So remember Scott Walker’s fired digital outreach consultant, Liz Mair? She’s landed on her feet (as all wingers on the gravy train do) and is over at Newsbeast these days, cranking out gems like this.
The Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign part deux is less than a week old, and already reporters and opinionators across America are complaining.
She announced via a video, the ultimate way to control a message and avoid any engagement with real people or the press. She is undertaking a trip by van; nothing novel, simply a redux from her 2000 Senate campaign in New York. For now, at least, she is passing on talking policy in any real detail. For the foreseeable future, she appears interested in talking about relatively uncontroversial topics like “ways families can increase take-home pay, the importance of expanding early childhood education and making higher education more affordable,” or so her advisers told the Associated Press.
About the most exciting thing that has happened to the former secretary of state in the last week—and this includes her announcement—is visiting a Chipotle initially undetected, and subsequently having pictures of her burrito-ordering leaked and posted online.
It’s all so dull, so bland, so scripted, so planned, so typically political. And perhaps, just perhaps, it’s what American voters deserve.
Yeah, why would Americans want to discuss things like taking home a larger paycheck or Head Start or the insane cost of college? That’s crazy talk. America really double secret probation wants a conversation on how to destroy Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid or massive austerity cuts across the board in the name of balanced federal budgets. That’s bold politics we really deserve as voters!
And actually given the turnout in 2014, maybe we as voters really do deserve a Dubya-style GOP government that will finish us off as a country. But hey, Hillary is a politician and is boring. Austerity to the point of breaking the country is so much more interesting, don’t you think?
kindness
Where is Liz’s soul at? She was fired (resigned) from Walker’s camp because she believes a couple of relatively progressive notions about birth control and a couple other things. Yet she cranks out the most boilerplate tripe anyone not a Teahaddist putz would see is garbage. Who knew consciences could be placated with gold?
Jerzy Russian
Are these pictures classified or something? Why do they need to be “leaked”, as opposed to “published”?
debbie
@kindness:
Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me.
Mike in NC
Wingnut Welfare means never going to bed hungry. They should include a seminar about that at CPAC.
askew
I’d settle for Hillary to actually meet with voters who aren’t pre-screened by her campaign. It seems like Hillary is running like a Republican. Do staged photo ops proving they are just like us and then interact with as few voters as possible. And when you do have to talk to voters, make sure they are only friendly ones.
Dems tore Romney apart for stunts like this but now we are supposed to think it is awesome. Give me a break.
raven
@askew: You and fucking Mika.
Cervantes
If those things are “relatively uncontroversial,” then someone forgot to inform Ms. Mair’s employers past, present, and (no doubt) future.
Jerzy Russian
@askew: We are only a week or so into the campaign.
cahuenga
To be fair, Hillary’s past stated policies regarding Social Security are only slightly less frightening than Christie’s
askew
@Jerzy Russian:
So? It’s still pathetic that her campaign pre-screened those who met with her to see if they were friendly enough. Wonder if the campaign fed them questions to ask as well? She did that in Iowa in 2008. Wouldn’t surprise me if she does it again. She also got caught in another stupid lie. No all of her grandparents were not immigrants. 1 of them was. Another stupid unnecessary lie that she told to make herself more appealing.
She is clearly trying to run out the clock so that we have no choice but to hand her the nomination with her doing the bare minimum of work.
JPL
@askew: Wow.
Jerzy Russian
@askew:
What is she supposed to do? Fill out the paperwork for other candidates to enter the nomination process?
Mike J
@askew: You need to seek professional help.
JPL
The other thing about Hillary is she changed her mind on gay marriage.
BTW… I for one am glad that she did.
ruemara
@askew: You sure you’re not part of the Dems Against Hillary Clinton in 2016 Facebook page, where my über liberal friends share right-wing bullshit articles because they’ve finally managed to find one thing they’re bipartisan about? Jesus Christ, there hasn’t even been an event yet and you’re angry about supposed screened people.
askew
@Jerzy Russian:
How about hold a townhall where she doesn’t pre-screen attendees or plant ?s? Just interact with real voters. How about actually do an interview with the media? How about articulating actual policy details and not just speaking in generalities? How about acting like every other serious Dem candidate has done when running for president? She is behaving like she is above doing the actual work of running for president. Meeting with pre-screened audiences, putting out carefully staged photo ops, having any serious policy discussion done by aides instead of herself, having few events per day. She is running like W or Romney did. Democrats are supposed to be better than this. But, with Hillary there is always an excuse for why she can’t do what every other candidate has done before her.
Shantanu Saha
@Jerzy Russian: Hey, that’s an idea! Get some liberal patsy (say, Bill DeBlasio) to declare his candidacy by encouraging some of her bagmen to direct money his way, stage some debates where she can clean the clock of the designated tomato-can, then get the patsy a job in her administration as say, HUD secretary.
balconesfault
I’m never sure which of these right wingers are True Believers who think that unions and a safety net and those who want government to be involved in education are driving America to disaster … and which are just grifters.
Not that it functionally matters …
OzarkHillbilly
@askew:
I think I see your problem.
Jerzy Russian
@askew: As I noted above, we are only a week or so into this thing. There is still plenty of time for these types of events to happen.
askew
@ruemara:
Actually there has been an event already. The one the media and Dems have been falling all over themselves complimenting her about. They failed to mention that each one of those attendees was hand-picked by Hillary’s campaign and pre-screened.
I think any politician who does stuff like this deserves criticism whether it is Hillary or the many GOP politicians who have done the same. I didn’t realize we were only supposed to complain about it when GOP politicians do it. If you complain about it when Hillary does it, you should be mocked and ridiculed. That makes sense.
raven
@askew: So vote for the puke you douchebag.
Ryan
I went to Chipotle for the first time yesterday for lunch. I ordered take out over the internet. There was no space on the form for a tip, and no tip jar when I arrived. And, to top it off, I got a phone call a few hours later asking if everything was okay with my order. So there Rush.
Amir Khalid
Liz Mair seems to be doing political-theatre criticism of the new Hillary campaign. She’s assuming that the low-key approach of these very early days warns of a play-it-safe, needlessly timid campaign through to November next year.
Has anyone ever explained to Liz Mair that no play ever opens with the big dramatic climax?
Jerzy Russian
@Ryan: I sometimes get lunch orders for several people, and I definitely need to try out their internet option to preorder.
