Morning Ed: World {2016.07.14.Th}

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

81 Responses

  1. Damon says:

    Clothing: “However, the United States and the United Kingdom, the largest exporters of second-hand clothing, can also help to mitigate the problem by recognizing the effects of the second-hand donations on other markets and working with the governments and people of impacted countries to reduce the unintended consequences of the donation market.” Good question. The article didn’t provide any answers though.

    Toilet: Yep. Doubt anyone could not notice that. Gotta be intentional.

    Muslim brotherhood in Sweden: Time to panic!!!!!! OMG OMG OMGReport

  2. Jaybird says:

    Seeing a lot of “Hey! Maybe we can unbind delegates!” on my twitter timeline.

    When you use a trick that only works once, you pretty much need to make sure that the trick works the one time you can get away with using it.Report

    • Will Truman in reply to Jaybird says:

      Sort of. Unbound delegates is not a “trick” exactly. it’s the norm. This is the first elections in which the delegates are all bound by RNC rules. So having unbound delegates isn’t a one-time thing.

      Changing the rules to overturn a primary outcome would be. Which is one of a handful of reason I don’t expect it to happen.

      I’m honestly on the fence. Early on, when I thought Trump had a shot in November, I thought they should do whatever it takes. When he slid and it looked less likely, I moved more towards a “Let him lose” position. His conduct since the end of the primary, though, has moved me towards “The party would be justified to use every lever it has” (and to some extent, if you don’t use them now, they effectively don’t exist anyway).

      Ultimately, though, doing this would require a degree of coordination that the party lacks and that, if the party had it, would not be in this position in the first place.Report

      • dragonfrog in reply to Will Truman says:

        Not to mention, if the party machinated to change its rules at the 11th hour, what credibility would the chosen candidate have – and why would party members bother to vote in future primaries, knowing the party is willing to change all the rules if it doesn’t like the effects of democracy?Report

        • Will Truman in reply to dragonfrog says:

          The ability to change the rules is one of the rules. The last word was explicitly given to not-the-voters. The main question is whether or not to play that… errr… trump card this time around. Whether the disaster threshold is sufficiently met by him.

          To me, that hinges on whether or not he has a chance in November. Losing an election because of terrible primary voters is one thing. Putting Trump in the White House is another. That’s how I view it, anyway. The delegates see things differently.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

            I don’t think that anybody is disputing the… what? Right? Power? Ability? of the party leaders to do this thing.

            I think that what they’re arguing about is the extent to which the village that they’ll be saving will be destroyed by their intervention.Report

            • Will Truman in reply to Jaybird says:

              There is no obvious answer to that question.

              If it’s David Duke, it’s worth doing. If it’s Ted Cruz, it’s not worth doing. Where does Trump fall in that spectrum?

              You don’t know that until you know what the next four months look like. And we won’t know that for another four months.

              But unadulterated Trumpism is the future of the party, then there is nothing to save. You’re not doing it it save. You’re doing it for a different reason.

              As it stands, though, I don’t know which path leads to the fastest route of defeating this and getting back to a better place. If there is one. If there is not, see the previous paragraph.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

        I don’t want to get all “moral authority” because we’re talking about the people who nominated Mittler Rommelney but it seems to me that the twisted, Uruk-Hai, version of moral authority that the Republicans have would be internally damaged for at least until the primaries for 2018 and it’s as likely to result in a Tea Party on Orc Draught for those elections as the party leaders setting everything right.

        “You’re not in charge. We’re in charge. Hey. Where are you going?”Report

        • North in reply to Jaybird says:

          I don’t know why but I burst out cackling uncontrollably and tented my fingers. I shouldn’t have; the country would be better off if the engines on both wings were running.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to North says:

            I’m still noticing how many, erm, “incidents” we’ve had so far this summer and wondering if we’re going to have more.

            And wondering if there is a number of incidents that would impact the election negatively.

