
    Their book concluded that the GOP, by positioning itself as the party of traditional values and law and order, had unknowingly attracted what would turn out to be a vast and previously bipartisan population of Americans with authoritarian tendencies.
    …
    Authoritarians are thought to express much deeper fears than the rest of the electorate, to seek the imposition of order where they perceive dangerous change, and to desire a strong leader who will defeat those fears with force. They would thus seek a candidate who promised these things. And the extreme nature of authoritarians’ fears, and of their desire to challenge threats with force, would lead them toward a candidate whose temperament was totally unlike anything we usually see in American politics — and whose policies went far beyond the acceptable norms.
    A candidate like Donald Trump.
    …
    For years now, before anyone thought a person like Donald Trump could possibly lead a presidential primary, a small but respected niche of academic research has been laboring over a question, part political science and part psychology, that had captivated political scientists since the rise of the Nazis.
    How do people come to adopt, in such large numbers and so rapidly, extreme political views that seem to coincide with fear of minorities and with the desire for a strongman leader?
    Whee.

    Reply

  54. This is decidedly scarier, and much much longer, than Yglesias.
    The rise of American authoritarianism
    …
    Their book concluded that the GOP, by positioning itself as the party of traditional values and law and order, had unknowingly attracted what would turn out to be a vast and previously bipartisan population of Americans with authoritarian tendencies.
    …
    Authoritarians are thought to express much deeper fears than the rest of the electorate, to seek the imposition of order where they perceive dangerous change, and to desire a strong leader who will defeat those fears with force. They would thus seek a candidate who promised these things. And the extreme nature of authoritarians’ fears, and of their desire to challenge threats with force, would lead them toward a candidate whose temperament was totally unlike anything we usually see in American politics — and whose policies went far beyond the acceptable norms.
    A candidate like Donald Trump.
    …
    For years now, before anyone thought a person like Donald Trump could possibly lead a presidential primary, a small but respected niche of academic research has been laboring over a question, part political science and part psychology, that had captivated political scientists since the rise of the Nazis.
    How do people come to adopt, in such large numbers and so rapidly, extreme political views that seem to coincide with fear of minorities and with the desire for a strongman leader?
    Whee.

    Reply

  55. “Yikes”
    In 1933 Germany, I believe the words used were “Huch!”, perhaps “Pfui!”, maybe “Ach du Schande!”
    More terribly and pointlessly of course: “Oyvey!”
    The Spanish for “Yikes” is “Uff”. “exclamación que expresa” or “su conmoción y” might work in a pinch.
    What should sound like “Yikes” to an American insured through an Obamacare exchange and just now entering remission from Stage 4 cancer is whatever the extended noise an automatic weapon with a large clip makes when it is employed in the service of patriotism.
    As for Mexico, when the first brick of Trump’s Wall is mortared in place, The President of Mexico should invite Vlad Putin to a summit in a border town, where a treaty between Russia and Mexico will be signed stipulating the positioning of Russian ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads and anti-aircraft surface to air missiles along the length of the Border.
    Canada should do the same.

    Reply

  56. “Yikes”
    In 1933 Germany, I believe the words used were “Huch!”, perhaps “Pfui!”, maybe “Ach du Schande!”
    More terribly and pointlessly of course: “Oyvey!”
    The Spanish for “Yikes” is “Uff”. “exclamación que expresa” or “su conmoción y” might work in a pinch.
    What should sound like “Yikes” to an American insured through an Obamacare exchange and just now entering remission from Stage 4 cancer is whatever the extended noise an automatic weapon with a large clip makes when it is employed in the service of patriotism.
    As for Mexico, when the first brick of Trump’s Wall is mortared in place, The President of Mexico should invite Vlad Putin to a summit in a border town, where a treaty between Russia and Mexico will be signed stipulating the positioning of Russian ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads and anti-aircraft surface to air missiles along the length of the Border.
    Canada should do the same.

    Reply

  57. “Yikes”
    In 1933 Germany, I believe the words used were “Huch!”, perhaps “Pfui!”, maybe “Ach du Schande!”
    More terribly and pointlessly of course: “Oyvey!”
    The Spanish for “Yikes” is “Uff”. “exclamación que expresa” or “su conmoción y” might work in a pinch.
    What should sound like “Yikes” to an American insured through an Obamacare exchange and just now entering remission from Stage 4 cancer is whatever the extended noise an automatic weapon with a large clip makes when it is employed in the service of patriotism.
    As for Mexico, when the first brick of Trump’s Wall is mortared in place, The President of Mexico should invite Vlad Putin to a summit in a border town, where a treaty between Russia and Mexico will be signed stipulating the positioning of Russian ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads and anti-aircraft surface to air missiles along the length of the Border.
    Canada should do the same.

    Reply

  58. There is the interesting question: When, and from whom, will we hear “Mr Trump, tear down this wall!”
    And will anyone on the right notice the irony?

    Reply

  59. There is the interesting question: When, and from whom, will we hear “Mr Trump, tear down this wall!”
    And will anyone on the right notice the irony?

    Reply

  60. There is the interesting question: When, and from whom, will we hear “Mr Trump, tear down this wall!”
    And will anyone on the right notice the irony?

    Reply

  76. I especially like the “rats jumping onto a sinking ship” comment.
    But seriously, if you have to refuse to denounce the KKK in order to be a conservative, there simply aren’t going to be enough conservatives (on that definition) to win a national election. No matter how out-there the alternative is.

    Reply

  77. I especially like the “rats jumping onto a sinking ship” comment.
    But seriously, if you have to refuse to denounce the KKK in order to be a conservative, there simply aren’t going to be enough conservatives (on that definition) to win a national election. No matter how out-there the alternative is.

    Reply

  78. I especially like the “rats jumping onto a sinking ship” comment.
    But seriously, if you have to refuse to denounce the KKK in order to be a conservative, there simply aren’t going to be enough conservatives (on that definition) to win a national election. No matter how out-there the alternative is.

    Reply

  82. So far, the polls haven’t yuuuuugely undercounted Trump’s vote share in the primaries. They’ve been pretty much on (the biggest miss was underestimating Hillary Clinton in SC).
    Which makes me think the specter of a Bradley-like shy-Trumper effect is overstated.

    Reply

  83. So far, the polls haven’t yuuuuugely undercounted Trump’s vote share in the primaries. They’ve been pretty much on (the biggest miss was underestimating Hillary Clinton in SC).
    Which makes me think the specter of a Bradley-like shy-Trumper effect is overstated.

    Reply

  84. So far, the polls haven’t yuuuuugely undercounted Trump’s vote share in the primaries. They’ve been pretty much on (the biggest miss was underestimating Hillary Clinton in SC).
    Which makes me think the specter of a Bradley-like shy-Trumper effect is overstated.

    Reply

  85. “Denouncing the KKK makes you a liberal?”
    The base, as represented by Carlson, Ingraham and company (both great fascist buds with Dinesh D’Souza) grew up seething over liberal political correctness that disallowed them the use the words nigger, kike, fag, wetback, feminazi, etc, in everyday discourse, including on the airwaves.
    Understand who these vermin filth are and who they always have been.

    Reply

  86. “Denouncing the KKK makes you a liberal?”
    The base, as represented by Carlson, Ingraham and company (both great fascist buds with Dinesh D’Souza) grew up seething over liberal political correctness that disallowed them the use the words nigger, kike, fag, wetback, feminazi, etc, in everyday discourse, including on the airwaves.
    Understand who these vermin filth are and who they always have been.

    Reply

  87. “Denouncing the KKK makes you a liberal?”
    The base, as represented by Carlson, Ingraham and company (both great fascist buds with Dinesh D’Souza) grew up seething over liberal political correctness that disallowed them the use the words nigger, kike, fag, wetback, feminazi, etc, in everyday discourse, including on the airwaves.
    Understand who these vermin filth are and who they always have been.

    Reply

  91. Rubio seems to be mildly overperforming his poll numbers, especially in Virginia. It’s not enough to win him a lot of delegates, though.

    Reply

  92. Rubio seems to be mildly overperforming his poll numbers, especially in Virginia. It’s not enough to win him a lot of delegates, though.

    Reply

  93. Rubio seems to be mildly overperforming his poll numbers, especially in Virginia. It’s not enough to win him a lot of delegates, though.

    Reply

  94. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/01/how-breitbart-unleashes-hate-mobs-to-threaten-dox-and-troll-trump-critics.html
    For now they are hating and threatening their own with violence.
    See the threats against Erickson and his family, who has threatened plenty enough of his enemies in the past, so he deserves every f*cking thing that happens to him.
    If Breitbart and company were sending their brownshirts to threaten and harass liberals where they live, Erickson would be sucking Breitbart’s dick, he’d be so on board.
    But, for now, he’s a RINO. That goes for Moe Lane too. F”ck off, Moe.
    But once the dust settles in the republican primaries, all of these filth will join together to go after liberals of all stripes.
    It will be the final rhetorical flourish of Republican hate before unbelievable violence erupts.

    Reply

  95. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/01/how-breitbart-unleashes-hate-mobs-to-threaten-dox-and-troll-trump-critics.html
    For now they are hating and threatening their own with violence.
    See the threats against Erickson and his family, who has threatened plenty enough of his enemies in the past, so he deserves every f*cking thing that happens to him.
    If Breitbart and company were sending their brownshirts to threaten and harass liberals where they live, Erickson would be sucking Breitbart’s dick, he’d be so on board.
    But, for now, he’s a RINO. That goes for Moe Lane too. F”ck off, Moe.
    But once the dust settles in the republican primaries, all of these filth will join together to go after liberals of all stripes.
    It will be the final rhetorical flourish of Republican hate before unbelievable violence erupts.

    Reply

  96. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/01/how-breitbart-unleashes-hate-mobs-to-threaten-dox-and-troll-trump-critics.html
    For now they are hating and threatening their own with violence.
    See the threats against Erickson and his family, who has threatened plenty enough of his enemies in the past, so he deserves every f*cking thing that happens to him.
    If Breitbart and company were sending their brownshirts to threaten and harass liberals where they live, Erickson would be sucking Breitbart’s dick, he’d be so on board.
    But, for now, he’s a RINO. That goes for Moe Lane too. F”ck off, Moe.
    But once the dust settles in the republican primaries, all of these filth will join together to go after liberals of all stripes.
    It will be the final rhetorical flourish of Republican hate before unbelievable violence erupts.

    Reply

  106. Christie seems to have become Trump’s spokesperson.
    How demeaning is that ?
    Time to call peak Trump ?
    And Rubio seems to have done just well enough to cling on – locked in a death grip with Cruz for the prize of finishing second to the Trump win they are enabling. An all round toxic mess.
    I have decided I like Vermont, though.
    And Phish Food too. The state should get some sort of recognition for services to civilisation.

    Reply

  107. Christie seems to have become Trump’s spokesperson.
    How demeaning is that ?
    Time to call peak Trump ?
    And Rubio seems to have done just well enough to cling on – locked in a death grip with Cruz for the prize of finishing second to the Trump win they are enabling. An all round toxic mess.
    I have decided I like Vermont, though.
    And Phish Food too. The state should get some sort of recognition for services to civilisation.

    Reply

  108. Christie seems to have become Trump’s spokesperson.
    How demeaning is that ?
    Time to call peak Trump ?
    And Rubio seems to have done just well enough to cling on – locked in a death grip with Cruz for the prize of finishing second to the Trump win they are enabling. An all round toxic mess.
    I have decided I like Vermont, though.
    And Phish Food too. The state should get some sort of recognition for services to civilisation.

    Reply

  109. before unbelievable violence erupts.
    No, it won’t.
    Clinton will (almost certainly) win, and everyone will go back home to cling to their guns and… etc.

    Reply

  110. before unbelievable violence erupts.
    No, it won’t.
    Clinton will (almost certainly) win, and everyone will go back home to cling to their guns and… etc.

    Reply

  111. before unbelievable violence erupts.
    No, it won’t.
    Clinton will (almost certainly) win, and everyone will go back home to cling to their guns and… etc.

    Reply

  112. Rubio is staying in the race to save the United States of America from the twin scourges of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton!! He promises to win a state primary soon….
    (I guess he still has a chance tonight)

    Reply

  113. Rubio is staying in the race to save the United States of America from the twin scourges of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton!! He promises to win a state primary soon….
    (I guess he still has a chance tonight)

    Reply

  114. Rubio is staying in the race to save the United States of America from the twin scourges of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton!! He promises to win a state primary soon….
    (I guess he still has a chance tonight)

    Reply

  115. As sung by The Establishment:
    There’s this guy that’s been on my mind
    All the time, Rurrubio oh oh
    Now he don’t even know my name
    But I think he likes me just the same
    Rurrubio oh oh
    Oh if he called me I’d be there
    I’d come running anywhere
    He’s all I need, all my life
    I feel so good if I just say the word
    Rurrubio, just say the word
    Oh Rurrubio
    I guess that doesn’t quite work.

    Reply

  116. As sung by The Establishment:
    There’s this guy that’s been on my mind
    All the time, Rurrubio oh oh
    Now he don’t even know my name
    But I think he likes me just the same
    Rurrubio oh oh
    Oh if he called me I’d be there
    I’d come running anywhere
    He’s all I need, all my life
    I feel so good if I just say the word
    Rurrubio, just say the word
    Oh Rurrubio
    I guess that doesn’t quite work.

    Reply

  117. As sung by The Establishment:
    There’s this guy that’s been on my mind
    All the time, Rurrubio oh oh
    Now he don’t even know my name
    But I think he likes me just the same
    Rurrubio oh oh
    Oh if he called me I’d be there
    I’d come running anywhere
    He’s all I need, all my life
    I feel so good if I just say the word
    Rurrubio, just say the word
    Oh Rurrubio
    I guess that doesn’t quite work.

    Reply

  130. He won Minnesota! He’s the clear front runner!!!!
    As always, Josh Marshall:
    “Marco Rubio has now officially won a state: Minnesota, which holds a caucus. The discussion of the win on the cable networks though gives a sense of how much the image of his campaign is calcifying into a metaphor for humiliating defeat. On the cable nets, the announcement was treated with a mix of amused surprise and the sort of fulsome pride grandparents show when a toddler says their first word.”
    Ouch.

    Reply

  131. He won Minnesota! He’s the clear front runner!!!!
    As always, Josh Marshall:
    “Marco Rubio has now officially won a state: Minnesota, which holds a caucus. The discussion of the win on the cable networks though gives a sense of how much the image of his campaign is calcifying into a metaphor for humiliating defeat. On the cable nets, the announcement was treated with a mix of amused surprise and the sort of fulsome pride grandparents show when a toddler says their first word.”
    Ouch.

    Reply

  132. He won Minnesota! He’s the clear front runner!!!!
    As always, Josh Marshall:
    “Marco Rubio has now officially won a state: Minnesota, which holds a caucus. The discussion of the win on the cable networks though gives a sense of how much the image of his campaign is calcifying into a metaphor for humiliating defeat. On the cable nets, the announcement was treated with a mix of amused surprise and the sort of fulsome pride grandparents show when a toddler says their first word.”
    Ouch.

    Reply

  136. Delegate count Today:
    Trump 285
    Cruz 161
    Rubio 87
    Delegates left 1880
    I hope Trump actually believes he has it locked up.

    Reply

  137. Delegate count Today:
    Trump 285
    Cruz 161
    Rubio 87
    Delegates left 1880
    I hope Trump actually believes he has it locked up.

    Reply

  138. Delegate count Today:
    Trump 285
    Cruz 161
    Rubio 87
    Delegates left 1880
    I hope Trump actually believes he has it locked up.

    Reply

  142. Clinton will (almost certainly) win, and everyone will go back home to cling to their guns and… etc.
    I believe, and hope, that you’re right for this election. My worry is that the Republican Congress is not going to change, therefore nothing will get better for middle class Americans. The next decade is going to be rough unless Americans catch on to the urgent need for regime change in Congress.