MattF
Opinion pieces usually have a sentence or two identifying the author. Since there wasn’t one on this piece, I suggest “Ms. Mair is a partisan hack.”
Amir Khalid
@MattF:
You’re right. In fact, that’s the norm at The Daily Beast. Perhaps Ms Mair is still between jobs, so to speak, and has nothing to put in her description; but one could still mention her recent position with the Walker campaign — oh, wait.
scav
Aaaaaannnndddd lets just prethink of the pointing and laughing when a campaign event is hijacked by political planted trollls! Hours of canned fun, smuggness and pontificating about naitivity, etc! Already “read” well seen an effort where the “journalists” well stalkers are complaining the H is taking questions from “people” and not from “them”. Horrors! Between the need for personalised tire-swing pandering to both the “press” and the “purists” simultaneously (“Feed our memes!” “Obey our scripts!”) it’s going to be a long one.
Amir Khalid
Liz Mair — whenever I see that name, I think of the musician.
Josie
@askew: And aren’t we glad to have you around to inform all of us stupid, illiterate Hillarybots of her terrible mistakes. It’s such a great way to start the day – reading all your carping comments. I’m so looking forward to the next few months – not.
Peale
@Amir Khalid: She should have announced that she was suspending her campaign after the Chipotle FIASCO!(TM). Immediate cliffhanger.
Cervantes
@askew:
Are you talking about the event at the produce warehouse? If so, “those attendees” numbered exactly six. And yes, it was not an open event, and I hope no one thought it was.
There will be other events. Criticism will be more meaningful when there’s more data.
I agree, but if one is going to be strident about it, then maybe it’s better to wait until there is a pattern to be criticized.
There are fools everywhere, on all sides of every question under the sun. One thing we as a species don’t lack is foolishness.
japa21
Disclaimer, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in the sense of her being my favorite Dem. But I have to admit I like her current approach to this campaign and she may win me over yet.
It also amazes me how so many members of the so-called reality based community have no awareness of political realities. They didn’t when the ACA was being battled over. They didn’t when certain fiscal issues were being battled over. They didn’t when Obama tried to keep the country from falling apart by actually trying to work with the GOP. And, apparently they don’t in looking at the extremely early stages of HRC’s campaign.
Gin & Tonic
@askew: Do you complain that people don’t treat spring training games just like Game 7 of the World Series?
lawguy
I’d suggest that the turn out in 2014 had a lot to do with the way the democrats act. Did I just see that the TPP negotiated in secret by a democratic president is going to get fast track at the behest of that president? How many bankers have been jailed (or even charged) from the Great Recession? How many wars is our current Peace Prize winning democratic president currently involving us in?
So when the voters don’t see a lot of difference, they may be wrong in the short term, but they are absolutely right in the long term.
Keith G
@askew: Oh my god, askew. So you’re actually telling me that you think Hillary Clinton is flawed and should not be the nominee or the president. I never could have figured your reasoning out.
boatboy_srq
Notice the complaint isn’t about content; it’s about style. It’s all so dull, tedious and soporific – because there’s no band, no bunting, no exciting venue (like Liberty University! I guess she thinks HRC should have announced in the Berkeley quad with Green Day playing and fireworks going off and a big buffet luncheon catered by Chez Panisse). The material of HRC’s platform is irrelevant. This is a “less bread, more circuses” complaint.
NonyNony
@Ryan:
Any fast food place that has a tip jar should be avoided – unless you live in a state where tipped employees have the same minimum wage as everyone else. A tip jar at a fast food place is a sign that the owner/operator is screwing the workers good and hard.
(I worked at a franchised fast food place in high school that had a change in ownership – I came on with the new owner and one of the first things he told the returning and new employees was that a) the tip jar was going away because b) everyone was going to be treated as hourly employees instead of hourly tipped employees. There was some outrage from returning employees because they thought they were getting screwed – but fortunately he he was prepared for that and he pulled them into one on one meetings to explain how much their paychecks from the previous year should have held compared to how much they actually took home. Let’s just say the extra bucks in the tip jar didn’t come close to covering the difference and none of the folks involved – mostly high school kids – even realized that the previous guy was supposed to be making up the difference if the tip jar wasn’t covering it. He just walked out the door with their money and they didn’t know it.)
boatboy_srq
@Jerzy Russian: I guess askew thinks it’s over, then.
srv
There’s no evidence Hillary recovered from her concussion. Liz needs to dig deeper into why her campaign is managed like Reagans.
Cervantes
@boatboy_srq:
You could not be more mistaken.
The argument is that a scripted event defines content in a way that benefits the script-writer, whereas an unscripted event may bring other (real) people’s preferred content to the fore.
It’s an elementary point.
NonyNony
@japa21:
I’m envious if you’re going around in constant amazement. I’m just resigned to it – the folks who complain the loudest about our political problems don’t actually seem to understand anything but the symptoms. It’s been true forever and it’s true of both folks on the right and on the left. The difference being that the folks on the right are useful idiots for the guys on the right who DO understand and want to exploit the underlying causes, while the folks on the left are mostly just useful idiots for the guys on the right who understand and want to exploit the underlying causes. (Wait did I say difference? Hmmm…)
Kay
I really couldn’t disagree more. I think a huge part of the public is economically insecure and NOT looking for Big Bold Disruptive Ideas.
I think she’d do well to run a lower-key campaign. I know political media will hate it (“BORING!”) but my impression of her in the ’08 Ohio primary was she really hit her stride with these type of issues and what I think of as a “practical” approach. That went over well here. IMO, she isn’t an inspirational or aspirational speaker or campaigner and I don’t mean that as a slam- that isn’t her strength and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Germy Shoemangler
@NonyNony: There’s a (phony) hipster coffee house near me run by two over-caffeinated tough guys. They have a HUGE tip jar on a counter with a handwritten note taped to it that anyone who fails to tip will be followed out into the parking lot and bitched at.
I ate there a few times; the service and food and coffee sucked. The note was the last nail in the coffin for me.
Amir Khalid
@Germy Shoemangler:
In such a place, I’d be tempted to put in the tip jar a note saying, “For food and service this bad, you don’t deserve a tip.” Granted, that would be a pretty foolhardy thing to do.
Cervantes
@Kay:
I agree with you — but I also think that genuinely standing up for “regular people,” as opposed to the donor class, if she really is prepared to explain it and do it — this could well be a disruptive idea — and more power to her if she really does take it on.