            And, by negatively, I mean “in Trump’s favor to the point where he’s going to be doing a better job of convincing undecideds than Hillary will be.”

            I’ve also been wondering about whether there is a Bradley effect and “undecided” is a much more socially acceptable way to say “Trump”.

            I’ve been wondering about Brexit.

            Surely Hillary has this in the bag, no?Report

            • Will Truman in reply to Jaybird says:

              Polling of Brexit was fine. It predicted a close outcome and that’s what happened.

              Not worried about Trump until he hits the high 40’s outside of Rasmussen.

              Polling in the GOP primary actually exaggerated Trump’s support until the end when voters were moving towards him.

              With Pence, he might get more than 50% saying they prefer him as the nominee. At least temporarily. He has a lot of numbers that need fixing.

              So does Hillary, but not quite the same climb. I think it’ll be easier for her to get supporters back than Trump to get support he never had.Report

              • Kim in reply to Will Truman says:

                But Trump can outflank HIllary. It’s just a question of whether he wants to or not.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

                Well, in the days that followed Brexit, I was gobsmacked by the sheer number of “but I don’t know anyone who voted for Brexit!” kinda essays that showed up.

                Do we know anyone who voted for Trump?Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Jaybird says:

                Over half of the readers of Hit Coffee (excluding OT crossovers!) probably are: ScarletNumber, Kirk, Peter, Omega (maybe), Phi, Dave Hackensack.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

                I’m not really interested (yet) in “will vote for Trump”. I understand that there is a dynamic now where people will feel that they have to choose between one of the two “real” parties.

                I’m more interested in whether we know anyone who voted for him in the primaries.

                If the answer to that question is “no”, we’re still in a very weird place.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Jaybird says:

                Dave Hackensack (Trumper Dave) did and has been with him since the beginning. Peter and ScarletNumber are registered Democrats, so they couldn’t vote for him in the primary. I suspect Phi did vote for him in the primary.

                With the exception of Omega, just about all of the people I listed are people that wanted Trump to win the GOP primary.

                Outside of HC but still online, there’s also Lion and Ed. Lion has been with Trump since the start. Ed was officially neutral in the primary, but was always Trump-curious and I think by the time the primaries got him, Trump was his preference of the three. Trump has been trying his patience lately, though.

                Which is sort of a thing on Twitter right now. A number of people that aren’t Trumpers, but want to like and support him or at least be okay with him, are having their job made difficult by Trump’s behavior.

                People I know offline supporting Trump are few and far between, I will admit. But we have polls we can look at. They’re indicating what is now a pretty low ceiling.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

                Hrm. They should comment here more.

                I keep trying to try on a pro-Trump mindset to explore Trumpism and I’m certain that I’m doing it wrong.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Jaybird says:

                Most of them have tried commenting over here. It didn’t go well.

                If you want to enter Trumpworld, Lion’s blog is here. That’s where a lot of these people came from.

                Dave and Ed are on Twitter. I haven’t mentioned Jonathan, and his account is often locked, but you can try.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

                Thank you.

                I’ve started following all three.Report

              • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                Not very oddly i’ve met people who can’t believe anybody every voted for Obama since they don’t’ any D’s.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                “I can’t believe anybody would vote for X” is not the same statement as “I don’t know anybody who did vote for X”.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                My own circles were full of Brits furious that they didn’t bother voting because they thought remain was obviously going to win.Report

              • Kim in reply to North says:

                A friend of a friend spent 4 minutes crying — straight.
                Then he put it on youtube.Report

            • Aaron David in reply to Jaybird says:

              @jaybird those are all DogWhistles!Report

            • North in reply to Jaybird says:

              What I haven’t seen from the various incidents is any sign of Trump making much political hay on them .That’s a horrible thing to say but everyone presumed that that kind of stuff would redound to his benefit. Maybe it’s just because Trump stepped in it royally when they happened, maybe it’s because the attacks have mostly (correctly IMHO) been attributed to mental loons rather than terrorist machinations but I haven’t seen much Trump bounce.