    Reply

  143. Clinton will (almost certainly) win, and everyone will go back home to cling to their guns and… etc.
    I believe, and hope, that you’re right for this election. My worry is that the Republican Congress is not going to change, therefore nothing will get better for middle class Americans. The next decade is going to be rough unless Americans catch on to the urgent need for regime change in Congress.

    Reply

  144. Clinton will (almost certainly) win, and everyone will go back home to cling to their guns and… etc.
    I believe, and hope, that you’re right for this election. My worry is that the Republican Congress is not going to change, therefore nothing will get better for middle class Americans. The next decade is going to be rough unless Americans catch on to the urgent need for regime change in Congress.

    Reply

  145. What would be interesting to see is the latest theories about Trump exposing the disconnect between voters and the GOP as free-market ideology is concerned coming into play in congressional races. Imagine Tea Party types spending a lot more time railing against big banks and corporations and other moneyed interests fixing the system instead of bitching about tax rates they’d never have to pay anyway. I mean, you’d have to take the good (economic populism) along with the bad (gun-nuttery and xenophobia), but it would at least be something. (You do hear some talk in those quarters about crony capitalism, but I’m not so sure they really understand what that means.)

    Reply

  146. What would be interesting to see is the latest theories about Trump exposing the disconnect between voters and the GOP as free-market ideology is concerned coming into play in congressional races. Imagine Tea Party types spending a lot more time railing against big banks and corporations and other moneyed interests fixing the system instead of bitching about tax rates they’d never have to pay anyway. I mean, you’d have to take the good (economic populism) along with the bad (gun-nuttery and xenophobia), but it would at least be something. (You do hear some talk in those quarters about crony capitalism, but I’m not so sure they really understand what that means.)

    Reply

  147. What would be interesting to see is the latest theories about Trump exposing the disconnect between voters and the GOP as free-market ideology is concerned coming into play in congressional races. Imagine Tea Party types spending a lot more time railing against big banks and corporations and other moneyed interests fixing the system instead of bitching about tax rates they’d never have to pay anyway. I mean, you’d have to take the good (economic populism) along with the bad (gun-nuttery and xenophobia), but it would at least be something. (You do hear some talk in those quarters about crony capitalism, but I’m not so sure they really understand what that means.)

    Reply

  157. 1,237 needed for nomination.
    And what’s going to suddenly change the trend that is well in evidence at this point? Sure, something could, but there’s no particular reason to think something will.

    Reply

  158. 1,237 needed for nomination.
    And what’s going to suddenly change the trend that is well in evidence at this point? Sure, something could, but there’s no particular reason to think something will.

    Reply

  159. 1,237 needed for nomination.
    And what’s going to suddenly change the trend that is well in evidence at this point? Sure, something could, but there’s no particular reason to think something will.

    Reply

  163. hilzoy – the GOP has trained its voters not to trust anybody, now including the establishment/incumbents, thus only people they trust are those who “signal” authenticity/trust somehow, which Trump apparently does.

    Reply

  164. hilzoy – the GOP has trained its voters not to trust anybody, now including the establishment/incumbents, thus only people they trust are those who “signal” authenticity/trust somehow, which Trump apparently does.

    Reply

  165. hilzoy – the GOP has trained its voters not to trust anybody, now including the establishment/incumbents, thus only people they trust are those who “signal” authenticity/trust somehow, which Trump apparently does.

    Reply

  166. Reading about Rubes’ speech in Miami last night makes me feel like he’s a cross between Baghdad Bob and Kevin Bacon screaming at the end of Animal House that “All is well!”

    Reply

  167. Reading about Rubes’ speech in Miami last night makes me feel like he’s a cross between Baghdad Bob and Kevin Bacon screaming at the end of Animal House that “All is well!”

    Reply

  168. Reading about Rubes’ speech in Miami last night makes me feel like he’s a cross between Baghdad Bob and Kevin Bacon screaming at the end of Animal House that “All is well!”

    Reply

  172. well, Rubio got a tie in Virginia, won Minnesota, Cruz won three and its only been a week that they have been taking it to Trump. He thought he was winning 9 of 10(and, typically, hinted at winning Texas too where he was spanked), he got 5 and a tie and his first third place. Despite the medias going on about his dominant night, it was really not so much as expected.
    That changes the trend. And should have changed the narrative.

    Reply

  173. well, Rubio got a tie in Virginia, won Minnesota, Cruz won three and its only been a week that they have been taking it to Trump. He thought he was winning 9 of 10(and, typically, hinted at winning Texas too where he was spanked), he got 5 and a tie and his first third place. Despite the medias going on about his dominant night, it was really not so much as expected.
    That changes the trend. And should have changed the narrative.

    Reply

  174. well, Rubio got a tie in Virginia, won Minnesota, Cruz won three and its only been a week that they have been taking it to Trump. He thought he was winning 9 of 10(and, typically, hinted at winning Texas too where he was spanked), he got 5 and a tie and his first third place. Despite the medias going on about his dominant night, it was really not so much as expected.
    That changes the trend. And should have changed the narrative.

    Reply

  175. I can’t wait for April 30th. That’s when the 2016 White House Correpondents’ Dinner will be, with Larry Wilmore hosting. I hope and pray that He, Trump will attend. Whether He does or not, Barack Obama, Master of the Stand-Up Put-Down, is likely to remind the assembled media glitterati of He, Trump’s quest for the Holy Birth Certificate — and if Barack doesn’t, Larry surely will.
    The Fourth Estate seems to have completely forgotten that He, Trump made his political bones as Birther-in-Chief. They need reminding with a 2×4 upside the head.
    –TP

    Reply

  176. I can’t wait for April 30th. That’s when the 2016 White House Correpondents’ Dinner will be, with Larry Wilmore hosting. I hope and pray that He, Trump will attend. Whether He does or not, Barack Obama, Master of the Stand-Up Put-Down, is likely to remind the assembled media glitterati of He, Trump’s quest for the Holy Birth Certificate — and if Barack doesn’t, Larry surely will.
    The Fourth Estate seems to have completely forgotten that He, Trump made his political bones as Birther-in-Chief. They need reminding with a 2×4 upside the head.
    –TP

    Reply

  177. I can’t wait for April 30th. That’s when the 2016 White House Correpondents’ Dinner will be, with Larry Wilmore hosting. I hope and pray that He, Trump will attend. Whether He does or not, Barack Obama, Master of the Stand-Up Put-Down, is likely to remind the assembled media glitterati of He, Trump’s quest for the Holy Birth Certificate — and if Barack doesn’t, Larry surely will.
    The Fourth Estate seems to have completely forgotten that He, Trump made his political bones as Birther-in-Chief. They need reminding with a 2×4 upside the head.
    –TP

    Reply

  178. I thought the Orcs in “Lord of The Rings” signaled the authenticity of Mordor’s intentions.
    Hitler was the authentic apotheosis of the victimized, angry, put-upon Will of the German/Aryan people.
    Mike Tyson. You can tell he’s the authentic item … after you wake up from the facial reconstruction surgery.
    The American Civil War was a manifestation of the long simmering urge for authenticity as a resolution to the central grievance of America.
    Odd now though that a Reality Show/WWF celebrity steeped in that very medium of overwrought Inauthenticity should now be the vanguard of Authenticity and its armed, bloody-minded seekers.
    By people who believe the Sandy Hook shootings … the murders of dozens of little kids with military weaponry in a quiet American suburb .. were an inauthentic put-on …. but sit rapt with utter gravity as Andy Kaufmann, head tilted a little to the side and wincing in his neck brace, testifies that yes, that was an authentic pile driver that did this to us, as the clown in a quilt who choreographed the maneuver sits beside him and nods his head threateningly and chews the microphone in a spittle-flecked rage at any outrageous questioning of his inauthenticity.
    You know who the Republican base is?
    She’s the 74-year old crone with the tobacco-stained fingers and smoker’s phlegm-rattling cough who has sat in the front row of every studio wrestling match since 1957 cheering for her crotch-bulging palooka and has been told for 60 years that my dear, surely you realize this shit is fake, it’s merely showtime, and no one is getting hurt unless one of these out-of shape fay guys pulls a hammy climbing into the ring, but she has kept the faith that her 60 years of fandom have been expended witnessing the authentic brutal thing-in-itself, and now by God, that doubter Andy Kaufmann, that funny boy with the cynical anti-American, but unbeknownst to her, inauthentic snicker got what what was coming to him.
    She hopes it hurts.
    I’ve always suspected the world would end in a hail of gunfire and then a looped laugh track filled with nervous medium chuckles as we get a load of what true Evil looks like.
    It merely looks like a big pile of horsesh*t.
    Enough to fill all of us up so that we are full of it.
    And now we are.

    Reply

  179. I thought the Orcs in “Lord of The Rings” signaled the authenticity of Mordor’s intentions.
    Hitler was the authentic apotheosis of the victimized, angry, put-upon Will of the German/Aryan people.
    Mike Tyson. You can tell he’s the authentic item … after you wake up from the facial reconstruction surgery.
    The American Civil War was a manifestation of the long simmering urge for authenticity as a resolution to the central grievance of America.
    Odd now though that a Reality Show/WWF celebrity steeped in that very medium of overwrought Inauthenticity should now be the vanguard of Authenticity and its armed, bloody-minded seekers.
    By people who believe the Sandy Hook shootings … the murders of dozens of little kids with military weaponry in a quiet American suburb .. were an inauthentic put-on …. but sit rapt with utter gravity as Andy Kaufmann, head tilted a little to the side and wincing in his neck brace, testifies that yes, that was an authentic pile driver that did this to us, as the clown in a quilt who choreographed the maneuver sits beside him and nods his head threateningly and chews the microphone in a spittle-flecked rage at any outrageous questioning of his inauthenticity.
    You know who the Republican base is?
    She’s the 74-year old crone with the tobacco-stained fingers and smoker’s phlegm-rattling cough who has sat in the front row of every studio wrestling match since 1957 cheering for her crotch-bulging palooka and has been told for 60 years that my dear, surely you realize this shit is fake, it’s merely showtime, and no one is getting hurt unless one of these out-of shape fay guys pulls a hammy climbing into the ring, but she has kept the faith that her 60 years of fandom have been expended witnessing the authentic brutal thing-in-itself, and now by God, that doubter Andy Kaufmann, that funny boy with the cynical anti-American, but unbeknownst to her, inauthentic snicker got what what was coming to him.
    She hopes it hurts.
    I’ve always suspected the world would end in a hail of gunfire and then a looped laugh track filled with nervous medium chuckles as we get a load of what true Evil looks like.
    It merely looks like a big pile of horsesh*t.
    Enough to fill all of us up so that we are full of it.
    And now we are.

    Reply

  180. I thought the Orcs in “Lord of The Rings” signaled the authenticity of Mordor’s intentions.
    Hitler was the authentic apotheosis of the victimized, angry, put-upon Will of the German/Aryan people.
    Mike Tyson. You can tell he’s the authentic item … after you wake up from the facial reconstruction surgery.
    The American Civil War was a manifestation of the long simmering urge for authenticity as a resolution to the central grievance of America.
    Odd now though that a Reality Show/WWF celebrity steeped in that very medium of overwrought Inauthenticity should now be the vanguard of Authenticity and its armed, bloody-minded seekers.
    By people who believe the Sandy Hook shootings … the murders of dozens of little kids with military weaponry in a quiet American suburb .. were an inauthentic put-on …. but sit rapt with utter gravity as Andy Kaufmann, head tilted a little to the side and wincing in his neck brace, testifies that yes, that was an authentic pile driver that did this to us, as the clown in a quilt who choreographed the maneuver sits beside him and nods his head threateningly and chews the microphone in a spittle-flecked rage at any outrageous questioning of his inauthenticity.
    You know who the Republican base is?
    She’s the 74-year old crone with the tobacco-stained fingers and smoker’s phlegm-rattling cough who has sat in the front row of every studio wrestling match since 1957 cheering for her crotch-bulging palooka and has been told for 60 years that my dear, surely you realize this shit is fake, it’s merely showtime, and no one is getting hurt unless one of these out-of shape fay guys pulls a hammy climbing into the ring, but she has kept the faith that her 60 years of fandom have been expended witnessing the authentic brutal thing-in-itself, and now by God, that doubter Andy Kaufmann, that funny boy with the cynical anti-American, but unbeknownst to her, inauthentic snicker got what what was coming to him.
    She hopes it hurts.
    I’ve always suspected the world would end in a hail of gunfire and then a looped laugh track filled with nervous medium chuckles as we get a load of what true Evil looks like.
    It merely looks like a big pile of horsesh*t.
    Enough to fill all of us up so that we are full of it.
    And now we are.

    Reply

  181. “And should have changed the narrative.”
    Besides Trump’s stronger perspiration control, tell me one authentic difference between Cruz/Rubio’s narrative and Trump’s.

    Reply

  182. “And should have changed the narrative.”
    Besides Trump’s stronger perspiration control, tell me one authentic difference between Cruz/Rubio’s narrative and Trump’s.

    Reply

  183. “And should have changed the narrative.”
    Besides Trump’s stronger perspiration control, tell me one authentic difference between Cruz/Rubio’s narrative and Trump’s.

    Reply

  187. I think Marty means the media’s narrative on the horse race. I’d say if polling weren’t what it currently is in the states yet to vote, then maybe there’d be reason to change the narrative. As it stands, not so much. Trump has a large polling lead even in Florida.

    Reply

  188. I think Marty means the media’s narrative on the horse race. I’d say if polling weren’t what it currently is in the states yet to vote, then maybe there’d be reason to change the narrative. As it stands, not so much. Trump has a large polling lead even in Florida.

    Reply

  189. I think Marty means the media’s narrative on the horse race. I’d say if polling weren’t what it currently is in the states yet to vote, then maybe there’d be reason to change the narrative. As it stands, not so much. Trump has a large polling lead even in Florida.

    Reply

  190. 1,237 needed for nomination.
    And what’s going to suddenly change the trend that is well in evidence at this point? Sure, something could, but there’s no particular reason to think something will.
    Of course something will change. The primaries up to this point have mostly divided delegates proportionately. Which is why Rubio and Cruz have as many delegates as they do. The ones from now on will generally be winner-take-all.
    Cruz will stay in until the end — he doesn’t care that he can’t win; it’s the fight he loves. Rubio will stay in if he wins Florida. So Trump can start racking up lots more delegates, even if he only has a bare plurality. (Plus Trump looks to be getting close to a majority in some cases.)
    Also if Rubio does not win Florida, the only alternative will appear to be Cruz. For a lot of people, including especially the Republican Senators who have had the dubious pleasure of his company the past few years, that would be a far worse option.
    The big question looks to be, how many Republican Senators and Congressmen does a Trump nomination take down? Certainly that is what has them in agony. But there is also some question as to how many Republicans further down the ballot get hurt as well.

    Reply

  191. 1,237 needed for nomination.
    And what’s going to suddenly change the trend that is well in evidence at this point? Sure, something could, but there’s no particular reason to think something will.
    Of course something will change. The primaries up to this point have mostly divided delegates proportionately. Which is why Rubio and Cruz have as many delegates as they do. The ones from now on will generally be winner-take-all.
    Cruz will stay in until the end — he doesn’t care that he can’t win; it’s the fight he loves. Rubio will stay in if he wins Florida. So Trump can start racking up lots more delegates, even if he only has a bare plurality. (Plus Trump looks to be getting close to a majority in some cases.)
    Also if Rubio does not win Florida, the only alternative will appear to be Cruz. For a lot of people, including especially the Republican Senators who have had the dubious pleasure of his company the past few years, that would be a far worse option.
    The big question looks to be, how many Republican Senators and Congressmen does a Trump nomination take down? Certainly that is what has them in agony. But there is also some question as to how many Republicans further down the ballot get hurt as well.