Germy Shoemangler
Judging from comments on other blogs, the wingnuts are scared shitless of HRC becoming president. Their comments, the usual talking points, have become outrageously shrill.
Betty Cracker
@Germy Shoemangler: I was briefly a bartender in college, and I wore a button that said “Tip Me or Die of Thirst.” I meant it, too. But yeah, tips are generally a way to screw workers.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I always thought a huge chunk of the opposition to Obamacare, besides the people who would die of cancer if Obama had found the cure, was less people “happy” with their situation than an attitude of “dear god, just don’t rock the boat!” A new poll (just one, so not the end of the debate) shows only 35% wanting repeal, 51% saying mend it, don’t end it.
https://twitter.com/JeffYoung/status/589066931581358080
@NonyNony: I’ve never been to a Chipotle, but at my local burrito place I usually drop a buck or two in the jar, depending on how big my order is. The power of suggestion, I guess. I worked at a restaurant with carry out service in high school (mid-80s) and if I ever got a tip working the counter, I don’t remember it, and it never occurred to me. Tipping is a huge PITA
japa21
@NonyNony: Yeah, I know. It is just that you would think they would have learned something over the past several years. Krugman did, at least.
NonyNony
@Germy Shoemangler:
Might as well put up a notice saying “WILL SCREW OUR WORKERS FOR LOW PRICES. WHO KNOWS WHERE ELSE WE CUT CORNERS?”.
And I mean maybe they don’t – maybe they pay their workers well and the tip jars are just there because the owners think the employees deserve extra money – but those kinds of tip jars next to counters get an instant “you’re screwing your employees, aren’t you” reaction from me and make me want to walk out the door and find another restaurant.
MattF
@Germy Shoemangler: I’m not surprised. The potential R nominees are all weak.
Germy Shoemangler
@NonyNony: Increasingly, I got a vibe from the employees that they were miserable. I’d noticed every time I went, there’d be a different staff. The place was filthy. And I don’t like hearing employees chewed out by their bosses.
Gin & Tonic
@NonyNony: If, according to Germy’s description, there are two guys running the place and they are the only ones working there, then they should just put up a sign saying “we don’t know how to run a retail business profitably.”
Germy Shoemangler
@MattF: I think they know it. Rather than championing their choices, they’ve taken to attacking ours. But the tone has gone right off the dial. One commenter called her an ugly hag. I smell fear.
Amir Khalid
I’ve never seen a tip jar here in Malaysia. What I do see, from time to time, is a “donate your change to charity” box.
cmorenc
@askew:
No, the main point of HRC’s current tactic is to keep the focus on key Democratic-friendly (and also bona fide very important) issues while limiting opportunities for the GOP and their MSM shills to knock the focus onto shiny-object and manufactured bullshit. But it’s true that a secondary effect of her approach is that it also doesn’t engage any potential rivals for the nomination of her own party – except for the one who is by an overwhelming margin her strongest potential challenger, who has nevertheless firmly established over and over that she is not running (Elizabeth Warren). Clinton is doing so by at least appearing to try to channel a Warren-esque progressive populist approach (though cynics have reason to be duly skeptical about the extent to which this also includes Warren’s focus against the chicanery of Wall Street and the Banksters etc).
Yes, I too think it would help sharpen HRC’s campaign to have another rival strong enough to have to engage more directly and more often – but OTOH neither do I want to see progressive and dems indulge their tendency to create circular firing squads. At least HRC seems to firmly realize (courtesy of Warren et al) that the path to winning the general election isn’t via going GOP lite, but instead running on bona fide democratic/ progressive themes (again, whether and to what extent she does this without breaking from her big-finance connections is a genuine concern for progressives). But let’s face it, we don’t win general elections by insisting we’ll only support progressive purity ponies, and 2016 is a make-it-or-break-it event which, if we lose, the GOP will use their broad control of the federal government to not only destroy existing progressive institutions (social security, ACA, etc) but to destroy any foundations from which there’s any possibility of rebuilding it for decades to come. Do you really want the likes of Jeb Bush or Scott Walker to make the next couple of SCOTUS appointments?
Germy Shoemangler
@Gin & Tonic: The two guys running the place were rarely around. One of them walked in on a day when I was trying to swallow a scone, and the atmosphere tensed up.
I’d rather spend my money someplace where employees are treated well. Although that ain’t easy.
Petorado
“(Hillary) appears interested in talking about relatively uncontroversial topics like “ways families can increase take-home pay, the importance of expanding early childhood education and making higher education more affordable.”
The job of folks like Liz Mair is to always make politics about the personalities and parties on the campaign trail and never about the people who are being governed. That’s the critical step to getting the voters to vote against their own best interests. What I like about Hillary’s campaign so far is that she’s telling the voters that this election is about them and not about her.
MomSense
This is the BS media we have to work with and it is only going to get worse as 2016 gets closer. We need an extraordinary candidate and campaign to win this election because the process is all kinds of fucked up.
Kay
@Cervantes:
No, you’re right, that is a disruptive idea but if I were her I would play like that as a “return” to a more level playing field which has the added benefit of being true.
Betty Cracker
@Petorado:
Quoted for truth.
Germy Shoemangler
@Betty Cracker: I am a big tipper. Last week I walked into a place downtown for lunch, and I overheard a server asking the greeter for me, even though she was working a different station. I always feel guilty about the concept of a “server” and I know they’re not paid well, so I always tip.
There have been times when I’ve tipped after getting lousy treatment, bad haircuts, etc. I can’t help myself. If I’m there, I’ll tip. But if the food/service/quality sucks, I won’t be back. I don’t believe in tip withholding as punishment. I just stop going.
boatboy_srq
@Cervantes:
Emphasis added. (Note that the last sentence contradicts the immediately preceding one. Lack of controversy in the policy planks does not equate to an absence of policy.)
This is not message control: this is process. You’re suggesting that a conventional campaign strategy that’s merely announced by electronic media is somehow scripted. Explain.
Geeno
@Cervantes: I thought he was talking about Mair’s point in the original article, not askew’s point in the comments.
Aimai
@Mike J: yup.
boatboy_srq
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
That’s the best explanation of ODS I’ve ever seen.
low-tech cyclist
Liz Mair:
Yeah, if they’re so uncontroversial, I’m sure we can get a metric shitload of Republican Congresscritters on board with these plans, right?