              Right now HRC seems to be doing pretty well. Bernie being nailed down and Emailgazi were the biggest uncertainty in my mind. The former is done with and the latter ended up without criminal charges which means it’s going to be an administrative nothingburger in the general populations mind come November. So yeah the big hurdles seem past.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to North says:

                I have long-since thought that reports that Trump would “pivot” to be exaggerated, but he’s really been a worse candidate than I thought he would be. Not in the sense of getting me to vote for him, because obviously that’s not going to happen. But keeping people on the fence and from embracing him? He’s actually made that easier than expected. Some people I thought were going to turn haven’t.

                That being said, HRC is not “doing well.” She’s just running against Donald J Trump.Report

              • North in reply to Will Truman says:

                In that this contest is a binary between her and Trump (with the obligatory Kodos reference re third parties) doing well and “just running against Donald J Trump” is pretty much synonymous.Report

  3. dragonfrog says:

    I guess I have to watch Gundam now.

    Also, a terrible sounding kid’s movie called ‘The Impossible Elephant’, which was shot in Saskatoon when I lived there, and I accidentally rode my bike through a shot. They’d closed off the street for the shoot, but I left for school through the back alley, inside their exclusion zone. So one of the first sights of my ride was an elephant walking down the street behind my parents’ house – I only noticed the camera crew a moment later. They almost certainly didn’t keep that take, but I guess I’ll only know if I watch it…Report

  4. notme says:

    First Manchin, now McCaskill

    McCaskill: Founding Fathers ‘Maniacal’ for Wanting Separation of Powers

    So sorry, lady.

    Theses are the folks that accuse Trump of wanting to be a dictator.Report

    • North in reply to notme says:

      And properly so, it was over then line. I’m glad most of my tribe called it out and I’m glad she had the self awareness to walk it back.Report

      • Troublesome Frog in reply to North says:

        Seconded. This is how it should go. A number of her natural allies were honest enough to call it out as bad behavior and she did the right thing by admitting that she screwed up. How often does either of those things happen in politics?

        I also happen to think it’s super important that she publicly admitted that it was inappropriate. That would have been a bad precedent to set, and having an example of a justice having to publicly walk her remarks back should serve as a cautionary example. If she hadn’t, the standard would be set the same as it currently is for every other branch of government: Nothing is inappropriate as long as the only consequence is shame and you’re completely shameless.Report

    • North in reply to notme says:

      A pity, Newt would have been so much fun but Pence is definitely an objectively better pick.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to North says:

        Although now I wonder that not being beholden to Trump makes Newt and Christie free to be the loose cannons once again, and decide to hire back on to the Never Trumpers.Report

        • Not sure the audience will be very receptive to either. I do expect Newt to be more critical going forward. Christie’s lot is cast and may see an AG slot if things go improbably well.Report

        • North in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          Newt maybe, but probably not as we’re in election season and he does not want to poison the well, he knows where his paycheck comes from.

          Christie? Definitely not. As Trumwill noted he has job prospects in a potential Trump admin. What the hell would he get from the left if he criticized Trump? A part time job at Chuck-e-Cheese?Report

          • Will Truman in reply to North says:

            OTOH, I forgot the whole bit about Christie humiliating and putting Trump’s son-in-law’s father in jail. If he’s blackballed, who knows what he will do.

            Apart from sitting in a dark room, smoking a cigarette, and listening to “Atlantic City” on repeat, as I presume he is presently doing.Report

            • North in reply to Will Truman says:

              Maybe a part time job at Check-e-Cheese? Do they have those in Jersey? I hear employees get to take all the leftover pizza they want home with them after close.Report

      • Aaron David in reply to North says:

        God, the idea of a Gingrich/Warren debate is awesome. The DerpLOL’s would last for days between the two and their true believers.