    Reply

  192. 1,237 needed for nomination.
    And what’s going to suddenly change the trend that is well in evidence at this point? Sure, something could, but there’s no particular reason to think something will.
    Of course something will change. The primaries up to this point have mostly divided delegates proportionately. Which is why Rubio and Cruz have as many delegates as they do. The ones from now on will generally be winner-take-all.
    Cruz will stay in until the end — he doesn’t care that he can’t win; it’s the fight he loves. Rubio will stay in if he wins Florida. So Trump can start racking up lots more delegates, even if he only has a bare plurality. (Plus Trump looks to be getting close to a majority in some cases.)
    Also if Rubio does not win Florida, the only alternative will appear to be Cruz. For a lot of people, including especially the Republican Senators who have had the dubious pleasure of his company the past few years, that would be a far worse option.
    The big question looks to be, how many Republican Senators and Congressmen does a Trump nomination take down? Certainly that is what has them in agony. But there is also some question as to how many Republicans further down the ballot get hurt as well.

    Reply

  193. hsh, Yes that narrative. I hope that Rubio is not really hanging his hat on Florida. It voted for Obama, and there are tons of independents, but the Republicans are really mostly direct Trump targets, afraid and angry, many of them angry at Rubio. If he does turn Florida that should be considered a game changer, not an expected win.

    Reply

  194. hsh, Yes that narrative. I hope that Rubio is not really hanging his hat on Florida. It voted for Obama, and there are tons of independents, but the Republicans are really mostly direct Trump targets, afraid and angry, many of them angry at Rubio. If he does turn Florida that should be considered a game changer, not an expected win.

    Reply

  195. hsh, Yes that narrative. I hope that Rubio is not really hanging his hat on Florida. It voted for Obama, and there are tons of independents, but the Republicans are really mostly direct Trump targets, afraid and angry, many of them angry at Rubio. If he does turn Florida that should be considered a game changer, not an expected win.

    Reply

  199. Newt Gingrich tweets:
    “Trump’s shift toward inclusiveness, team effort and unity was vitally important He has to build a Reagan like inclusiveness to win this fall”
    Well, Newt is partly right. Trump may well become a little less noxious in the coming months. But there is an enormous difference, given where Trump is coming from, between “less noxious” and “a Reagan like inclusiveness”.
    Has anyone seen anything, anything at all; any time, in Trump’s past behavior which would suggest he could change that much? I don’t recall such. but then, I’n not a fan of pro wrestling, or other “reality” TV shows, so I may have missed something.

    Reply

  200. Newt Gingrich tweets:
    “Trump’s shift toward inclusiveness, team effort and unity was vitally important He has to build a Reagan like inclusiveness to win this fall”
    Well, Newt is partly right. Trump may well become a little less noxious in the coming months. But there is an enormous difference, given where Trump is coming from, between “less noxious” and “a Reagan like inclusiveness”.
    Has anyone seen anything, anything at all; any time, in Trump’s past behavior which would suggest he could change that much? I don’t recall such. but then, I’n not a fan of pro wrestling, or other “reality” TV shows, so I may have missed something.

    Reply

  201. Newt Gingrich tweets:
    “Trump’s shift toward inclusiveness, team effort and unity was vitally important He has to build a Reagan like inclusiveness to win this fall”
    Well, Newt is partly right. Trump may well become a little less noxious in the coming months. But there is an enormous difference, given where Trump is coming from, between “less noxious” and “a Reagan like inclusiveness”.
    Has anyone seen anything, anything at all; any time, in Trump’s past behavior which would suggest he could change that much? I don’t recall such. but then, I’n not a fan of pro wrestling, or other “reality” TV shows, so I may have missed something.

    Reply

  202. At this point, this can only turn out badly for the GOP in the Presidential election (not that I’m complaining).
    Either (i) Trump wins the nomination outright with a huge fight along the way and a lot of GOP voters/congressmen disowning and hobbling him, thus losing the general; (ii) Rubio or (less likely) Cruz wins in a brokered convention because Trump can’t get a majority of delegates, and alienating the Trump supporters in the process and losing the general.
    Absent Cruz/Rubio getting a majority of delegates (which seems highly unlikely), perhaps the best case GOP scenario is that one of them manages to overtake Trump in total delegates and then that person gets the nomination at a brokered convention. That would still alienate a lot of Trump voters, but at least it would not feel like the “establishment” snatched it from them in a dirty back room deal, providing potentially some party unity heading into the general election.
    But it seems like there will be Trump vilifying for at least 2 more weeks from Dear Marco and Cruz, at which point Trump may have enough delegates to ensure that (ii) is the “worst case” scenario for him.
    Of course, Trump could finally say/do something beyond the pale, but I’m hard pressed on what it might be that is within the realm of possibility.

    Reply

  203. At this point, this can only turn out badly for the GOP in the Presidential election (not that I’m complaining).
    Either (i) Trump wins the nomination outright with a huge fight along the way and a lot of GOP voters/congressmen disowning and hobbling him, thus losing the general; (ii) Rubio or (less likely) Cruz wins in a brokered convention because Trump can’t get a majority of delegates, and alienating the Trump supporters in the process and losing the general.
    Absent Cruz/Rubio getting a majority of delegates (which seems highly unlikely), perhaps the best case GOP scenario is that one of them manages to overtake Trump in total delegates and then that person gets the nomination at a brokered convention. That would still alienate a lot of Trump voters, but at least it would not feel like the “establishment” snatched it from them in a dirty back room deal, providing potentially some party unity heading into the general election.
    But it seems like there will be Trump vilifying for at least 2 more weeks from Dear Marco and Cruz, at which point Trump may have enough delegates to ensure that (ii) is the “worst case” scenario for him.
    Of course, Trump could finally say/do something beyond the pale, but I’m hard pressed on what it might be that is within the realm of possibility.

    Reply

  204. At this point, this can only turn out badly for the GOP in the Presidential election (not that I’m complaining).
    Either (i) Trump wins the nomination outright with a huge fight along the way and a lot of GOP voters/congressmen disowning and hobbling him, thus losing the general; (ii) Rubio or (less likely) Cruz wins in a brokered convention because Trump can’t get a majority of delegates, and alienating the Trump supporters in the process and losing the general.
    Absent Cruz/Rubio getting a majority of delegates (which seems highly unlikely), perhaps the best case GOP scenario is that one of them manages to overtake Trump in total delegates and then that person gets the nomination at a brokered convention. That would still alienate a lot of Trump voters, but at least it would not feel like the “establishment” snatched it from them in a dirty back room deal, providing potentially some party unity heading into the general election.
    But it seems like there will be Trump vilifying for at least 2 more weeks from Dear Marco and Cruz, at which point Trump may have enough delegates to ensure that (ii) is the “worst case” scenario for him.
    Of course, Trump could finally say/do something beyond the pale, but I’m hard pressed on what it might be that is within the realm of possibility.

    Reply

  205. Trump’s shift toward inclusiveness, team effort and unity was vitally important
    the bigwigs in the GOP establishment are telling Trump exactly which noises he needs to make in order to give them the cover they need to support him.
    soon, we’ll see it from everyday Republicans.
    after that, they’ll be united behind him in their battle to keep the WH out of Democratic hands. all that stuff they were saying in Feb? bygones. heat of the battle. just sticking up for their preferred choice. he was never as bad as the liberal media would have you believe, obvs.

    Reply

  206. Trump’s shift toward inclusiveness, team effort and unity was vitally important
    the bigwigs in the GOP establishment are telling Trump exactly which noises he needs to make in order to give them the cover they need to support him.
    soon, we’ll see it from everyday Republicans.
    after that, they’ll be united behind him in their battle to keep the WH out of Democratic hands. all that stuff they were saying in Feb? bygones. heat of the battle. just sticking up for their preferred choice. he was never as bad as the liberal media would have you believe, obvs.

    Reply

  207. Trump’s shift toward inclusiveness, team effort and unity was vitally important
    the bigwigs in the GOP establishment are telling Trump exactly which noises he needs to make in order to give them the cover they need to support him.
    soon, we’ll see it from everyday Republicans.
    after that, they’ll be united behind him in their battle to keep the WH out of Democratic hands. all that stuff they were saying in Feb? bygones. heat of the battle. just sticking up for their preferred choice. he was never as bad as the liberal media would have you believe, obvs.

    Reply

  208. (Hilzoy’s storify in comment form)
    Start with the assumption that no sane person can understand all of policy themselves. And most don’t want to, have jobs, etc. People—everyone—therefore need people they trust to get information from. Journalists, experts, friends, whoever.
    The GOP has for a long time been destroying trust in the press, experts, basically everyone people don’t know personally. At the same time, they have been amping up the importance of politics by telling people that people America is being destroyed by Democrats, etc.
    So their followers think politics is a matter of insane urgency, but have no one to help them get good info about what to do, because GOP figures have destroyed trust in anyone but them. At the same time, they have stunningly failed to advance the interests of their supporters, or to get things like overturning Roe, etc. It was inevitable at some point that the base would turn on GOP leadership, who have failed both to deliver and to explain why delivery was impossible.
    But what to do now? GOP supporters’ capacity to trust anyone else was already destroyed. Thus, it’s almost inevitable that they will rely on signals of authenticity rather than e.g. policy positions. (Recall earlier: no one can understand all of policy alone unless it’s their job. I was a political blogger. I’ve tried.)
    Earlier symptoms of the problem: very conservative politicians defeated in primaries because having been elected, they were now “establishment” & thus sellouts who needed a Tea Party challenge. It makes no sense on policy grounds, but makes total sense if signals are what matters. (Note: it’s very bad for a party to demonize politicians. It ensures that politicians who are elected will be seen as corrupt or bad, just because they won.)
    Anyways, in a world without trust, gestures are everything. In a world in which GOP leaders have lost trust, they can’t give those gestures. Which leaves the field wide open for Trump. He can’t be bought (ha ha), speaks his mind, etc., etc. He’s one big signal of authenticity. And by destroying trust in everyone who might speak against him, the party has destroyed all paths back to sanity. Who is going to tell voters that Trump’s ideas are nuts and be believed? The MSM? Experts?
    The people who might help are either people who have lied to the base, or people they have been convinced are liars or worse. This is entirely the GOP’s own doing. ENTIRELY.
    This is one reason (of many) why I never wanted to demonize GOP voters. They need a route back. It’s hard enough without encountering contempt. Note: This is also why I never put stock in polls that say GOP voters actually agree with Democratic priorities. If they actually believed that, say, Obamacare might provide decent health care, they might well support it. But without trust, how will they arrive at that belief? There’s a long, long distance between “policy X would in fact do something that many GOP voters support in abstract” and GOP voters supporting that actual policy after Rush Limbaugh gets through describing it to them. Or even before Limbaugh describes it — after all, it’s a plan hatched by Democrats, and we all know about THEM.
    (Michelle C: In fact, without trust, they arrive to the opposite belief even in the face of people benefiting from specific policies.)

    Reply

  209. (Hilzoy’s storify in comment form)
    Start with the assumption that no sane person can understand all of policy themselves. And most don’t want to, have jobs, etc. People—everyone—therefore need people they trust to get information from. Journalists, experts, friends, whoever.
    The GOP has for a long time been destroying trust in the press, experts, basically everyone people don’t know personally. At the same time, they have been amping up the importance of politics by telling people that people America is being destroyed by Democrats, etc.
    So their followers think politics is a matter of insane urgency, but have no one to help them get good info about what to do, because GOP figures have destroyed trust in anyone but them. At the same time, they have stunningly failed to advance the interests of their supporters, or to get things like overturning Roe, etc. It was inevitable at some point that the base would turn on GOP leadership, who have failed both to deliver and to explain why delivery was impossible.
    But what to do now? GOP supporters’ capacity to trust anyone else was already destroyed. Thus, it’s almost inevitable that they will rely on signals of authenticity rather than e.g. policy positions. (Recall earlier: no one can understand all of policy alone unless it’s their job. I was a political blogger. I’ve tried.)
    Earlier symptoms of the problem: very conservative politicians defeated in primaries because having been elected, they were now “establishment” & thus sellouts who needed a Tea Party challenge. It makes no sense on policy grounds, but makes total sense if signals are what matters. (Note: it’s very bad for a party to demonize politicians. It ensures that politicians who are elected will be seen as corrupt or bad, just because they won.)
    Anyways, in a world without trust, gestures are everything. In a world in which GOP leaders have lost trust, they can’t give those gestures. Which leaves the field wide open for Trump. He can’t be bought (ha ha), speaks his mind, etc., etc. He’s one big signal of authenticity. And by destroying trust in everyone who might speak against him, the party has destroyed all paths back to sanity. Who is going to tell voters that Trump’s ideas are nuts and be believed? The MSM? Experts?
    The people who might help are either people who have lied to the base, or people they have been convinced are liars or worse. This is entirely the GOP’s own doing. ENTIRELY.
    This is one reason (of many) why I never wanted to demonize GOP voters. They need a route back. It’s hard enough without encountering contempt. Note: This is also why I never put stock in polls that say GOP voters actually agree with Democratic priorities. If they actually believed that, say, Obamacare might provide decent health care, they might well support it. But without trust, how will they arrive at that belief? There’s a long, long distance between “policy X would in fact do something that many GOP voters support in abstract” and GOP voters supporting that actual policy after Rush Limbaugh gets through describing it to them. Or even before Limbaugh describes it — after all, it’s a plan hatched by Democrats, and we all know about THEM.
    (Michelle C: In fact, without trust, they arrive to the opposite belief even in the face of people benefiting from specific policies.)

    Reply

  210. (Hilzoy’s storify in comment form)
    Start with the assumption that no sane person can understand all of policy themselves. And most don’t want to, have jobs, etc. People—everyone—therefore need people they trust to get information from. Journalists, experts, friends, whoever.
    The GOP has for a long time been destroying trust in the press, experts, basically everyone people don’t know personally. At the same time, they have been amping up the importance of politics by telling people that people America is being destroyed by Democrats, etc.
    So their followers think politics is a matter of insane urgency, but have no one to help them get good info about what to do, because GOP figures have destroyed trust in anyone but them. At the same time, they have stunningly failed to advance the interests of their supporters, or to get things like overturning Roe, etc. It was inevitable at some point that the base would turn on GOP leadership, who have failed both to deliver and to explain why delivery was impossible.
    But what to do now? GOP supporters’ capacity to trust anyone else was already destroyed. Thus, it’s almost inevitable that they will rely on signals of authenticity rather than e.g. policy positions. (Recall earlier: no one can understand all of policy alone unless it’s their job. I was a political blogger. I’ve tried.)
    Earlier symptoms of the problem: very conservative politicians defeated in primaries because having been elected, they were now “establishment” & thus sellouts who needed a Tea Party challenge. It makes no sense on policy grounds, but makes total sense if signals are what matters. (Note: it’s very bad for a party to demonize politicians. It ensures that politicians who are elected will be seen as corrupt or bad, just because they won.)
    Anyways, in a world without trust, gestures are everything. In a world in which GOP leaders have lost trust, they can’t give those gestures. Which leaves the field wide open for Trump. He can’t be bought (ha ha), speaks his mind, etc., etc. He’s one big signal of authenticity. And by destroying trust in everyone who might speak against him, the party has destroyed all paths back to sanity. Who is going to tell voters that Trump’s ideas are nuts and be believed? The MSM? Experts?
    The people who might help are either people who have lied to the base, or people they have been convinced are liars or worse. This is entirely the GOP’s own doing. ENTIRELY.
    This is one reason (of many) why I never wanted to demonize GOP voters. They need a route back. It’s hard enough without encountering contempt. Note: This is also why I never put stock in polls that say GOP voters actually agree with Democratic priorities. If they actually believed that, say, Obamacare might provide decent health care, they might well support it. But without trust, how will they arrive at that belief? There’s a long, long distance between “policy X would in fact do something that many GOP voters support in abstract” and GOP voters supporting that actual policy after Rush Limbaugh gets through describing it to them. Or even before Limbaugh describes it — after all, it’s a plan hatched by Democrats, and we all know about THEM.
    (Michelle C: In fact, without trust, they arrive to the opposite belief even in the face of people benefiting from specific policies.)