If only.
Germy Shoemangler
@Petorado: The job of folks like Liz Mair is to always make politics about the personalities and parties on the campaign trail
I’ve told this story here before: One night we were watching the PBS NewsHour and Gwen Ifill asked a guest “If Obamacare is repealed, how will this affect Obama?” She was talking PURE POLITICS.
My wife said “Why not ask how it will affect all the uninsured people?”
Kay
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Absolutely agree. Schumer said it during the debate and it’s true. He said it’s a tough sell politically because something like 95% of college educated adults had employer-provided health insurance.
To those people, all we were doing was introducing risk- threatening what they had. I ran into this exact thing when I made calls for Strickland (Oh gov race) in 2010. I had a Dem voter list and 80% of the people asked me cranky questions about how they might get hurt by changes. I think there’s this weird disconnect, because there’s two kinds of people who ignore downside risk- people who have absolutely nothing to lose and people who are well-off enough to be insulated from risk. EVERYONE else sees downside risk in change. They might see some positive, but they don’t ignore the fact that they could lose.
Germy Shoemangler
@Kay: He said it’s a tough sell politically because something like 95% of college educated adults had employer-provided health insurance.
True, but we worry (A) about losing it if we are laid-off. (B) our insurance company denying coverage for some obscure but legal reason and (C) premiums skyrocketing.
My last job, every six months or so, the company would sit us down and explain they were switching plans, raising our deductibles and rates, etc.
It was obvious they didn’t particularly like being responsible for our health insurance.
raven
@Germy Shoemangler: I’m trying to figure out if I’m going to tip the delivery guys on my “free delivery” Sears washer/dryer that is coming any minute. I’ve got a 20 in my pocket so, unless they are douches, I’ll hit em.
SatanicPanic
@Jerzy Russian: at first I read that as “her burrito was leaky” and I thought- that can happen to anyone, they’re really being silly now. I am quite certain the media will find something dumber than that to comment on before the campaign is over
Mike E
@boatboy_srq: Exactly John Harwood’s complaint on the Diane Rehm Show, BS horse race optics…then it was faint praise, saying “she was being ‘good’ Hillary”. My itchy radio finger isn’t fast enough these days.
JustRuss
@Petorado: Well said. I’m not HRC’s biggest fan, but I’m encouraged by the fact she’s talking about stuff that nobody but Edwards even mentioned back in 2008, and that’s with no one else even pushing her leftward (although hat-tip to Senator Warren). The cynic in me figures she’s establishing her populist bonafides early so she has plenty of time to shake the etch-a-scketch before the general election. I’d like to be wrong.
gene108
@askew:
Considering the spittle filled invectives some voters have towards her, do you really think just letting anyone in would be a good idea? There are still a good contingent of right-wingers, who could turn a townhall into Q & A about the “murder” of Vince Foster, for example.
And these aren’t the ones who may come armed because they want to see Hillary’s reaction to Patriotic Americans Exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights.
Germy Shoemangler
@raven: I had two guys deliver a mattress last year. Sketchy -looking dudes. “Free Delivery” They put their hands out after the job was done. They each got five bucks.
MattF
@gene108: As suggested by Senator Cruz. Not to change the subject, but he is turning out to be a genuine crackpot.
Gin & Tonic
@raven: That’s what I’ve done in the past. Two guys, give the senior guy a 20 and hope he splits it.
raven
@Germy Shoemangler: I suspect the Sears dudes will be less so but we’ll see. They called early this morning to makes sure everything was ready.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Gin & Tonic: I had a new refrigerator delivered and hooked up last year, two guys in their twenties. It was snowing and they kept talking about how hard it was to deliver appliances in that weather, I figured they were fishing for the tip I was already gonna give them and I was getting annoyed. When they were done I gave one guy a twenty in front of his partner and told them to have one on me when they were done. They were pretty pleased and I think surprised, then I felt bad for being so cynical when they were just making conversation.
Cervantes
@boatboy_srq:
My mistake entirely. As someone pointed out above, I missed the (obvious) fact that you were responding to the original post rather than to a particular commenter.
My apologies.
raven
@Gin & Tonic: If Cole had gone through what I had on this it would be front page. Last week I came home and the dryer had been running for 8 hours. I have taken the stackable apart at least 5 times over the 15 years we’ve had it so I gave it a shot. The timer switch was $150, I took pictures of the old one and took it in. I missed one side and wasn’t positive of the wiring and tried to use the diagram from Samuri Appliance to put it back together. I plugged it up and “whack” it arced. Both units were dead so I traced it to the breaker box and it was tripped. I decided enough was enough and found an upgraded model on Sears website at a nice discount, free delivery included. I thinking I did ok to keep the other unit going but I’ll be glad to get a new one.
Cervantes
@Geeno:
Thanks!
Mike E
@JustRuss: Watched Bombs Away, a PBS docu about the LBJ/Goldwater campaign which portrayed it as opening Pandora’s Box re: ’emotional’ ads…well, lo and behold, Hillary’s “3am phonecall” spot was featured before Reagan’s “Big bear” ad. Heh.
Kay
@Germy Shoemangler:
Right, but there was what I think of as “scarcity” feelings- people approached it like there was X amount of health insurance available and expanding access probably meant they lost something. That way of thinking is really common, and it increases when people feel less economically secure, as they did after the financial crash.
To put in broad terms, I think there’s some romanticism and myth-making about Americans as “risk takers”, like everyone is this bold innovator. They’re not. There’s a ton of people who are just trying to maintain what they have and sort of circle the wagons around their family. They never pretended to be wildly ambitious. They think of themselves as “regular” and they are. They don’t put themselves in the category of people who can take a lot of risks.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
How the RW Clown Show will create excitement for Hillary Clinton, part the have we started counting yet?th
Matt McIrvin
@JPL: I remember that in 2008, one of the bits of common knowledge passed around was that Hillary Clinton would likely be better than Obama on LGBT rights. I’m not sure what the factual basis for that was (lists of allies and close parsing of rhetoric, perhaps), but it seemed to be something that everyone sort of knew. It’s interesting now to see her belatedly coming around to a position on same-sex marriage that Obama dramatically adopted in 2012.
Germy Shoemangler
@raven: We have a 2003 kenmore microwave. It stopped working. I thought I’d be thrifty and get it repaired rather than buy a new one. Called an appliance repair place that does good work. When I told them it was manufactured in 2003, and the model # they said it’d be difficult to get parts for it.
they told me to avoid sears when buying a new one. They said sears stopped manufacturing their own stuff. It’s all samsung and LG now, and not reliable.
I never realized how much i relied on a microwave until it shit the bed. Now I’d better check consumer reports before I buy.
Germy Shoemangler
@gene108: the Right is drooling over the idea of HRC experiencing her own “sit down and shut up!” moment, and I’m sure they’d send folks out to try and provoke one. And then the MSM would play it on endless loop.
Amir Khalid
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Donald Trump is an embarrassment to vain, stupid and vulgar people.
askew
@cmorenc:
Of course I don’t want a GOP president. As I’ve said a million times, I’ll support Hillary if she is the nominee. But, I’d like to see her really challenged in the early days of her campaign. She was a disaster on the campaign trail in 2008. From planted questions, to stupid lies, etc. I want to see her handle herself with a crowd that isn’t hand-picked by her staffers. She isn’t going to be able to hide from voters or hard questions during the general election. This kid-glove treatment doesn’t do Dems any good. We need to see if she has improved on 2008 and can win over skeptics.
O’Malley gave an economic speech at Harvard yesterday where he laid of policy specific details and answered tough (and smartass) questions from the audience. He addressed attacks on his policies and expanded on his economic platform. Hillary should be able to do that. I am not asking for the moon here.
raven
@Germy Shoemangler: Yea it’s hard. Consumer reports does not review stackables. Sears has not made their own appliances for years and buying parts confirms that. This unit is very similar in appearance to the old one but the controls are more digital than mechanical. I’m runnin on faith I guess. As far as parts, I don’t really think that is the case for everything. The old one is 15 years old and I have replaced most of it with parts from the local supplier.
eta Microwaves are a problem for parts and they are generally not worth fixing anyway.
askew
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Sigh, I am not a Hillary fan but stuff like that is going to be why I’ll be excited to vote for her if she wins the nomination. The RW just can’t help themselves. There is plenty to knock Hillary for without going for the easy sexist attacks.
Jerzy Russian
@SatanicPanic: You kind of have to admire many of the people involved in the media. It can’t be easy to constantly outdo yourself and others in the stupid department.
NonyNony
@Kay:
Yes – the default assumption is that everything is a zero sum game and if someone else is getting an improvement then I must be getting screwed. With health care I know that people were thinking this way – I heard from multiple people the idea that if more people have it then that must mean I’m going to have to lose something so that we all end up in the middle. Which is why assurances about “keeping your existing health insurance” became a thing (and why when certain forms of existing health insurance turned out to be scams that nobody should be buying the righties started attacking furiously on that very point).
It also didn’t help that the opposition was spreading outright lies in full knowledge that they were playing on these fears. The whole idea of Death Panels is rooted in the idea that health care is a rationed resource. And that if the government gets to decide who lives or dies that’s far far worse than it being a decision based on whoever has the most money. Because hey – I could win the lottery tomorrow and be okay in the existing system, but in a system of government rationed healthcare there’s nothing I can do to improve my lot. (See also why taxes are such a goddamn problem in this country – because everyone’s so damn sure that tomorrow they’re going to wake up rich).
srv
At this rate, Hillary will be recalled before the primary
gene108
@raven:
Are they actual Sears employees or work for an independent contractor hired to deliver stuff?
Also, Sears ain’t what it used to be in the 1970’s. The place still has some attempts at quality, but the guy running it is a nut-job, who does not understand retail and seems to want to just well off the real estate.
raven
@gene108: Dunno, I’m assuming they are contract workers. The Kenmore I dumped lasted 15 years with help from me so I’ll just have to run with this.
JoyfulA
@Ryan: As a Chipotle stockholder, I applaud Hillary Clinton’s most prominent campaign event and urge her to repeat it in many parts of the country.
I imagine she is, as I always am, the oldest customer by two decades or so.
gene108
@askew:
You do realize the difference between O’Malley and Hillary, at this point in time, is O’Malley is struggling to get any kind of media attention, while Hillary’s lunch order gets a couple of days worth of media scrutiny.
O’Malley can make gaffs right now, because very few people are paying attention to him.
What would be interesting to know about O’Malley, if he his serious, is how many field offices does he have in Iowa and New Hampshire? That’s the sort of thing that separates serious candidates from also rans.
srv
Even the liberal Gary Hart understands how misguided you people are:
scav
Green Parasols! Green Parasols!
Here, Dickens on Mr. Pickwick and the Eatanswill Election
with Illustration!
“He’s kissing ’em all!”
J R in WV
@Cervantes:
In the current political environment, an unscripted political event is bound to include paid political trolls who will create an atmosphere carefully designed to show the candidate as a crazy person unable to connect with the common voter.
Without evaluating potential attendees for their current political outlook and potential employment by Koch et al all Clinton’s “unscripted” events would turn into crazed shouting matches between actual democrats and tea party adherents taught to act like a democrat until the moment when they attack the candidate.
I did volunteer phone banking, calling only registered democrats, and it was like lowering your brain into a boiling pot of crazy! Between people determined that the economy was being manipulated by secret illuminati cabals, super seecret biblical commands, FEMA camps, and that guy who wanted to talk about late term abortion with sound effects, it made me sick to my stomach.
And you want our candidate to jump into that pools of crazy? That’s crazy talk right there.
Use your common sense and remember all those congressional candidates who held open town hall meetings that broke into near riots!
The more pre-screening to determine who is sane enough to contribute to a normal conversation, in contrast with people who have the idea that all Democratic political candidates are part of the vast UN one-world conspiracy, the better for democracy. Crazy people can’t participate in a normal conversation, let alone ask normal questions standing at a microphone with TV cameras pointed at them.
raven
SatanicPanic
@srv: we’ve been an oligarchy since 1825! OMG
Calouste
@gene108:
They won’t see Hillary’s reaction to Patriotic Americans Exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights.