    Reply

  211. the bigwigs in the GOP establishment are telling Trump exactly which noises he needs to make in order to give them the cover they need to support him.
    But will he notice? Or care?
    It seems more likely that they are whistling past the graveyard. They desperately want to believe that he will shift towards (their view of) sanity, once he has the nomination locked up. But that seems like wishful thinking, rather than objective analysis.

    Reply

  212. the bigwigs in the GOP establishment are telling Trump exactly which noises he needs to make in order to give them the cover they need to support him.
    But will he notice? Or care?
    It seems more likely that they are whistling past the graveyard. They desperately want to believe that he will shift towards (their view of) sanity, once he has the nomination locked up. But that seems like wishful thinking, rather than objective analysis.

    Reply

  213. the bigwigs in the GOP establishment are telling Trump exactly which noises he needs to make in order to give them the cover they need to support him.
    But will he notice? Or care?
    It seems more likely that they are whistling past the graveyard. They desperately want to believe that he will shift towards (their view of) sanity, once he has the nomination locked up. But that seems like wishful thinking, rather than objective analysis.

    Reply

  214. That changes the trend. And should have changed the narrative.
    Marty,
    Things can change, that’s for sure. But right now, it’s looking like Trump. Looking at upcoming primary schedule, if Cruz and/or Rubio don’t step up their game (or one of them quit the race), the game will be over after the 15th of this month.
    Just Ides of March speculation on my part.

    Reply

  215. That changes the trend. And should have changed the narrative.
    Marty,
    Things can change, that’s for sure. But right now, it’s looking like Trump. Looking at upcoming primary schedule, if Cruz and/or Rubio don’t step up their game (or one of them quit the race), the game will be over after the 15th of this month.
    Just Ides of March speculation on my part.

    Reply

  216. That changes the trend. And should have changed the narrative.
    Marty,
    Things can change, that’s for sure. But right now, it’s looking like Trump. Looking at upcoming primary schedule, if Cruz and/or Rubio don’t step up their game (or one of them quit the race), the game will be over after the 15th of this month.
    Just Ides of March speculation on my part.

    Reply

  217. it’s very bad for a party to demonize politicians. It ensures that politicians who are elected will be seen as corrupt or bad, just because they won.
    Actually, a politician can win and still avoid being seen as hopelessly corrupted. All he has to do is take the Ted Cruz approach. Keep throwing bombs at anyone and everyone. Avoid actually accomplishing anything, but maintain your credibility.
    Might even, eventially, convince the base that even signaling is unreliable….

    Reply

  218. it’s very bad for a party to demonize politicians. It ensures that politicians who are elected will be seen as corrupt or bad, just because they won.
    Actually, a politician can win and still avoid being seen as hopelessly corrupted. All he has to do is take the Ted Cruz approach. Keep throwing bombs at anyone and everyone. Avoid actually accomplishing anything, but maintain your credibility.
    Might even, eventially, convince the base that even signaling is unreliable….

    Reply

  219. it’s very bad for a party to demonize politicians. It ensures that politicians who are elected will be seen as corrupt or bad, just because they won.
    Actually, a politician can win and still avoid being seen as hopelessly corrupted. All he has to do is take the Ted Cruz approach. Keep throwing bombs at anyone and everyone. Avoid actually accomplishing anything, but maintain your credibility.
    Might even, eventially, convince the base that even signaling is unreliable….

    Reply

  220. They desperately want to believe that he will shift towards (their view of) sanity
    if he doesn’t want to change his course even a little bit in order to sail through the mile-wide gates they’re putting up now, they will start putting their gates directly in front of him.
    if he’s the nominee, they will come around. by October, February will be forgotten.

    Reply

  221. They desperately want to believe that he will shift towards (their view of) sanity
    if he doesn’t want to change his course even a little bit in order to sail through the mile-wide gates they’re putting up now, they will start putting their gates directly in front of him.
    if he’s the nominee, they will come around. by October, February will be forgotten.

    Reply

  222. They desperately want to believe that he will shift towards (their view of) sanity
    if he doesn’t want to change his course even a little bit in order to sail through the mile-wide gates they’re putting up now, they will start putting their gates directly in front of him.
    if he’s the nominee, they will come around. by October, February will be forgotten.

    Reply

  223. “At this can only turn out badly for the GOP in the Presidential election ..”
    I see no reason for optimism, before or after the election.
    Even if the Democrats take the White House in November, the angry armed base loser conservative base, now at 37% of the electorate, up from 27%, will have expended every violent rhetorical gambit at their meager disposal and the only tactics left to turn to will be outright violence and that violence, armed and bloody and perpetrated by the numerous paramilitary wings of the Republican Party, who now feel brazen enough to show up as the public muscle at Republican rallies, will be encouraged by conservative media personalities.
    Meanwhile, expect impeachment proceedings to begin in the House, at the very least, against Clinton or Sanders their first day in office.
    I expect any calls for bipartisanship and working together from a Democratic President during her/his SOTU next winter, because the American people … in other words, all of the people the ascendant right-wing filth do not recognize as American …. have spoken, to be audibly shouted down and numerous republican vermin will walk out of the speech.
    The nomination of Barack Obama as Supreme Court Justice will result in armed bands of racist Republican filth shooting blacks via drive-bys and then returning to their white suburbs, and like a photographic negative of the 1960s burning their own white suburbs to the ground, but not before lowering the deductibles in their home insurance.
    National Forests will be arsoned. Federal employees will be violently assaulted.
    These ilk are not going away. The only resolution will be catastrophic because they have promised themselves that logical resolution of that narrative, just like South Carolina in 1861.
    The Republican President’s first SOTU, on the other hand, whichever rude f*ck killer it turns out to be, will issue ultimatums with the imprimatur declared of Almighty God’s Fuck You, while a smirking Paul Ryan sits behind them in the catbird seat masturbating himself between the sticky pages of his paperback copy of Atlas Shrugged.
    Democrats in the gallery will be silent, the cowards.

    Reply

  224. “At this can only turn out badly for the GOP in the Presidential election ..”
    I see no reason for optimism, before or after the election.
    Even if the Democrats take the White House in November, the angry armed base loser conservative base, now at 37% of the electorate, up from 27%, will have expended every violent rhetorical gambit at their meager disposal and the only tactics left to turn to will be outright violence and that violence, armed and bloody and perpetrated by the numerous paramilitary wings of the Republican Party, who now feel brazen enough to show up as the public muscle at Republican rallies, will be encouraged by conservative media personalities.
    Meanwhile, expect impeachment proceedings to begin in the House, at the very least, against Clinton or Sanders their first day in office.
    I expect any calls for bipartisanship and working together from a Democratic President during her/his SOTU next winter, because the American people … in other words, all of the people the ascendant right-wing filth do not recognize as American …. have spoken, to be audibly shouted down and numerous republican vermin will walk out of the speech.
    The nomination of Barack Obama as Supreme Court Justice will result in armed bands of racist Republican filth shooting blacks via drive-bys and then returning to their white suburbs, and like a photographic negative of the 1960s burning their own white suburbs to the ground, but not before lowering the deductibles in their home insurance.
    National Forests will be arsoned. Federal employees will be violently assaulted.
    These ilk are not going away. The only resolution will be catastrophic because they have promised themselves that logical resolution of that narrative, just like South Carolina in 1861.
    The Republican President’s first SOTU, on the other hand, whichever rude f*ck killer it turns out to be, will issue ultimatums with the imprimatur declared of Almighty God’s Fuck You, while a smirking Paul Ryan sits behind them in the catbird seat masturbating himself between the sticky pages of his paperback copy of Atlas Shrugged.
    Democrats in the gallery will be silent, the cowards.

    Reply

  225. “At this can only turn out badly for the GOP in the Presidential election ..”
    I see no reason for optimism, before or after the election.
    Even if the Democrats take the White House in November, the angry armed base loser conservative base, now at 37% of the electorate, up from 27%, will have expended every violent rhetorical gambit at their meager disposal and the only tactics left to turn to will be outright violence and that violence, armed and bloody and perpetrated by the numerous paramilitary wings of the Republican Party, who now feel brazen enough to show up as the public muscle at Republican rallies, will be encouraged by conservative media personalities.
    Meanwhile, expect impeachment proceedings to begin in the House, at the very least, against Clinton or Sanders their first day in office.
    I expect any calls for bipartisanship and working together from a Democratic President during her/his SOTU next winter, because the American people … in other words, all of the people the ascendant right-wing filth do not recognize as American …. have spoken, to be audibly shouted down and numerous republican vermin will walk out of the speech.
    The nomination of Barack Obama as Supreme Court Justice will result in armed bands of racist Republican filth shooting blacks via drive-bys and then returning to their white suburbs, and like a photographic negative of the 1960s burning their own white suburbs to the ground, but not before lowering the deductibles in their home insurance.
    National Forests will be arsoned. Federal employees will be violently assaulted.
    These ilk are not going away. The only resolution will be catastrophic because they have promised themselves that logical resolution of that narrative, just like South Carolina in 1861.
    The Republican President’s first SOTU, on the other hand, whichever rude f*ck killer it turns out to be, will issue ultimatums with the imprimatur declared of Almighty God’s Fuck You, while a smirking Paul Ryan sits behind them in the catbird seat masturbating himself between the sticky pages of his paperback copy of Atlas Shrugged.
    Democrats in the gallery will be silent, the cowards.

    Reply

  226. Actually, a politician can win and still avoid being seen as hopelessly corrupted. All he has to do is take the Ted Cruz approach.
    I do like Cruz’s Schrödinger’s cat approach of being both part of and separate from the Washington “establishment” at the same time (and he certainly doesn’t have the “both alive and dead” thing down as well as Dick Cheney, who retired the trophy).
    I guess he’s just a regular (Princeton and Harvard educated) common Joe.

    Reply

  227. Actually, a politician can win and still avoid being seen as hopelessly corrupted. All he has to do is take the Ted Cruz approach.
    I do like Cruz’s Schrödinger’s cat approach of being both part of and separate from the Washington “establishment” at the same time (and he certainly doesn’t have the “both alive and dead” thing down as well as Dick Cheney, who retired the trophy).
    I guess he’s just a regular (Princeton and Harvard educated) common Joe.

    Reply

  228. Actually, a politician can win and still avoid being seen as hopelessly corrupted. All he has to do is take the Ted Cruz approach.
    I do like Cruz’s Schrödinger’s cat approach of being both part of and separate from the Washington “establishment” at the same time (and he certainly doesn’t have the “both alive and dead” thing down as well as Dick Cheney, who retired the trophy).
    I guess he’s just a regular (Princeton and Harvard educated) common Joe.

    Reply

  232. the bigwigs in the GOP establishment are telling Trump exactly which noises he needs to make in order to give them the cover they need to support him.
    soon, we’ll see it from everyday Republicans.
    after that, they’ll be united behind him in their battle to keep the WH out of Democratic hands. all that stuff they were saying in Feb? bygones. heat of the battle. just sticking up for their preferred choice. he was never as bad as the liberal media would have you believe, obvs.
    Taking a short break from battling back against the forces of injustice: I can’t rule this out.
    I think there are two things missing from this conversation.
    First, there may be important reasons why Trump is getting pluralities, not majorities, that are not immediately apparent. I spent two evenings last weekend with Tea Party types who are aghast at Trump and, as Texans, know what an arrogant, bridge-burning asshole Cruz is. People here at ObWi, in the punditry and elsewhere severely underestimate the very real concern on the part of a lot of conservatives for the country–not the election, but the country–if Trump gets in. Even though Cruz won TX, he has huge negatives here, and for good reason. It is a mistake to think that people like him. Many do not.
    There is a tendency among partisans of any stripe to caricature the opposition. That is a mistake I’ve made and learned well not to make (at least not unless I am harassing Cleek) here at ObWi. I offer the notion that people you don’t agree with on policy points aren’t necessarily idiots and can be very well aware of huge problems in their own camp.
    Second, Dem voting was down, Repub was up. The private file server may be a political football to folks firmly in H’s camp, but if the FBI disagrees, she takes on water by the tank load. Sanders, while very much at home in Progressive corners and the only candidate of either party I’d want to have a drink with, is too far to the left to win. So, the intense examination on Repubs is all well and good. Would that an equally intense and objective examination were taking place on the left (although I do notice articles at Slate and Salon that seem to be aware of H’s problems, not Sanders’ so much).
    Back to it. Y’all have fun.

    Reply

  233. the bigwigs in the GOP establishment are telling Trump exactly which noises he needs to make in order to give them the cover they need to support him.
    soon, we’ll see it from everyday Republicans.
    after that, they’ll be united behind him in their battle to keep the WH out of Democratic hands. all that stuff they were saying in Feb? bygones. heat of the battle. just sticking up for their preferred choice. he was never as bad as the liberal media would have you believe, obvs.
    Taking a short break from battling back against the forces of injustice: I can’t rule this out.
    I think there are two things missing from this conversation.
    First, there may be important reasons why Trump is getting pluralities, not majorities, that are not immediately apparent. I spent two evenings last weekend with Tea Party types who are aghast at Trump and, as Texans, know what an arrogant, bridge-burning asshole Cruz is. People here at ObWi, in the punditry and elsewhere severely underestimate the very real concern on the part of a lot of conservatives for the country–not the election, but the country–if Trump gets in. Even though Cruz won TX, he has huge negatives here, and for good reason. It is a mistake to think that people like him. Many do not.
    There is a tendency among partisans of any stripe to caricature the opposition. That is a mistake I’ve made and learned well not to make (at least not unless I am harassing Cleek) here at ObWi. I offer the notion that people you don’t agree with on policy points aren’t necessarily idiots and can be very well aware of huge problems in their own camp.
    Second, Dem voting was down, Repub was up. The private file server may be a political football to folks firmly in H’s camp, but if the FBI disagrees, she takes on water by the tank load. Sanders, while very much at home in Progressive corners and the only candidate of either party I’d want to have a drink with, is too far to the left to win. So, the intense examination on Repubs is all well and good. Would that an equally intense and objective examination were taking place on the left (although I do notice articles at Slate and Salon that seem to be aware of H’s problems, not Sanders’ so much).
    Back to it. Y’all have fun.

    Reply

  234. the bigwigs in the GOP establishment are telling Trump exactly which noises he needs to make in order to give them the cover they need to support him.
    soon, we’ll see it from everyday Republicans.
    after that, they’ll be united behind him in their battle to keep the WH out of Democratic hands. all that stuff they were saying in Feb? bygones. heat of the battle. just sticking up for their preferred choice. he was never as bad as the liberal media would have you believe, obvs.
    Taking a short break from battling back against the forces of injustice: I can’t rule this out.
    I think there are two things missing from this conversation.
    First, there may be important reasons why Trump is getting pluralities, not majorities, that are not immediately apparent. I spent two evenings last weekend with Tea Party types who are aghast at Trump and, as Texans, know what an arrogant, bridge-burning asshole Cruz is. People here at ObWi, in the punditry and elsewhere severely underestimate the very real concern on the part of a lot of conservatives for the country–not the election, but the country–if Trump gets in. Even though Cruz won TX, he has huge negatives here, and for good reason. It is a mistake to think that people like him. Many do not.
    There is a tendency among partisans of any stripe to caricature the opposition. That is a mistake I’ve made and learned well not to make (at least not unless I am harassing Cleek) here at ObWi. I offer the notion that people you don’t agree with on policy points aren’t necessarily idiots and can be very well aware of huge problems in their own camp.
    Second, Dem voting was down, Repub was up. The private file server may be a political football to folks firmly in H’s camp, but if the FBI disagrees, she takes on water by the tank load. Sanders, while very much at home in Progressive corners and the only candidate of either party I’d want to have a drink with, is too far to the left to win. So, the intense examination on Repubs is all well and good. Would that an equally intense and objective examination were taking place on the left (although I do notice articles at Slate and Salon that seem to be aware of H’s problems, not Sanders’ so much).
    Back to it. Y’all have fun.