They will however see the Secret Service’s reaction to Patriotic Americans Exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights near people that they are charged to protect. Close up.
germy shoemangler
@Calouste: And whoever kicked over HRC’s father’s headstone is sitting out there somewhere trying to think of what to do next.
srv
Walmart finally responds
More good news:
This is how Going Galt starts
mai naem mobile
Ive been reading askews comments and I know they’re very anti HRC but Hillarys appearances IMHO have been ranging from meh to pathetic. I seriously don’t know if it’s because I’m jaded but her appearances come across like a stock older white guy senator ad with the senator in rolled up sleeves with an intent look nodding his head at a concerned looking constituent out on a prairie with some farm equipment. Thats an ad not an appearance. Disclaimer -I’ll vote for Hill even if she’s caught literally fcuking Jamie Dimon
germy shoemangler
Amy Davidson (NewYorker.com) has been expressing her doubts about HRC since 2008. Her latest column begins:
The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has a new, shorter list of the foreign governments whose money it will take, the Wall Street Journal reported. This is unsatisfying for anyone who thinks that the number of names on that list should be zero, now that Hillary Clinton is running for President. If she wants to be a champion for ordinary Americans, as she said in a video released last weekend, why let one of the first stories after her announcement be that the foundation with her name on it takes checks from officials in other countries?
I’m confused. The Foundation is a charitable organization. Why does Ms. Davidson make it sound (to my ears at least) that the money it raises somehow goes into HRC’s pockets, or campaign?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/the-clintonian-theory-of-foreign-money
It’s also an argument I’ve seen from conservative commenters on other blogs. That somehow she is taking saudi money to enrich herself.
I don’t get it.
Zandar
Glad to see most of the comments here pretty much back this theory up.
Jesus.
Hildebrand
@askew: It is April of 2015, get a grip! I do believe that the candidates, including Hillary Clinton, will be able to find room on their damned schedules to hold a whole plethora of events, in multiple settings, sometime over the next nine bloody months before the primaries even start. What say we actually let this campaign get out of its first trimester before blowing gaskets, no?
J R in WV
@germy shoemangler:
It’s politics as usual. The right wing knows that everyone in their office would take Saudi money and slide it right into their hip pocket, so Hillary must be also too.
And even if they know she wouldn’t, since she isn’t broke any more, their policy is to tell the most damaging lies about her that they can dream up while smoking $100 bills.
What is hard to understand about right wing lies? The fact that media reports them as given truth? SOP for most reporters now-a-days as far as I can tell.
Mike J
@gene108:
There are 99 counties in Iowa. Are there 99 people who know who O’Malley is?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Please proceed, Governors
MomSense
@JustRuss:
I’m too am encouraged that HRC is talking about wage inequality and the challenges to families and communities when people are living in poverty. My only quibble would be that then Sen. Obama was talking about these issues at every event and even little gatherings from the first days of his campaign in 2007. I was an early campaigner in NH so maybe I was just exposed to it and didn’t have to rely on the media reporting. He was talking about how wages and salaries had stayed flat for decades while the cost of health insurance, education, housing, etc were rising. He was also tying in the foreclosure crisis, as it was then emerging, by talking about these rising costs and stagnant wages as the reason people were refinancing to try and leverage their home’s equity to pay for a health crisis or help with college tuition for their children. He was also talking about predatory lenders and needing to protect consumers.
srv
@germy shoemangler: Didn’t Hillary say they never made money on Whitewater and it was practically a charity?
Clearly, you don’t understand how ‘charity’ foundations work:
germy shoemangler
@srv: Where does the money go after it is donated to the Clinton Foundation?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
It was probably a mistake for HRC to directly associate herself with the CGI– as well-intenioned, overly-ambitious, over-sized, self-regarding and sloppy as its namesake– but as I understand it, people don’t just give money, they fund specific projects, so this Giustra guy’s money can probably be accounted for, and the Clintons can say, “that money built schools and clinics in this poor country, why do you hate the poor?”
feebog
@askew:
Your comments would have some merit if it was mid-October. However, this is mid-April, over a year and a half before the election, and HRC declared less than two weeks ago. How about you give the carping a rest until enough time has passed to really see what kind of campaign she is running?
Ruckus
@Kay:
The risk of the last few decades isn’t that we might lose, it’s that we will lose ground.
Even if the ACA is better (and it for sure is) the change stands a good chance of making some people’s life, if not worse, different. And we know that some will take advantage of any change to screw those they can, especially if it means an extra cent or three in their pocket. There may be that others will get something and I won’t slant, but a lot of this is – I will lose something and pay more for it. And I think a lot of this comes from the lack of much if any long term thinking.
Ruckus
@JoyfulA:
I like that no one working there is old enough that they couldn’t be my grandkids.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Despite what Dipshit Erectus has to say above, IF Hillary is pre-screening for campaign events (and aside from the word of Dipshit Erectus above, I’ve heard no such thing and would think the GOPpers would be all over that) then good for her, otherwise she’s going to be speaking to townhalls full of the Scooter Brigade and Teatards, and every question will be about Benghazi and Vince Foster.
Since we, as a party, seem to have an aversion to ratfucking GOP events, let’s at least make sure they can’t do it to us. Because they have a history of doing exactly that.
Ruckus
@Hildebrand:
At lunch the other day my boss asked when the election was, “Isn’t it next year?” When informed that yes it’s many, many months away, his reaction was to say, “It’s going to be a long, long time for all this crap.”
I’ll agree. If it’s not the right trying to lie their way into power so they can fuck over everyone, it’s the hard left decrying that we don’t live in a hard left utopia, where everyone farts rainbows and is nice to each other.
dogwood
No one seems to want to look at the reality of why Clinton has no challengers. She was “inevitable” in ’08 yet 5-6 credible candidates threw their hats into the ring. Why is that? Because in ’08 it was obvious that a democrat in the White House had the possibility of actually getting some things done for the first time in a long time. And they were right. However the door was only open for two years, and it ain’t gonna open back up in 2016. Running to be your party’s vetoer in chief isn’t that appealing. Dems who want challengers to move Hillary to the left just want to get some emotional political satisfaction out of the process. Hillary could be forced to move to the left of Bernnie Sanders in the primaries and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference because Congress won’t be moving with her.
Cervantes
@askew:
Here is O’Malley in Cambridge yesterday.
Hildebrand
@dogwood: Hmm, not sure if I agree with that argument. Most politicians with national ambitions would say, ‘whereas Obama couldn’t get anything done, because – insert beltway nonsense about Obama not schmoozing here…I will be able to melt their stone-cold hearts with my munificence and manly/womanly candor, wit, and persuasiveness.’