    Reply

  238. Second, Dem voting was down, Repub was up.
    On a FB post from Texas someone noted that, while standing in a line of 50 waiting to vote, a precinct worker stepped outside and told them that the Democratic line had no wait and they could come to the front. Five people stepped out and went to vote, to mixed comments by the rest of the line.
    I meant to go look at turnout numbers.

    Reply

  239. Second, Dem voting was down, Repub was up.
    On a FB post from Texas someone noted that, while standing in a line of 50 waiting to vote, a precinct worker stepped outside and told them that the Democratic line had no wait and they could come to the front. Five people stepped out and went to vote, to mixed comments by the rest of the line.
    I meant to go look at turnout numbers.

    Reply

  240. Second, Dem voting was down, Repub was up.
    On a FB post from Texas someone noted that, while standing in a line of 50 waiting to vote, a precinct worker stepped outside and told them that the Democratic line had no wait and they could come to the front. Five people stepped out and went to vote, to mixed comments by the rest of the line.
    I meant to go look at turnout numbers.

    Reply

  241. So I did.
    “More than 2.8 million Republican ballots were cast in Texas, approximately double the 2012 Republican primary total of 1.4 million. In the Democratic primary, more than 1.4 million were cast, besting the 2012 totals but falling far short of the 2.8 million Democratic ballots cast in the 2008 primary, when the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton drew strong interest. The combined turnout for both primaries this year appeared to be nearly as high as the 4.3 million that cast primary ballots in 2008, according to unofficial totals.”

    Reply

  242. So I did.
    “More than 2.8 million Republican ballots were cast in Texas, approximately double the 2012 Republican primary total of 1.4 million. In the Democratic primary, more than 1.4 million were cast, besting the 2012 totals but falling far short of the 2.8 million Democratic ballots cast in the 2008 primary, when the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton drew strong interest. The combined turnout for both primaries this year appeared to be nearly as high as the 4.3 million that cast primary ballots in 2008, according to unofficial totals.”

    Reply

  243. So I did.
    “More than 2.8 million Republican ballots were cast in Texas, approximately double the 2012 Republican primary total of 1.4 million. In the Democratic primary, more than 1.4 million were cast, besting the 2012 totals but falling far short of the 2.8 million Democratic ballots cast in the 2008 primary, when the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton drew strong interest. The combined turnout for both primaries this year appeared to be nearly as high as the 4.3 million that cast primary ballots in 2008, according to unofficial totals.”

    Reply

  244. there’s a pretty fiery debate on the left about HRC’s negatives. Sanders’ supporters repeat nearly all those things that Republicans dislike about Clinton. lefty blog comment section are full of them. so is my FB feed. it’s sometimes hard to tell a Sanders supporter from a Republican, when it comes to attacking HRC – sometimes. it gets easy to tell them apart when they start throwing in stuff about her not being sufficiently liberal, too hawkish, too corporate, etc., etc.; Sanders supporters attack her from the left.
    and they’ve examined her pretty thoroughly. they even have a whole set of strawClintons that they can attack when the real one isn’t cooperating.
    and, personally, a lot of the (real) criticism of her is hard for me to wave away. so, i just weigh it against her strengths. and so far her strengths are winning.
    on the other side of it, i don’t see a lot of HRC supporters attacking Sanders for his politics or his personality. Clinton supporters generally seem to be OK with Sanders but think he’s a bit too … err… ambitious. you see a lot of “well, his heart’s in the right place, but how on earth does he propose to get it all done?” (which is then countered by accusations of being a corporatist sell-out no-imagination DINO). the disagreements usually come down to accusations of naivete vs accusations of centrism (or worse, Republicanism!), pushing the envelope vs pragmatism, revolution vs incrementalism.

    Reply

  245. there’s a pretty fiery debate on the left about HRC’s negatives. Sanders’ supporters repeat nearly all those things that Republicans dislike about Clinton. lefty blog comment section are full of them. so is my FB feed. it’s sometimes hard to tell a Sanders supporter from a Republican, when it comes to attacking HRC – sometimes. it gets easy to tell them apart when they start throwing in stuff about her not being sufficiently liberal, too hawkish, too corporate, etc., etc.; Sanders supporters attack her from the left.
    and they’ve examined her pretty thoroughly. they even have a whole set of strawClintons that they can attack when the real one isn’t cooperating.
    and, personally, a lot of the (real) criticism of her is hard for me to wave away. so, i just weigh it against her strengths. and so far her strengths are winning.
    on the other side of it, i don’t see a lot of HRC supporters attacking Sanders for his politics or his personality. Clinton supporters generally seem to be OK with Sanders but think he’s a bit too … err… ambitious. you see a lot of “well, his heart’s in the right place, but how on earth does he propose to get it all done?” (which is then countered by accusations of being a corporatist sell-out no-imagination DINO). the disagreements usually come down to accusations of naivete vs accusations of centrism (or worse, Republicanism!), pushing the envelope vs pragmatism, revolution vs incrementalism.

    Reply

  246. there’s a pretty fiery debate on the left about HRC’s negatives. Sanders’ supporters repeat nearly all those things that Republicans dislike about Clinton. lefty blog comment section are full of them. so is my FB feed. it’s sometimes hard to tell a Sanders supporter from a Republican, when it comes to attacking HRC – sometimes. it gets easy to tell them apart when they start throwing in stuff about her not being sufficiently liberal, too hawkish, too corporate, etc., etc.; Sanders supporters attack her from the left.
    and they’ve examined her pretty thoroughly. they even have a whole set of strawClintons that they can attack when the real one isn’t cooperating.
    and, personally, a lot of the (real) criticism of her is hard for me to wave away. so, i just weigh it against her strengths. and so far her strengths are winning.
    on the other side of it, i don’t see a lot of HRC supporters attacking Sanders for his politics or his personality. Clinton supporters generally seem to be OK with Sanders but think he’s a bit too … err… ambitious. you see a lot of “well, his heart’s in the right place, but how on earth does he propose to get it all done?” (which is then countered by accusations of being a corporatist sell-out no-imagination DINO). the disagreements usually come down to accusations of naivete vs accusations of centrism (or worse, Republicanism!), pushing the envelope vs pragmatism, revolution vs incrementalism.

    Reply

  250. McTX wrote:
    “There is a tendency among partisans of any stripe to caricature the opposition.”
    I have no idea what you mean.
    “That is a mistake I’ve made and learned well not to make (at least not unless I am harassing Cleek) here at ObWi. I offer the notion that people you don’t agree with on policy points aren’t necessarily idiots and can be very well aware of huge problems in their own camp.”
    This may well be true.
    We may, however, be in the midst of one of those seminal events wherein the non-idiots of all stripes, including those who step to the very precipice of idiocy and chicken out at the last moment, are outnumbered and swept away by the all-in enthusiastic idiots.

    Reply

  251. McTX wrote:
    “There is a tendency among partisans of any stripe to caricature the opposition.”
    I have no idea what you mean.
    “That is a mistake I’ve made and learned well not to make (at least not unless I am harassing Cleek) here at ObWi. I offer the notion that people you don’t agree with on policy points aren’t necessarily idiots and can be very well aware of huge problems in their own camp.”
    This may well be true.
    We may, however, be in the midst of one of those seminal events wherein the non-idiots of all stripes, including those who step to the very precipice of idiocy and chicken out at the last moment, are outnumbered and swept away by the all-in enthusiastic idiots.

    Reply

  252. McTX wrote:
    “There is a tendency among partisans of any stripe to caricature the opposition.”
    I have no idea what you mean.
    “That is a mistake I’ve made and learned well not to make (at least not unless I am harassing Cleek) here at ObWi. I offer the notion that people you don’t agree with on policy points aren’t necessarily idiots and can be very well aware of huge problems in their own camp.”
    This may well be true.
    We may, however, be in the midst of one of those seminal events wherein the non-idiots of all stripes, including those who step to the very precipice of idiocy and chicken out at the last moment, are outnumbered and swept away by the all-in enthusiastic idiots.

    Reply

  253. Yes , the disparate turnout is a big problem.
    Don’t really agree. I think most Democrats like both candidates and would vote for either, so the primary wasn’t an urgent matter for them.

    Reply

  254. Yes , the disparate turnout is a big problem.
    Don’t really agree. I think most Democrats like both candidates and would vote for either, so the primary wasn’t an urgent matter for them.

    Reply

  255. Yes , the disparate turnout is a big problem.
    Don’t really agree. I think most Democrats like both candidates and would vote for either, so the primary wasn’t an urgent matter for them.

    Reply

  268. I have decided I like Vermont, though.
    And Phish Food too. The state should get some sort of recognition for services to civilisation.
    Some, but not too much. Folks in Vermont don’t want a lot of people moving there and messing up their good thing.
    What worries me about the Super Tuesday results is that I’m not sure Clinton can beat Trump. I actually think Sanders would have a better shot.
    We’ll see what happens.

    Reply

  269. I have decided I like Vermont, though.
    And Phish Food too. The state should get some sort of recognition for services to civilisation.
    Some, but not too much. Folks in Vermont don’t want a lot of people moving there and messing up their good thing.
    What worries me about the Super Tuesday results is that I’m not sure Clinton can beat Trump. I actually think Sanders would have a better shot.
    We’ll see what happens.

    Reply

  270. I have decided I like Vermont, though.
    And Phish Food too. The state should get some sort of recognition for services to civilisation.
    Some, but not too much. Folks in Vermont don’t want a lot of people moving there and messing up their good thing.
    What worries me about the Super Tuesday results is that I’m not sure Clinton can beat Trump. I actually think Sanders would have a better shot.
    We’ll see what happens.

    Reply

  271. Sanders, while very much at home in Progressive corners and the only candidate of either party I’d want to have a drink with, is too far to the left to win.
    I really wonder about that. If the nominee is Trump, Sanders speaks to the same kind of unhappiness with the established order that Trump does. Which could reduce the urgency of Trump supporters to do something they are not in the habit of (yet) and get out to vote. And the rest of the country, not seeing that as a difference, could well decide that they would rather someone who is not a total loose cannon.
    Whereas if someone else is the nominee against Sanders, it will likely be someone who is even further right than Sanders is left. Which kind of reduces the problem. A lot.

    Reply

  272. Sanders, while very much at home in Progressive corners and the only candidate of either party I’d want to have a drink with, is too far to the left to win.
    I really wonder about that. If the nominee is Trump, Sanders speaks to the same kind of unhappiness with the established order that Trump does. Which could reduce the urgency of Trump supporters to do something they are not in the habit of (yet) and get out to vote. And the rest of the country, not seeing that as a difference, could well decide that they would rather someone who is not a total loose cannon.
    Whereas if someone else is the nominee against Sanders, it will likely be someone who is even further right than Sanders is left. Which kind of reduces the problem. A lot.

    Reply

  273. Sanders, while very much at home in Progressive corners and the only candidate of either party I’d want to have a drink with, is too far to the left to win.
    I really wonder about that. If the nominee is Trump, Sanders speaks to the same kind of unhappiness with the established order that Trump does. Which could reduce the urgency of Trump supporters to do something they are not in the habit of (yet) and get out to vote. And the rest of the country, not seeing that as a difference, could well decide that they would rather someone who is not a total loose cannon.
    Whereas if someone else is the nominee against Sanders, it will likely be someone who is even further right than Sanders is left. Which kind of reduces the problem. A lot.

    Reply

  274. McK, I realize you are real busy. But do you have a feel for how likely it is that something serious hits Clinton over that e-mail server? “Serious” as in criminal proceedings.
    And for everybody else, what do we know about the rules for the Democratic convention? If Clinton were indicted, would delegates who ran on support of her be able to change who they vote for? Or could the Democrats suddenly find themselves stuck with a first ballot vicctory for her?

    Reply

  275. McK, I realize you are real busy. But do you have a feel for how likely it is that something serious hits Clinton over that e-mail server? “Serious” as in criminal proceedings.
    And for everybody else, what do we know about the rules for the Democratic convention? If Clinton were indicted, would delegates who ran on support of her be able to change who they vote for? Or could the Democrats suddenly find themselves stuck with a first ballot vicctory for her?

    Reply

  276. McK, I realize you are real busy. But do you have a feel for how likely it is that something serious hits Clinton over that e-mail server? “Serious” as in criminal proceedings.
    And for everybody else, what do we know about the rules for the Democratic convention? If Clinton were indicted, would delegates who ran on support of her be able to change who they vote for? Or could the Democrats suddenly find themselves stuck with a first ballot vicctory for her?

    Reply

  277. On topic:
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_03/for_the_gop_the_day_the_music_1059788.php
    I especially like the New Mexico GOP Governor Susan Martinez doubts about Trump. Sounds to me like she would hate to miss the election after-party when Trump is elected.
    First off, she won’t be invited, but if she’s able to crash the thing, SHE’ll be thrown off a balcony, probably by a couple of the Palin thugs and assorted white supremacists.

    Reply

  278. On topic:
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_03/for_the_gop_the_day_the_music_1059788.php
    I especially like the New Mexico GOP Governor Susan Martinez doubts about Trump. Sounds to me like she would hate to miss the election after-party when Trump is elected.
    First off, she won’t be invited, but if she’s able to crash the thing, SHE’ll be thrown off a balcony, probably by a couple of the Palin thugs and assorted white supremacists.

    Reply

  279. On topic:
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2016_03/for_the_gop_the_day_the_music_1059788.php
    I especially like the New Mexico GOP Governor Susan Martinez doubts about Trump. Sounds to me like she would hate to miss the election after-party when Trump is elected.
    First off, she won’t be invited, but if she’s able to crash the thing, SHE’ll be thrown off a balcony, probably by a couple of the Palin thugs and assorted white supremacists.

    Reply

  280. I’ve been thinking about Marty’s conclusion that the Republican Party will not be his if Trump is nominated.
    Finally, we’re within a gnat’s eyelash of electing a President who will bring all of us together, especially here, and NOW you’re jumping ship?

    Reply

  281. I’ve been thinking about Marty’s conclusion that the Republican Party will not be his if Trump is nominated.
    Finally, we’re within a gnat’s eyelash of electing a President who will bring all of us together, especially here, and NOW you’re jumping ship?

    Reply

  282. I’ve been thinking about Marty’s conclusion that the Republican Party will not be his if Trump is nominated.
    Finally, we’re within a gnat’s eyelash of electing a President who will bring all of us together, especially here, and NOW you’re jumping ship?

    Reply

  295. National Forests will be arsoned.
    Geez. I mean, I have this lunatic notion that the US gets partitioned in 50 or so years, but don’t think it even begins to get talked about seriously for another 25. But this…
    Conservative locals aren’t about to set those fires, the forests are their grazing, hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. They all know that the consequences of massive burns are not just a disaster for drinking water supplies, but for irrigation supplies as well. I know a boatload of conservatives who will help me string up the arsonists. And if it’s a batch of non-Westerners, the locals will suddenly be much more willing to listen to me explain why the time to go our own way is now, not later.

    Reply

  296. National Forests will be arsoned.
    Geez. I mean, I have this lunatic notion that the US gets partitioned in 50 or so years, but don’t think it even begins to get talked about seriously for another 25. But this…
    Conservative locals aren’t about to set those fires, the forests are their grazing, hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. They all know that the consequences of massive burns are not just a disaster for drinking water supplies, but for irrigation supplies as well. I know a boatload of conservatives who will help me string up the arsonists. And if it’s a batch of non-Westerners, the locals will suddenly be much more willing to listen to me explain why the time to go our own way is now, not later.

    Reply

  297. National Forests will be arsoned.
    Geez. I mean, I have this lunatic notion that the US gets partitioned in 50 or so years, but don’t think it even begins to get talked about seriously for another 25. But this…
    Conservative locals aren’t about to set those fires, the forests are their grazing, hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. They all know that the consequences of massive burns are not just a disaster for drinking water supplies, but for irrigation supplies as well. I know a boatload of conservatives who will help me string up the arsonists. And if it’s a batch of non-Westerners, the locals will suddenly be much more willing to listen to me explain why the time to go our own way is now, not later.

    Reply

  310. Yeah, but they’re wet
    oh, no. the forests here in NC burn just fine. seems like every summer, they catch fire. we’re 120 miles away and can always tell when there’s a wildfire out there.
    there are two controlled burns going right now, in fact! http://www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc

    Reply

  311. Yeah, but they’re wet
    oh, no. the forests here in NC burn just fine. seems like every summer, they catch fire. we’re 120 miles away and can always tell when there’s a wildfire out there.
    there are two controlled burns going right now, in fact! http://www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc

    Reply

  312. Yeah, but they’re wet
    oh, no. the forests here in NC burn just fine. seems like every summer, they catch fire. we’re 120 miles away and can always tell when there’s a wildfire out there.
    there are two controlled burns going right now, in fact! http://www.fs.usda.gov/nfsnc

    Reply

  313. Cleek, thanks for a very interesting summation.
    McK, I realize you are real busy. But do you have a feel for how likely it is that something serious hits Clinton over that e-mail server? “Serious” as in criminal proceedings.
    WJ, I wish I knew enough to make a valid assessment. That is not my practice area.

    Reply

  314. Cleek, thanks for a very interesting summation.
    McK, I realize you are real busy. But do you have a feel for how likely it is that something serious hits Clinton over that e-mail server? “Serious” as in criminal proceedings.
    WJ, I wish I knew enough to make a valid assessment. That is not my practice area.

    Reply

  315. Cleek, thanks for a very interesting summation.
    McK, I realize you are real busy. But do you have a feel for how likely it is that something serious hits Clinton over that e-mail server? “Serious” as in criminal proceedings.
    WJ, I wish I knew enough to make a valid assessment. That is not my practice area.

    Reply

  316. the forests here in NC burn just fine. seems like every summer, they catch fire. we’re 120 miles away and can always tell when there’s a wildfire out there.
    If you’re only 120 miles away, seeing smoke is no big thing. It the west, we see smoke for three times that or more. 120 miles is more like evacuation distance (unless you are sure you are up wind and will stay that way).

    Reply

  317. the forests here in NC burn just fine. seems like every summer, they catch fire. we’re 120 miles away and can always tell when there’s a wildfire out there.
    If you’re only 120 miles away, seeing smoke is no big thing. It the west, we see smoke for three times that or more. 120 miles is more like evacuation distance (unless you are sure you are up wind and will stay that way).

    Reply

  318. the forests here in NC burn just fine. seems like every summer, they catch fire. we’re 120 miles away and can always tell when there’s a wildfire out there.
    If you’re only 120 miles away, seeing smoke is no big thing. It the west, we see smoke for three times that or more. 120 miles is more like evacuation distance (unless you are sure you are up wind and will stay that way).

    Reply

  322. McK, I understand.
    It’s just that I keep hearing stuff about it and was hoping for someone reliable with an opinion. It looks/sounds like partisan nonsense. But I can’t really tell if there is any fire behind the partisan smoke.

    Reply

  323. McK, I understand.
    It’s just that I keep hearing stuff about it and was hoping for someone reliable with an opinion. It looks/sounds like partisan nonsense. But I can’t really tell if there is any fire behind the partisan smoke.

    Reply

  324. McK, I understand.
    It’s just that I keep hearing stuff about it and was hoping for someone reliable with an opinion. It looks/sounds like partisan nonsense. But I can’t really tell if there is any fire behind the partisan smoke.

    Reply

  325. wj – on Clinton’s server, it certainly seems like something that should be illegal, perhaps criminal. It’s hard to see how a cabinet secretary can conduct official government business over a private server kept in a private residence (or wherever it was) and not be violating the law in some manner.
    But, and while I’m a lawyer like McKinney I’m not an expert in this area either, from what I can tell the laws she may have violated are those requiring the preservation of government records and unauthorized disclosure of classified information. She may have also violated “official” State Department policy on record keeping but that’s very unlikely to be criminal (or even subject to fines) and, as the head of the Department, query whether she couldn’t just change policy on a whim.
    On preservation of government records, my guess is that there are no criminal sanctions so long as the records are “preserved.” That is, while you might be subject to criminal sanctions for destroying records or (maybe) not keeping copies, you are not going to be subject to any such sanctions for not keeping copies in the exact manner specified, even if such a thing is specified at all. So, it seems, she kept all the emails and is relying on that to avoid sanctions under this law.
    On unauthorized disclosure of classified information it seems she might have two defenses. One is that – as she maintains and I have not seen anything to the contrary (not that I’ve been keeping close track) – none of the information in the emails was classified at the time it was sent. That it might subsequently be classified should not matter for criminal sanctions – indeed it might be unconstitutional to subject someone to criminal sanctions in that manner.
    Second, I believe (but don’t know) that the criminal sanctions for unauthorized disclosure require you to disclose the classified information to someone unauthorized to receive it (which makes sense of course). So, it could be that any emails, even if they contained material classified at the time sent, were only sent to/from persons with the appropriate clearance and therefore there was no unauthorized disclosure.
    The problem is, of course, that this all stinks to high heaven. Why do this? What the hell was running through her mind? No one had the sense to say “wait, WTF are we doing?” and/or “how is this going to look when it comes out?” Perhaps no one wanted to challenge here (which is problematic in its own right).
    So she has handed a perfectly legitimate (ISTM), and unnecessary, issue about her trustworthiness, penchant for secrecy, and manner of operating to the GOP in exchange for….what? Not much, if anything, it seems.
    But again, I’m not an expert.

    Reply

  326. wj – on Clinton’s server, it certainly seems like something that should be illegal, perhaps criminal. It’s hard to see how a cabinet secretary can conduct official government business over a private server kept in a private residence (or wherever it was) and not be violating the law in some manner.
    But, and while I’m a lawyer like McKinney I’m not an expert in this area either, from what I can tell the laws she may have violated are those requiring the preservation of government records and unauthorized disclosure of classified information. She may have also violated “official” State Department policy on record keeping but that’s very unlikely to be criminal (or even subject to fines) and, as the head of the Department, query whether she couldn’t just change policy on a whim.
    On preservation of government records, my guess is that there are no criminal sanctions so long as the records are “preserved.” That is, while you might be subject to criminal sanctions for destroying records or (maybe) not keeping copies, you are not going to be subject to any such sanctions for not keeping copies in the exact manner specified, even if such a thing is specified at all. So, it seems, she kept all the emails and is relying on that to avoid sanctions under this law.
    On unauthorized disclosure of classified information it seems she might have two defenses. One is that – as she maintains and I have not seen anything to the contrary (not that I’ve been keeping close track) – none of the information in the emails was classified at the time it was sent. That it might subsequently be classified should not matter for criminal sanctions – indeed it might be unconstitutional to subject someone to criminal sanctions in that manner.
    Second, I believe (but don’t know) that the criminal sanctions for unauthorized disclosure require you to disclose the classified information to someone unauthorized to receive it (which makes sense of course). So, it could be that any emails, even if they contained material classified at the time sent, were only sent to/from persons with the appropriate clearance and therefore there was no unauthorized disclosure.
    The problem is, of course, that this all stinks to high heaven. Why do this? What the hell was running through her mind? No one had the sense to say “wait, WTF are we doing?” and/or “how is this going to look when it comes out?” Perhaps no one wanted to challenge here (which is problematic in its own right).
    So she has handed a perfectly legitimate (ISTM), and unnecessary, issue about her trustworthiness, penchant for secrecy, and manner of operating to the GOP in exchange for….what? Not much, if anything, it seems.
    But again, I’m not an expert.

    Reply

  327. wj – on Clinton’s server, it certainly seems like something that should be illegal, perhaps criminal. It’s hard to see how a cabinet secretary can conduct official government business over a private server kept in a private residence (or wherever it was) and not be violating the law in some manner.
    But, and while I’m a lawyer like McKinney I’m not an expert in this area either, from what I can tell the laws she may have violated are those requiring the preservation of government records and unauthorized disclosure of classified information. She may have also violated “official” State Department policy on record keeping but that’s very unlikely to be criminal (or even subject to fines) and, as the head of the Department, query whether she couldn’t just change policy on a whim.
    On preservation of government records, my guess is that there are no criminal sanctions so long as the records are “preserved.” That is, while you might be subject to criminal sanctions for destroying records or (maybe) not keeping copies, you are not going to be subject to any such sanctions for not keeping copies in the exact manner specified, even if such a thing is specified at all. So, it seems, she kept all the emails and is relying on that to avoid sanctions under this law.
    On unauthorized disclosure of classified information it seems she might have two defenses. One is that – as she maintains and I have not seen anything to the contrary (not that I’ve been keeping close track) – none of the information in the emails was classified at the time it was sent. That it might subsequently be classified should not matter for criminal sanctions – indeed it might be unconstitutional to subject someone to criminal sanctions in that manner.
    Second, I believe (but don’t know) that the criminal sanctions for unauthorized disclosure require you to disclose the classified information to someone unauthorized to receive it (which makes sense of course). So, it could be that any emails, even if they contained material classified at the time sent, were only sent to/from persons with the appropriate clearance and therefore there was no unauthorized disclosure.
    The problem is, of course, that this all stinks to high heaven. Why do this? What the hell was running through her mind? No one had the sense to say “wait, WTF are we doing?” and/or “how is this going to look when it comes out?” Perhaps no one wanted to challenge here (which is problematic in its own right).
    So she has handed a perfectly legitimate (ISTM), and unnecessary, issue about her trustworthiness, penchant for secrecy, and manner of operating to the GOP in exchange for….what? Not much, if anything, it seems.
    But again, I’m not an expert.

    Reply

  328. (we have national forests on the east coast, too.)
    Indeed you do, and I’ve hiked in some of them, and it’s rude of me to overlook them. There is the matter of scale, though. The link at the bottom of this comment is my cartogram of the lower 48, with the state sizes reflecting the size of the federal land holdings. When I had a chance a few years back to talk to the director of Colorado’s homeland security organization, the subject of how much I could burn, if I waited for the right day in the right year, and had a couple of dozen people with four-wheel-drive vehicles and a box or two of road flares for each (you can buy road flares by the box, no questions asked). We settled on something over a million acres in Colorado alone.
    http://www.mcain6925.com/etc/holdings.jpg

    Reply

  329. (we have national forests on the east coast, too.)
    Indeed you do, and I’ve hiked in some of them, and it’s rude of me to overlook them. There is the matter of scale, though. The link at the bottom of this comment is my cartogram of the lower 48, with the state sizes reflecting the size of the federal land holdings. When I had a chance a few years back to talk to the director of Colorado’s homeland security organization, the subject of how much I could burn, if I waited for the right day in the right year, and had a couple of dozen people with four-wheel-drive vehicles and a box or two of road flares for each (you can buy road flares by the box, no questions asked). We settled on something over a million acres in Colorado alone.
    http://www.mcain6925.com/etc/holdings.jpg

    Reply

  330. (we have national forests on the east coast, too.)
    Indeed you do, and I’ve hiked in some of them, and it’s rude of me to overlook them. There is the matter of scale, though. The link at the bottom of this comment is my cartogram of the lower 48, with the state sizes reflecting the size of the federal land holdings. When I had a chance a few years back to talk to the director of Colorado’s homeland security organization, the subject of how much I could burn, if I waited for the right day in the right year, and had a couple of dozen people with four-wheel-drive vehicles and a box or two of road flares for each (you can buy road flares by the box, no questions asked). We settled on something over a million acres in Colorado alone.
    http://www.mcain6925.com/etc/holdings.jpg

    Reply

  331. Ugh, fair assessment from what I have read. I will just add that the material doesn’t have to be marked classified, if the sender or recipient should know it is classified they are required to treat it as such.

    Reply

  332. Ugh, fair assessment from what I have read. I will just add that the material doesn’t have to be marked classified, if the sender or recipient should know it is classified they are required to treat it as such.

    Reply

  333. Ugh, fair assessment from what I have read. I will just add that the material doesn’t have to be marked classified, if the sender or recipient should know it is classified they are required to treat it as such.

    Reply

  334. Ugh, thanks for that.
    What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.
    Any smoke, any fire, or is it BS?

    Reply

  335. Ugh, thanks for that.
    What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.
    Any smoke, any fire, or is it BS?

    Reply

  336. Ugh, thanks for that.
    What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.
    Any smoke, any fire, or is it BS?

    Reply

  337. My entirely inexpert assessment, based primarily on the very informative Wikipedia page –
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
    – is that Clinton violated policy, but quite possibly (likely even ?) didn’t break any law.
    Having followed the US government’s obsession with secrecy over a number of years, and readiness to classify absolutely anything, it seems entirely plausible that the retroactive classification of a number of the email documents doesn’t indicate that they contained anything of any great significance.
    I’m prepared to be surprised – in the year of Trump, how could I be otherwise ? – but I would guess no more than a 5-10% probability of this resulting in any significant action against Clinton.
    And 100% certainty of Trump riffing on this for the next nine months.

    Reply

  338. My entirely inexpert assessment, based primarily on the very informative Wikipedia page –
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
    – is that Clinton violated policy, but quite possibly (likely even ?) didn’t break any law.
    Having followed the US government’s obsession with secrecy over a number of years, and readiness to classify absolutely anything, it seems entirely plausible that the retroactive classification of a number of the email documents doesn’t indicate that they contained anything of any great significance.
    I’m prepared to be surprised – in the year of Trump, how could I be otherwise ? – but I would guess no more than a 5-10% probability of this resulting in any significant action against Clinton.
    And 100% certainty of Trump riffing on this for the next nine months.

    Reply

  339. My entirely inexpert assessment, based primarily on the very informative Wikipedia page –
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
    – is that Clinton violated policy, but quite possibly (likely even ?) didn’t break any law.
    Having followed the US government’s obsession with secrecy over a number of years, and readiness to classify absolutely anything, it seems entirely plausible that the retroactive classification of a number of the email documents doesn’t indicate that they contained anything of any great significance.
    I’m prepared to be surprised – in the year of Trump, how could I be otherwise ? – but I would guess no more than a 5-10% probability of this resulting in any significant action against Clinton.
    And 100% certainty of Trump riffing on this for the next nine months.

    Reply

  340. What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.
    This would be the idea that individuals or businesses or governments that have business before/some relationship with the State department would donate $$ to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary was SoS and then receive something in return? Or how would you put it?

    Reply

  341. What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.
    This would be the idea that individuals or businesses or governments that have business before/some relationship with the State department would donate $$ to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary was SoS and then receive something in return? Or how would you put it?

    Reply

  342. What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.
    This would be the idea that individuals or businesses or governments that have business before/some relationship with the State department would donate $$ to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary was SoS and then receive something in return? Or how would you put it?

    Reply

  343. “What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.”
    Scalia-like

    Reply

  344. “What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.”
    Scalia-like

    Reply

  345. “What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.”
    Scalia-like

    Reply

  346. My take on that one is that large campaign finance donors likely get a far better deal is we’re talking ‘transactional relationship’.

    Reply

  347. My take on that one is that large campaign finance donors likely get a far better deal is we’re talking ‘transactional relationship’.

    Reply

  348. My take on that one is that large campaign finance donors likely get a far better deal is we’re talking ‘transactional relationship’.

    Reply

  352. The problem is, of course, that this all stinks to high heaven. Why do this? What the hell was running through her mind? No one had the sense to say “wait, WTF are we doing?” and/or “how is this going to look when it comes out?” Perhaps no one wanted to challenge here (which is problematic in its own right).
    Of course, it didn’t stink when Colin Powell did it, but IOKIYAR.
    I think Hillary should have been ultra-scrupulous, more so than her predecessors, but this email thing is another nothing.
    Also, the Clinton Foundation “scandal” is a non-scandal. But that doesn’t mean that there won’t be investigation after investigation after tax dollar and tax dollar. It’s what Republicans do, because that’s all they’ve got.