I think a bunch of folks have decided they don’t want to have to thread the needle (even smaller this time, because of Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State), that Obama had to in 2008. Let Hillary either win or lose this time around, most of the Democrats with national ambitions have the luxury of waiting, or are going to start angling for the VP slot.
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Hildebrand:
@feebog:
The very first primary (the Iowa caucuses) will happen on January 18, 2016. That is NINE MONTHS from now. Many states haven’t even set their primary dates yet.
So, yes, I’m with you guys — maybe we should wait, I don’t know, until we’re at least six months out from the very first primary before we declare the campaign over?
cokane
It’s definitely mega unfair to call Clinton a shallow candidate.
askew
@mai naem mobile:
Her appearances remind me of Selena Mayer’s on Veep. Just off and oddly awkward but without the humor. But, the bare minimum is all she can do and that is all many expect from her so we’ll see if that is good enough to excite the general public.
Betty Cracker
@dogwood: I think another factor in 2008 was that since GWB was a two-term fuckup and wildly unpopular in the 2nd half of his last term, the Dem candidates knew that if they could nab the nomination, they’d have an excellent chance to win the general election.
It’s a much harder feat to get elected president when you’re following a two-term president from your own party. I’m trying to recall who all has done it, and the only one I can remember off hand is Bush I. (Well, technically, so did Gore, but we all know how that turned out.)
Frightening to think that no matter which corrupt buffoon the GOP settles on, that person will have an excellent chance of winning. I guess that’s always true, but it feels MORE true this time than last.
low-tech cyclist
@dogwood:
You’re right: she was “inevitable” in ’08. What you overlook is that she wasn’t inevitable in ’08. (Note the absence of quotes there.)
She had a respectable but hardly overwhelming advantage in polls in 2007, and her people tried to paint her as inevitable in order to try to scare away competition (and scare donors away from the competition, I’m sure). As it turned out, the “hardly overwhelming” part was important.
This time, her lead in the polls for the Dem nomination IS overwhelming. That’s enough explanation of why nobody’s challenging her. Who exactly would be the bigfoot that could slug it out with her? Biden? He’s not waiting for a better opportunity; at his age, 2016 is now or never. And unless Al Gore comes out of retirement 16 years after his last campaign, it’s hard to see who’s got the stature to take her on.
People run for President when they think they’ve got a chance. Eight (or even four) years later, your opportunity may have passed. Dan Quayle didn’t run in 1996, figuring he’d wait for 2000. But by 1999, Bush had sucked up any oxygen that a Quayle campaign might’ve gotten that year. 1996 was Quayle’s best opportunity, but he waited for a better one, and it never came and never will. Most pols know this.
dogwood
@Betty Cracker:
Good points. I also think that Clinton has a very good chance of securing the White House in ’16, but holding onto it in 2020 will be the bigger challenge. That could well be a “change” election. And unfortunately for us, 2020 is a census/redistricting year.
jl
@lawguy:
” How many wars is our current Peace Prize winning democratic president currently involving us in? ”
Probably another reason in Mair’s opinion about why HRC is sooooo boooorrring. Not enough war and bomb talk.
‘bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iraq ‘ is a catchy riff on the Beach Boys. That’s exciting!
Edit: Though in the past, HRC has issued talk that in my opinion is a little too exciting on that front. Maybe she thought she had to position herself against Obama on it 2008 primary. I hope her views have ‘evolved’. But even so, shows what canned BS and boilerplate Mair is emitting.
Frankensteinbeck
We correctly despite politicians (George Bush) who rely on managed photo ops and shield themselves from criticisms and real question. To complain about that at this stage of Hillary’s campaign is like complaining there’s no character development during the opening credits of a movie. It’s not time for that.
When Hillary does do the open town halls, and that kind of thing, I expect trouble. Note that unlike with Obama, Trump didn’t even bother to try and cover himself, however clumsily. It was straight to nasty comments about her sex life. Note the defiled grave. This is just the beginning. Conservatives think women are weak and vulnerable, and that open misogyny will not result in public shaming. Obama they desperately wanted to stop. Hillary they will try to hurt, and they will feel no need for restraint.
scav
@dogwood: 2020 is a data gathering year, no? Need to process that data before they can redistrict, at least if they play by the traditional rules. Digital is wonderful, so granted, preliminary counts might go faster than previously, but getting it through the spatial modeling and political processing before the election might be a bit tight.
NonyNony
@Betty Cracker:
Let’s see – if we’re going with post-WWII we have a variety of odd circumstances to deal with:
* Truman was elected after a multi-term president holding office (unless you want to get technical with me about “two-terms”).
* Eisenhower had two terms, but then Nixon distanced himself from Eisenhower during his run and didn’t try to push the whole “if you liked Ike, let’s have four more years of the same”. It was only at the end of the campaign that he got Eisenhower to come in and help him (and supposedly it helped).
* Kennedy didn’t get two terms, so Johnson isn’t an example of anything
* Johnson had one term on his own, but then refused to run for a second term because Vietnam. So Nixon in ’68 isn’t an example of anything either.
* Nixon had two terms, but didn’t finish his second and left under such a cloud that there was no way Gerald Ford was going to take it. Had the GOP run someone else in 1976 who knows? The ’76 election is a weird one for precedent.
* Reagan had two terms, got Bush elected right after him.
* Clinton had two terms – 2000 election was so close that shennanigans in Florida were enough for the SCOTUS to swing it. (My take is that Gore didn’t learn the lesson of Nixon in 1960 – it doesn’t matter how you feel about the current President, if things are going good you WANT his goddamn endorsement and help on your campaign.)
* Bush gets two terms. Economy tanks so hard on his watch that, as with Ford in ’76, it’s hard to take it as precedent for anything other than “don’t be the guy trying to follow the guy who really f’ed things up”.
* Obama gets two terms. ?
I mean yes it is factually true to state that since WWII we haven’t had many examples of a president holding two terms and then someone from the same party taking over. But it’s also true that there has been so much weirdness in there that it’s hard to tell what “typical” is supposed to be. The closest example we have here with Obama is probably the end of Reagan’s second term or the end of Eisenhower’s second term or the end of Clinton’s second term – and even there since Biden isn’t the heir apparent the way that Bush the Elder, Nixon and Gore were it’s hard to even say it’s all that similar. Every hand off seems to be somewhat unique, and trying to aggregate the small sampling of weird into a general rule of thumb seems like a recipe for madness.
(I will say I hope to Grod she’s learned the Lesson Of Nixon that Gore didn’t learn, though. If she tries to distance herself from Obama then I predict she’s screwed.)
Tom Q
@Betty Cracker: First of all, you’re correct, that the 2008 election was a slam-dunk for the non-incumbent party. Bush’s almost-unprecedented series of fuck-ups (foreign policy fiasco AND economic meltdown) meant any Democrat — Hillary, Joe Biden, whoever — was going to win convincingly. Much as I love Barack, it’s even possible his racial breakthrough made the race closer than it might have been, at least in popular vote terms. The election was a lay-down.
2016 will be different, but it won’t be a jump-ball, and, despite what you’ll hear from the shallow-analysis team over the next year and a half, it definitely won’t favor the out-party. The notion that it’s extremely difficult for a party to elect a new president after a two-term presidency is belied by lots of history — the GOP held the White House for six straight terms from 1860-1884 (granted, 1876 was stolen, but even there you’re talking four straight terms), for 16 straight years from 1896-1912, and three straight terms from 1920-1932. Then of course the Dems had five consecutive terms from 1932-1952. It’s only the post-war era where this alleged third-term-itch has appeared, and even there you had Bush succeeding Reagan and, in a fair count, Gore succeeding Clinton. To look at all that contradictory evidence and reduce it to “voters are apt to switch after eight years” is a very superficial reading, and it leads to silly conclusions.
I’ve advocated here in the past for Lichtman’s Keys to the Presidency system, which has a fairly elaborate set of criteria for judging whether a party holds onto the White House in any given election year. Simplifying his system as much as possible, it seems to show that there are two base-line reasons why the incumbent party loses the White House — a recession during the campaign period (which determined 1920, 1932, 1960 and 2008), or a serious intra-party fight for the presidential nomination. This is a hugely underrated factor in parties’ losing elections — everyone can see the impact of 1912, where Roosevelt stayed on as third-party spoiler, or 1968, when the Dems were fatally split. But the failure to quickly decide on a successor candidate also affected 1952, and the intra-party split was crucial in 1976 and 1980.
Before someone brings it up: 2008 Democratic primary isn’t a counter-example, because the factor applies ONLY to the incumbent party. Out-parties often have spirited nomination battles — Dems in ’32, GOP in ’52 and ’80, Dems in ’92 and ’08 — but they’ve never impacted the election outcome, because elections are fundamentally referenda on the state of the incumbency. A bruising intra-party fight in the party that holds the White House is generally a sign of weakness: that the party is not united enough to keep power. This is why, contrary to this two-terms-and-out theory, parties have sometimes found it quite easy to hold onto presidential power despite being two terms or more into incumbency. The ease with which the GOP chose Hoover in ’28 or Bush in ’88 said that the party knew where it stood, and wanted a continuation of the current (popular) administration. Contrarily, the wild Dem primary fights of 1952 and 1968 reflected an unease among voters with the current incumbent, presaging the party’s defeat in the Fall.
All of this is why I disagree fundamentally with the notion being batted about, that Hillary facing a bruising challenge in the primaries will be good for her. The opposite is true: the fact that Hillary seems able to coast to the nomination is a gift to Democrats, comparable to the GOP settling on Grant in 1868 — in a year when the usual successor, the VP, was not a viable candidate, the party somehow manages to settle quickly on a nominee, and that can eliminate the often-fatal wound inflicted by primary squabbles.
I know none of this is likely to win over Hillary-skeptics (nothing shortly of Hillary seppuku will satisfy askew), but it’s serious history one ought to take a look at. And it’s got a lot more data behind it than a simple “voters could go either way after two terms”.
Betty Cracker
@NonyNony: Excellent points all around; you’ve convinced me there isn’t really a “typical,” at least recently.
NonyNony
As another data point in this analysis, I would give the 1980 Democratic primary, where Carter faced a primary battle against Ted Kennedy that really didn’t seem to do any favors to the Democratic Party’s chances that election cycle.
Cervantes
@NonyNony:
In some ways (or in unguarded moments) Eisenhower was almost openly hostile to NIxon’s candidacy.
Betty Cracker
@Tom Q: That makes a whole lot of sense — thank you. Would you mind if I recapped that theory (that a spirited primary for the in-party wouldn’t necessarily be good for the Democrats) for a front-page post at some point, with attribution, of course? I think the discussion would be interesting.
dogwood
@scav:
2020 is a data collecting year, and the people who are elected to state legislatures in 2020 and take office in 2021 will be doing the redistricting after the census bureau releases its reports. I said “census/redistricting” simply to shorten things up. I guess I wrongly assumed that people would get my drift.
Tom Q
@Betty Cracker: Of course. But be prepared: people will oppose it ferociously — some because it conflicts with what they want to believe, and others who simply reject the idea that any kind of patterns can be seen in the chaos of presidential elections. Lichtman developed his system after the 1980 election, and has since correctly predicted every single presidential election — yet every time I point it out to people, there are those who dismiss it out of hand.
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Tom Q:
As Kay keeping pointing out, people like stability much more than pundits seem to realize. It makes sense that people would prefer a continuation of what’s working until it’s clearly not working anymore.
cokane
@Betty Cracker: The sample size you’re using is too small to be significant. Especially if we’re talking about US politics only from say the 1960s onward, which is logical considering that’s basically how long you can date the current ideological alignment of the parties.
scav
@dogwood: There is the basic ambiguity about whether we’d be battling the effects of redistricting and gerrymandering or attempting to get in place the political control of the process. The first tends be be the default whine, which is why I jumped in. GSD we need politicos out of the process entirely, in that impossible ideal world.
Tree With Water
When it comes to solidifying her supporters, Hillary must thank God every day for the caliber of her enemies..
satby
@NonyNony: I and a lot of my liberal friends back then ended up voting for Anderson partly because of his anti-war stance and because Carter (who we thought was wishy washy) was the nominee. Last time I ever made that mistake, and I believe Anderson still holds the record for votes as a third party candidate.
A strong primary really hurt Carter that year. I dread those kinds of things now.
Comrade Luke
This win Worst Person in the World: Texas Vet Fired After Posting About Cat She’d Allegedly Killed.
Posting here, because I’m so goddamned pissed about it, and this is an animal lover zone…