    Reply

  353. The problem is, of course, that this all stinks to high heaven. Why do this? What the hell was running through her mind? No one had the sense to say “wait, WTF are we doing?” and/or “how is this going to look when it comes out?” Perhaps no one wanted to challenge here (which is problematic in its own right).
    Of course, it didn’t stink when Colin Powell did it, but IOKIYAR.
    I think Hillary should have been ultra-scrupulous, more so than her predecessors, but this email thing is another nothing.
    Also, the Clinton Foundation “scandal” is a non-scandal. But that doesn’t mean that there won’t be investigation after investigation after tax dollar and tax dollar. It’s what Republicans do, because that’s all they’ve got.

    Reply

  354. The problem is, of course, that this all stinks to high heaven. Why do this? What the hell was running through her mind? No one had the sense to say “wait, WTF are we doing?” and/or “how is this going to look when it comes out?” Perhaps no one wanted to challenge here (which is problematic in its own right).
    Of course, it didn’t stink when Colin Powell did it, but IOKIYAR.
    I think Hillary should have been ultra-scrupulous, more so than her predecessors, but this email thing is another nothing.
    Also, the Clinton Foundation “scandal” is a non-scandal. But that doesn’t mean that there won’t be investigation after investigation after tax dollar and tax dollar. It’s what Republicans do, because that’s all they’ve got.

    Reply

  355. This would be the idea that individuals or businesses or governments that have business before/some relationship with the State department would donate $$ to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary was SoS and then receive something in return? Or how would you put it?
    Something like that, I suppose.

    Reply

  356. This would be the idea that individuals or businesses or governments that have business before/some relationship with the State department would donate $$ to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary was SoS and then receive something in return? Or how would you put it?
    Something like that, I suppose.

    Reply

  357. This would be the idea that individuals or businesses or governments that have business before/some relationship with the State department would donate $$ to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary was SoS and then receive something in return? Or how would you put it?
    Something like that, I suppose.

    Reply

  358. What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.
    It doesn’t seem noticably more corrupt than donors to Super-PACs. Either one happens as a result of the desire of the donors to get improved access. And both presumably are successful at that, since the donors keep giving.

    Reply

  359. What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.
    It doesn’t seem noticably more corrupt than donors to Super-PACs. Either one happens as a result of the desire of the donors to get improved access. And both presumably are successful at that, since the donors keep giving.

    Reply

  360. What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.
    It doesn’t seem noticably more corrupt than donors to Super-PACs. Either one happens as a result of the desire of the donors to get improved access. And both presumably are successful at that, since the donors keep giving.

    Reply

  361. sapient, Here is my problem, there is something there on many of these things. Benghazi, emails, Clinton Foundation, hell all the way back to Vince Foster. There is something. I am willing to accept little of it is criminally prosecutable, and some of it is “just like something a Republican did”.
    But, when it gets the hand wave and “another nothing” from the left, and you, then I want Breitbart or Fox to catch her red handed, full smoking gun, end of career, 27 lawyers trying to keep her out of jail, the *I am halting my campaign to fight these (Trumped) up charges* press conference.
    Because there is *something* there.
    Your hand wave and cavalier attitude about someone who clearly is hiding something wrong just makes me want her to get caught more.

    Reply

  362. sapient, Here is my problem, there is something there on many of these things. Benghazi, emails, Clinton Foundation, hell all the way back to Vince Foster. There is something. I am willing to accept little of it is criminally prosecutable, and some of it is “just like something a Republican did”.
    But, when it gets the hand wave and “another nothing” from the left, and you, then I want Breitbart or Fox to catch her red handed, full smoking gun, end of career, 27 lawyers trying to keep her out of jail, the *I am halting my campaign to fight these (Trumped) up charges* press conference.
    Because there is *something* there.
    Your hand wave and cavalier attitude about someone who clearly is hiding something wrong just makes me want her to get caught more.

    Reply

  363. sapient, Here is my problem, there is something there on many of these things. Benghazi, emails, Clinton Foundation, hell all the way back to Vince Foster. There is something. I am willing to accept little of it is criminally prosecutable, and some of it is “just like something a Republican did”.
    But, when it gets the hand wave and “another nothing” from the left, and you, then I want Breitbart or Fox to catch her red handed, full smoking gun, end of career, 27 lawyers trying to keep her out of jail, the *I am halting my campaign to fight these (Trumped) up charges* press conference.
    Because there is *something* there.
    Your hand wave and cavalier attitude about someone who clearly is hiding something wrong just makes me want her to get caught more.

    Reply

  367. McKinney,
    The left critique of the Clinton Foundation is part and parcel of the whole lefty critique of “neo-liberalism” and the tendency on the part of the economic elite (both the “liberal” and “conservative” wings) to promote public policies that neatly dovetail with their material interests. So it’s not so much ethics, or quid pro quo, more like backscratching or just a case of shared outlook and interests.

    Reply

  368. McKinney,
    The left critique of the Clinton Foundation is part and parcel of the whole lefty critique of “neo-liberalism” and the tendency on the part of the economic elite (both the “liberal” and “conservative” wings) to promote public policies that neatly dovetail with their material interests. So it’s not so much ethics, or quid pro quo, more like backscratching or just a case of shared outlook and interests.

    Reply

  369. McKinney,
    The left critique of the Clinton Foundation is part and parcel of the whole lefty critique of “neo-liberalism” and the tendency on the part of the economic elite (both the “liberal” and “conservative” wings) to promote public policies that neatly dovetail with their material interests. So it’s not so much ethics, or quid pro quo, more like backscratching or just a case of shared outlook and interests.

    Reply

  370. …but this email thing is another nothing.
    It was utterly unnecessary, thoughtless, and stupid. It speaks to oodles of hubris and an inability to think through the consequences of one’s actions.
    Regretfully, it does not do her well. Sometimes perception is reality.

    Reply

  371. …but this email thing is another nothing.
    It was utterly unnecessary, thoughtless, and stupid. It speaks to oodles of hubris and an inability to think through the consequences of one’s actions.
    Regretfully, it does not do her well. Sometimes perception is reality.

    Reply

  372. …but this email thing is another nothing.
    It was utterly unnecessary, thoughtless, and stupid. It speaks to oodles of hubris and an inability to think through the consequences of one’s actions.
    Regretfully, it does not do her well. Sometimes perception is reality.

    Reply

  376. Ugh, based on my IANAL review of the laws involved (as cited by her non-disclosure agreement, the narrowness of the offenses as you state is her best protection, and by the look of it very possibly sufficient protection. It certainly does smell off, though.

    Reply

  377. Ugh, based on my IANAL review of the laws involved (as cited by her non-disclosure agreement, the narrowness of the offenses as you state is her best protection, and by the look of it very possibly sufficient protection. It certainly does smell off, though.

    Reply

  378. Ugh, based on my IANAL review of the laws involved (as cited by her non-disclosure agreement, the narrowness of the offenses as you state is her best protection, and by the look of it very possibly sufficient protection. It certainly does smell off, though.

    Reply

  379. “Because there is *something* there.
    Your hand wave and cavalier attitude about someone who clearly is hiding something wrong just makes me want her to get caught more.”
    Her enemies are her best defense. Remember butt plugs, dildos, and condoms festooning the White House Christmas trees in the 1990s, according to a former CIA agent.
    O.K., O.K., Jesus Christ in a melon patch, I shot Vince Foster and made it look like either suicide or like Hillary Clinton did it!
    (Offers up hands to be cuffed)
    I just can’t stand it any more. Please, dear God, I confess! Take me away and do what you must! What a world, oh, what a world!
    Maybe she’ll crack:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jUvL-7F18

    Reply

  380. “Because there is *something* there.
    Your hand wave and cavalier attitude about someone who clearly is hiding something wrong just makes me want her to get caught more.”
    Her enemies are her best defense. Remember butt plugs, dildos, and condoms festooning the White House Christmas trees in the 1990s, according to a former CIA agent.
    O.K., O.K., Jesus Christ in a melon patch, I shot Vince Foster and made it look like either suicide or like Hillary Clinton did it!
    (Offers up hands to be cuffed)
    I just can’t stand it any more. Please, dear God, I confess! Take me away and do what you must! What a world, oh, what a world!
    Maybe she’ll crack:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jUvL-7F18

    Reply

  381. “Because there is *something* there.
    Your hand wave and cavalier attitude about someone who clearly is hiding something wrong just makes me want her to get caught more.”
    Her enemies are her best defense. Remember butt plugs, dildos, and condoms festooning the White House Christmas trees in the 1990s, according to a former CIA agent.
    O.K., O.K., Jesus Christ in a melon patch, I shot Vince Foster and made it look like either suicide or like Hillary Clinton did it!
    (Offers up hands to be cuffed)
    I just can’t stand it any more. Please, dear God, I confess! Take me away and do what you must! What a world, oh, what a world!
    Maybe she’ll crack:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3jUvL-7F18

    Reply

  385. Of course, it didn’t stink when Colin Powell did it, but IOKIYAR.
    It was okay when the Bush administration staff had an email server ran by the RNC because the RNC assured the executive that the emails in question had been irretrievably deleted, but that they had only been party business anyhow, which was good enough for the Republican executive and enough of Congress.
    Which is to say it wasn’t okay, but Congress wasn’t willing to put the President’s feet to the fire to try to force something – anything – be done about it. Not so with the current Congress.
    Mishandling classified information is an offense so utterly fraught with inequitable and politically motivated prosecution that I would never expect the laws involved to be consistently applied. They should be, Rule of Law, etc., but there’s absolutely no sign of willingness to do so from any executive or Congress I’ve ever seen.

    Reply

  386. Of course, it didn’t stink when Colin Powell did it, but IOKIYAR.
    It was okay when the Bush administration staff had an email server ran by the RNC because the RNC assured the executive that the emails in question had been irretrievably deleted, but that they had only been party business anyhow, which was good enough for the Republican executive and enough of Congress.
    Which is to say it wasn’t okay, but Congress wasn’t willing to put the President’s feet to the fire to try to force something – anything – be done about it. Not so with the current Congress.
    Mishandling classified information is an offense so utterly fraught with inequitable and politically motivated prosecution that I would never expect the laws involved to be consistently applied. They should be, Rule of Law, etc., but there’s absolutely no sign of willingness to do so from any executive or Congress I’ve ever seen.

    Reply

  387. Of course, it didn’t stink when Colin Powell did it, but IOKIYAR.
    It was okay when the Bush administration staff had an email server ran by the RNC because the RNC assured the executive that the emails in question had been irretrievably deleted, but that they had only been party business anyhow, which was good enough for the Republican executive and enough of Congress.
    Which is to say it wasn’t okay, but Congress wasn’t willing to put the President’s feet to the fire to try to force something – anything – be done about it. Not so with the current Congress.
    Mishandling classified information is an offense so utterly fraught with inequitable and politically motivated prosecution that I would never expect the laws involved to be consistently applied. They should be, Rule of Law, etc., but there’s absolutely no sign of willingness to do so from any executive or Congress I’ve ever seen.

    Reply

  388. If the Democratic convention has a similar process to the Republican, then the rules committee could adopt a rule that delegates are not bound to support a candidate who is under indictment, subject to legal jeopardy, or some such. I was reading this week of Republicans bandying about the idea of adopting a rule unbinding delegates from being obliged to vote for the candidate they elected to support on the first ballot, as a last ditch means of stopping Trump.

    Reply

  389. If the Democratic convention has a similar process to the Republican, then the rules committee could adopt a rule that delegates are not bound to support a candidate who is under indictment, subject to legal jeopardy, or some such. I was reading this week of Republicans bandying about the idea of adopting a rule unbinding delegates from being obliged to vote for the candidate they elected to support on the first ballot, as a last ditch means of stopping Trump.

    Reply

  390. If the Democratic convention has a similar process to the Republican, then the rules committee could adopt a rule that delegates are not bound to support a candidate who is under indictment, subject to legal jeopardy, or some such. I was reading this week of Republicans bandying about the idea of adopting a rule unbinding delegates from being obliged to vote for the candidate they elected to support on the first ballot, as a last ditch means of stopping Trump.

    Reply

  391. Your hand wave and cavalier attitude about someone who clearly is hiding something wrong just makes me want her to get caught more.
    You haven’t figured out yet that she does it purposefully to get just that reaction? She didn’t trade cattle futures to make money. She did it to make wingers have the vapors! She is so damnned f%cking smart! Can’t wait to vote for her, despite how much I loathe her for (many) other reasons.

    Reply

  392. Your hand wave and cavalier attitude about someone who clearly is hiding something wrong just makes me want her to get caught more.
    You haven’t figured out yet that she does it purposefully to get just that reaction? She didn’t trade cattle futures to make money. She did it to make wingers have the vapors! She is so damnned f%cking smart! Can’t wait to vote for her, despite how much I loathe her for (many) other reasons.

    Reply

  393. Your hand wave and cavalier attitude about someone who clearly is hiding something wrong just makes me want her to get caught more.
    You haven’t figured out yet that she does it purposefully to get just that reaction? She didn’t trade cattle futures to make money. She did it to make wingers have the vapors! She is so damnned f%cking smart! Can’t wait to vote for her, despite how much I loathe her for (many) other reasons.

    Reply

  394. That’s an excellent defense sapient, she’s just as bad as the Republicans!
    When email is a relatively new technology that only one prior Secretary of State used for work, and that SoS receives NO opprobrium, whereas with Clinton it is a scandal, that is what stinks.
    Sure, I wish nobody had this issue to bandy about. Obama is more perfect than any President we’ve ever have, yet “lefties” here have relentlessly expressed their “disappointment”. Somehow your outrage against Clinton isn’t very persuasive.

    Reply

  395. That’s an excellent defense sapient, she’s just as bad as the Republicans!
    When email is a relatively new technology that only one prior Secretary of State used for work, and that SoS receives NO opprobrium, whereas with Clinton it is a scandal, that is what stinks.
    Sure, I wish nobody had this issue to bandy about. Obama is more perfect than any President we’ve ever have, yet “lefties” here have relentlessly expressed their “disappointment”. Somehow your outrage against Clinton isn’t very persuasive.

    Reply

  396. That’s an excellent defense sapient, she’s just as bad as the Republicans!
    When email is a relatively new technology that only one prior Secretary of State used for work, and that SoS receives NO opprobrium, whereas with Clinton it is a scandal, that is what stinks.
    Sure, I wish nobody had this issue to bandy about. Obama is more perfect than any President we’ve ever have, yet “lefties” here have relentlessly expressed their “disappointment”. Somehow your outrage against Clinton isn’t very persuasive.

    Reply

  397. I’d admit to not at all getting why Clinton didn’t ask herself in the beginning what her enemies might do with the information that she conducted State business on her private server.
    But, given that Powell is still walking around uncuffed for his private email use, not to mention his lying about Iraq, I’m sure if she had used the regular State Department email accounts, there would still be “something there”, according to her enemies whose loathing has no bottom.

    Reply

  398. I’d admit to not at all getting why Clinton didn’t ask herself in the beginning what her enemies might do with the information that she conducted State business on her private server.
    But, given that Powell is still walking around uncuffed for his private email use, not to mention his lying about Iraq, I’m sure if she had used the regular State Department email accounts, there would still be “something there”, according to her enemies whose loathing has no bottom.

    Reply

  399. I’d admit to not at all getting why Clinton didn’t ask herself in the beginning what her enemies might do with the information that she conducted State business on her private server.
    But, given that Powell is still walking around uncuffed for his private email use, not to mention his lying about Iraq, I’m sure if she had used the regular State Department email accounts, there would still be “something there”, according to her enemies whose loathing has no bottom.

    Reply

  400. The coroner’s report will show that the demise of the Republican Party (I’m not predicting their demise; indeed, they will gain strength in their Zombie-hood) a case of murder/suicide between star-crossed haters:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sean-hannity-loses-his-mind-rubio-staffer
    Ailes says he’s finished with Rubio, so the rest of the world should be too. He decides, I report:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-ailes-fox-news-finished-rubio
    Brietbart brownshirts are now determining FOX and Ailes’ next rightward marketing lurch.
    As Trump would say, they are bleeding from the eyes and the only way to staunch the flow is to plunge red-hot pokers into their eyes and hope for the cauterizing ratings boost.

    Reply

  401. The coroner’s report will show that the demise of the Republican Party (I’m not predicting their demise; indeed, they will gain strength in their Zombie-hood) a case of murder/suicide between star-crossed haters:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sean-hannity-loses-his-mind-rubio-staffer
    Ailes says he’s finished with Rubio, so the rest of the world should be too. He decides, I report:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-ailes-fox-news-finished-rubio
    Brietbart brownshirts are now determining FOX and Ailes’ next rightward marketing lurch.
    As Trump would say, they are bleeding from the eyes and the only way to staunch the flow is to plunge red-hot pokers into their eyes and hope for the cauterizing ratings boost.

    Reply

  402. The coroner’s report will show that the demise of the Republican Party (I’m not predicting their demise; indeed, they will gain strength in their Zombie-hood) a case of murder/suicide between star-crossed haters:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sean-hannity-loses-his-mind-rubio-staffer
    Ailes says he’s finished with Rubio, so the rest of the world should be too. He decides, I report:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/report-ailes-fox-news-finished-rubio
    Brietbart brownshirts are now determining FOX and Ailes’ next rightward marketing lurch.
    As Trump would say, they are bleeding from the eyes and the only way to staunch the flow is to plunge red-hot pokers into their eyes and hope for the cauterizing ratings boost.

    Reply

  403. Obama is more perfect than any President we’ve ever have, yet “lefties” here have relentlessly expressed their “disappointment”.
    Gosh! I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, and not telling at all!

    Reply

  404. Obama is more perfect than any President we’ve ever have, yet “lefties” here have relentlessly expressed their “disappointment”.
    Gosh! I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, and not telling at all!

    Reply

  405. Obama is more perfect than any President we’ve ever have, yet “lefties” here have relentlessly expressed their “disappointment”.
    Gosh! I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, and not telling at all!

    Reply

  412. When email is a relatively new technology that only one prior Secretary of State used for work, and that SoS receives NO opprobrium, whereas with Clinton it is a scandal, that is what stinks.
    No. If she had just turned over ALL that stuff immediately when she left the office (as is the law, then the issue would never have come up.
    She made a mistake. And it has given the GOP a partisan weapon.

    Reply

  413. When email is a relatively new technology that only one prior Secretary of State used for work, and that SoS receives NO opprobrium, whereas with Clinton it is a scandal, that is what stinks.
    No. If she had just turned over ALL that stuff immediately when she left the office (as is the law, then the issue would never have come up.
    She made a mistake. And it has given the GOP a partisan weapon.

    Reply

  414. When email is a relatively new technology that only one prior Secretary of State used for work, and that SoS receives NO opprobrium, whereas with Clinton it is a scandal, that is what stinks.
    No. If she had just turned over ALL that stuff immediately when she left the office (as is the law, then the issue would never have come up.
    She made a mistake. And it has given the GOP a partisan weapon.

    Reply

  415. She made a mistake. And it has given the GOP a partisan weapon.
    Acknowledged. Someone who has been under a magnifying glass for 25 years (and, yes, because she was gaining experience and gravitas in the meantime, of her own free will) might have some mistakes revealed.
    I love Bernie, and would vote for him in a heartbeat. I’m not so dumb as to think he wouldn’t have made myriad mistakes, maybe more than Hillary. If you have a political (relatively) innocent, it’s easy to avoid public mistakes. That’s not a slur on Bernie. I’m just picturing him at any meeting with a foreign leader saying “I didn’t vote for the Iraq war.” And what else would he say?

    Reply

  416. She made a mistake. And it has given the GOP a partisan weapon.
    Acknowledged. Someone who has been under a magnifying glass for 25 years (and, yes, because she was gaining experience and gravitas in the meantime, of her own free will) might have some mistakes revealed.
    I love Bernie, and would vote for him in a heartbeat. I’m not so dumb as to think he wouldn’t have made myriad mistakes, maybe more than Hillary. If you have a political (relatively) innocent, it’s easy to avoid public mistakes. That’s not a slur on Bernie. I’m just picturing him at any meeting with a foreign leader saying “I didn’t vote for the Iraq war.” And what else would he say?

    Reply

  417. She made a mistake. And it has given the GOP a partisan weapon.
    Acknowledged. Someone who has been under a magnifying glass for 25 years (and, yes, because she was gaining experience and gravitas in the meantime, of her own free will) might have some mistakes revealed.
    I love Bernie, and would vote for him in a heartbeat. I’m not so dumb as to think he wouldn’t have made myriad mistakes, maybe more than Hillary. If you have a political (relatively) innocent, it’s easy to avoid public mistakes. That’s not a slur on Bernie. I’m just picturing him at any meeting with a foreign leader saying “I didn’t vote for the Iraq war.” And what else would he say?

    Reply

  418. Kissinger gained experience, gravitas, and foreign policy experience as Secretary of State. Those things alone do not an endorsement make.

    Reply

  419. Kissinger gained experience, gravitas, and foreign policy experience as Secretary of State. Those things alone do not an endorsement make.

    Reply

  420. Kissinger gained experience, gravitas, and foreign policy experience as Secretary of State. Those things alone do not an endorsement make.

    Reply

  421. NV, agreed. What’s your point?
    My point was that if you have a robust record, among the many public things you’ve done, there will be things that you did that were “mistakes”. If you have zero record, there will be zero mistakes. That’s why some presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices with few written opinions. Nothing to see here.
    I’m with you that Hillary has made mistakes. 90% of her record is positive. But you would have done much better, I’m absolutely certain.

    Reply

  422. NV, agreed. What’s your point?
    My point was that if you have a robust record, among the many public things you’ve done, there will be things that you did that were “mistakes”. If you have zero record, there will be zero mistakes. That’s why some presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices with few written opinions. Nothing to see here.
    I’m with you that Hillary has made mistakes. 90% of her record is positive. But you would have done much better, I’m absolutely certain.

    Reply

  423. NV, agreed. What’s your point?
    My point was that if you have a robust record, among the many public things you’ve done, there will be things that you did that were “mistakes”. If you have zero record, there will be zero mistakes. That’s why some presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices with few written opinions. Nothing to see here.
    I’m with you that Hillary has made mistakes. 90% of her record is positive. But you would have done much better, I’m absolutely certain.

    Reply

  424. By the way, talking about emails, what’s Bernie Sanders position on tech issues? Does he have one? To what extent does he know about email servers? Any idea?

    Reply

  425. By the way, talking about emails, what’s Bernie Sanders position on tech issues? Does he have one? To what extent does he know about email servers? Any idea?

    Reply

  426. By the way, talking about emails, what’s Bernie Sanders position on tech issues? Does he have one? To what extent does he know about email servers? Any idea?

    Reply

  427. “What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.”
    it’s where you end up when you start with the idea that money is speech.

    Reply

  428. “What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.”
    it’s where you end up when you start with the idea that money is speech.

    Reply

  429. “What is the take, from the lefties here, of what some refer to as the transactional relationship between the Clinton Foundation and some of its donors.”
    it’s where you end up when you start with the idea that money is speech.

    Reply

  433. it’s where you end up when you start with the idea that money is speech.
    Ironic that you should invoke the anti-Clinton Citizens United case.

    Reply

  434. it’s where you end up when you start with the idea that money is speech.
    Ironic that you should invoke the anti-Clinton Citizens United case.

    Reply

  435. it’s where you end up when you start with the idea that money is speech.
    Ironic that you should invoke the anti-Clinton Citizens United case.

    Reply

  439. So, it is kind of cliched (if not actually cliched) to talk about munching on popcorn (as I’m guilty of), but it so fits. From the WaPo today:
    Alex Castellanos, a veteran media consultant who earlier in the season had tried unsuccessfully to organize an anti-Trump campaign, said, “A fantasy effort to stop Trump . . . exists only as the denial stage of grief.”
    “Trump has earned the nomination,” Castellanos wrote in an email. “Donald Trump whipped the establishment and it is too late for the limp GOP establishment to ask their mommy to step in and rewrite the rules because they were humiliated for their impotence.”
    That is phenomenal.

    Reply

  440. So, it is kind of cliched (if not actually cliched) to talk about munching on popcorn (as I’m guilty of), but it so fits. From the WaPo today:
    Alex Castellanos, a veteran media consultant who earlier in the season had tried unsuccessfully to organize an anti-Trump campaign, said, “A fantasy effort to stop Trump . . . exists only as the denial stage of grief.”
    “Trump has earned the nomination,” Castellanos wrote in an email. “Donald Trump whipped the establishment and it is too late for the limp GOP establishment to ask their mommy to step in and rewrite the rules because they were humiliated for their impotence.”
    That is phenomenal.

    Reply

  441. So, it is kind of cliched (if not actually cliched) to talk about munching on popcorn (as I’m guilty of), but it so fits. From the WaPo today:
    Alex Castellanos, a veteran media consultant who earlier in the season had tried unsuccessfully to organize an anti-Trump campaign, said, “A fantasy effort to stop Trump . . . exists only as the denial stage of grief.”
    “Trump has earned the nomination,” Castellanos wrote in an email. “Donald Trump whipped the establishment and it is too late for the limp GOP establishment to ask their mommy to step in and rewrite the rules because they were humiliated for their impotence.”
    That is phenomenal.

    Reply

  442. The Republicans are basically down to 4 possible scenarios. In (rapidly) decrasing probability, they are:
    1) Trump arrives at the convention with enough delegates to win on the first ballot.
    2) Trump arrives with a plurality, but not a majority, of the delegates. And gets the nomination after the first ballot.
    3) Trump arrives with a plurality. But the rest of the party manages (eventually) to settle on someone else as the nominee.
    4) Trump implodes (insert your fantasy scenario here), and someone else arrives at the convention with a plurality. Or even a majority.
    The best hope for the future of the GOP is the wildly unlikely 4th scenario.
    The 3rd scenario pretty much guarantees the Presidency to the Democrats. And likely results in a lot of down-ballot losses as well — due to Trump’s supporters refusing to vote for anyone from the party which stiffed him.
    The first two scenarios are less starkly clear cut. I’m guessing that Trump not only fails in November, but also takes down some down-ballot Republicans, too. However, it’s a long way to November, and lots could happen to change that.

    Reply

  443. The Republicans are basically down to 4 possible scenarios. In (rapidly) decrasing probability, they are:
    1) Trump arrives at the convention with enough delegates to win on the first ballot.
    2) Trump arrives with a plurality, but not a majority, of the delegates. And gets the nomination after the first ballot.
    3) Trump arrives with a plurality. But the rest of the party manages (eventually) to settle on someone else as the nominee.
    4) Trump implodes (insert your fantasy scenario here), and someone else arrives at the convention with a plurality. Or even a majority.
    The best hope for the future of the GOP is the wildly unlikely 4th scenario.
    The 3rd scenario pretty much guarantees the Presidency to the Democrats. And likely results in a lot of down-ballot losses as well — due to Trump’s supporters refusing to vote for anyone from the party which stiffed him.
    The first two scenarios are less starkly clear cut. I’m guessing that Trump not only fails in November, but also takes down some down-ballot Republicans, too. However, it’s a long way to November, and lots could happen to change that.

    Reply

  444. The Republicans are basically down to 4 possible scenarios. In (rapidly) decrasing probability, they are:
    1) Trump arrives at the convention with enough delegates to win on the first ballot.
    2) Trump arrives with a plurality, but not a majority, of the delegates. And gets the nomination after the first ballot.
    3) Trump arrives with a plurality. But the rest of the party manages (eventually) to settle on someone else as the nominee.
    4) Trump implodes (insert your fantasy scenario here), and someone else arrives at the convention with a plurality. Or even a majority.
    The best hope for the future of the GOP is the wildly unlikely 4th scenario.
    The 3rd scenario pretty much guarantees the Presidency to the Democrats. And likely results in a lot of down-ballot losses as well — due to Trump’s supporters refusing to vote for anyone from the party which stiffed him.
    The first two scenarios are less starkly clear cut. I’m guessing that Trump not only fails in November, but also takes down some down-ballot Republicans, too. However, it’s a long way to November, and lots could happen to change that.

    Reply

  445. By the way, talking about emails, what’s Bernie Sanders position on tech issues?
    My civil rights question for candidates these days is, “Where do you stand on strong encryption?”
    Look, for $100, using quantity-one prices, I can put together a portable device that encrypts all the user data and is capable of real-time two-way voice communication using strong encryption. Capable of spoofing its Ethernet address for connecting through any of the increasingly ubiquitous open wifi hot spots. Anonymous meet-me servers are straightforward.
    The strong encryption genie is out of the bottle. You can deny the average consumer the benefits of strong encryption, in exchange for a chance to maybe catch some stupid terrorists. The smart terrorists aren’t — or at least, aren’t for much longer — using consumer kit.

    Reply

  446. By the way, talking about emails, what’s Bernie Sanders position on tech issues?
    My civil rights question for candidates these days is, “Where do you stand on strong encryption?”
    Look, for $100, using quantity-one prices, I can put together a portable device that encrypts all the user data and is capable of real-time two-way voice communication using strong encryption. Capable of spoofing its Ethernet address for connecting through any of the increasingly ubiquitous open wifi hot spots. Anonymous meet-me servers are straightforward.
    The strong encryption genie is out of the bottle. You can deny the average consumer the benefits of strong encryption, in exchange for a chance to maybe catch some stupid terrorists. The smart terrorists aren’t — or at least, aren’t for much longer — using consumer kit.

    Reply

  447. By the way, talking about emails, what’s Bernie Sanders position on tech issues?
    My civil rights question for candidates these days is, “Where do you stand on strong encryption?”
    Look, for $100, using quantity-one prices, I can put together a portable device that encrypts all the user data and is capable of real-time two-way voice communication using strong encryption. Capable of spoofing its Ethernet address for connecting through any of the increasingly ubiquitous open wifi hot spots. Anonymous meet-me servers are straightforward.
    The strong encryption genie is out of the bottle. You can deny the average consumer the benefits of strong encryption, in exchange for a chance to maybe catch some stupid terrorists. The smart terrorists aren’t — or at least, aren’t for much longer — using consumer kit.

    Reply

  448. My civil rights question for candidates these days is, “Where do you stand on strong encryption?”
    odds are good that none of them knows what “AES” stands for, what a public key cipher is, or where to find the latest Crypto++.

    Reply

  449. My civil rights question for candidates these days is, “Where do you stand on strong encryption?”
    odds are good that none of them knows what “AES” stands for, what a public key cipher is, or where to find the latest Crypto++.

    Reply

  450. My civil rights question for candidates these days is, “Where do you stand on strong encryption?”
    odds are good that none of them knows what “AES” stands for, what a public key cipher is, or where to find the latest Crypto++.

    Reply

  451. It’s not just that they have no clue what SSL or TLS are. It’s that they have no clue what a protocol (even a non-secure one) is, let alone how Internet security might work.

    Reply

  452. It’s not just that they have no clue what SSL or TLS are. It’s that they have no clue what a protocol (even a non-secure one) is, let alone how Internet security might work.

    Reply

  453. It’s not just that they have no clue what SSL or TLS are. It’s that they have no clue what a protocol (even a non-secure one) is, let alone how Internet security might work.

    Reply

  454. this reminds me of the arguments against firearms regulation.
    how can you regulate something that you don’t understand, at a basic, hands-on level?
    best of luck to all.

    Reply

  455. this reminds me of the arguments against firearms regulation.
    how can you regulate something that you don’t understand, at a basic, hands-on level?
    best of luck to all.

    Reply

  456. this reminds me of the arguments against firearms regulation.
    how can you regulate something that you don’t understand, at a basic, hands-on level?
    best of luck to all.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Matt McIrvin Cancel reply