        (This is assuming that HRC would be silly enough to bring on someone who is on video attacking her.)Report

        • North in reply to Aaron David says:

          I would be surprised if Hillary picks Warren. Not gobsmacked surprised but surprised. Maybe if Bernie had gone rogue or something but with her left wing mostly nailed down (about as much as possible) I don’t see a burning need for her to tap Warren.Report

          • Kim in reply to North says:

            Wes Clark then? I think his time has passed, sad to say.Report

            • North in reply to Kim says:

              No way in hell. I don’t know who it’ll be but certainly not a flipping general. Hawkishness is not in vogue right now, last thing she needs is to look more hawkish than her normal tendencies already paint her.Report

              • Kim in reply to North says:

                hawkishness is rarely in vogue among democrats, but indies and republicans like it.
                Hell, I’ll be more specific. Colorado and Virginia like it.Report

              • North in reply to Kim says:

                Indies don’t like it particularly right now. And she doesn’t need to court right wing hawks, Trump is driving them out with a pitchfork. And, let’s face it, their ain’t many votes in hawkishness right now.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to North says:

                She’s vetting some general. I can’t remember the name, but it’s not Clark.

                One theory is that she’s trying to goad Trump into picking Flynn.Report

              • CK MacLeod in reply to Will Truman says:

                “Stavrides” – retired Admiral. But she can’t pick him because it would violate the “one-syllable name = strength” rule, and isn’t a big part of the idea of picking a military MAN to convey stronger than strong strength vs. the Strongman on the other side?Report

              • North in reply to Will Truman says:

                No doubt she’s trying a little 3d chess but I’d be very astonished if she went with a service member for Veep.Report

              • greginak in reply to North says:

                Oh come on “3d chess”? She play at least 5th or 6th D chess. 3D isn’t actually all that impressive.Report

              • North in reply to greginak says:

                It’s Hillary, I don’t think anyone has suggested she’s an earthshakingly good politician let alone political strategist.Report

              • greginak in reply to North says:

                Well i’ve suggested she is a solid average pol so i think she can do 3 D’s and usually even 4.Report

        • Kim in reply to Aaron David says:

          Gingrich has true believers? say it ain’t so!Report

    • dragonfrog in reply to notme says:

      How inconsiderate! Doesn’t he know there’s a veepstakes fundraiser going on?Report

    • Will Truman in reply to notme says:

      (Originally retweeted by Trumper Dave, who I may have talked about.)


      • Report

      • PD Shaw in reply to Will Truman says:

        Coulter wrote a recent piece incorrectly assuming Lincoln had picked Hamlin as his Veep, and that the selection gave clarity of message because Hamlin was also opposed to slavery (zounds!!!). The Convention, not Lincoln, selected Hamlin as a means of reaching-out to the disgruntled New Yorkers who had supported runner-up Seward, but neither Seward nor anyone else from NY wanted to be Veep, and the Maine delegation approached the New York delegation and offered Hamlin, who wasn’t as offensive to New Yorkers as others being considered.

        Pence seems to fit that role, he’s the conservative governor who represents the conservatives and governors that lost out on the nomination, none of whom wanted the job themselves.Report

        • Will Truman in reply to PD Shaw says:

          Pence is (was?) about as good a pick as he can manage. He’s not all that popular with conservatives right now. Or moderates. But he’s acceptable to both, and the congressional delegations like him a lot.

          I kind of want to criticize the pick, but the only knock is that he’s not likely to be good at his job of defending Trump inanity. But picking somebody who is, like Newt, kind of doubles down on it.Report

          • PD Shaw in reply to Will Truman says:

            I’m surprised Jim Webb didn’t get more traction in the discussions. Seems like Trump needs to do two things, seal-up the Republican base and go to the middle, possibly even the left of Hillary. I don’t feel like Gingrich or Cristy would have helped with either. Pence seems to be a reasonable signal to traditional Republicans, when probably few traditional Republicans wanted the job.Report

  5. notme says:

    FBI knew Orlando shooter lied to them.

    I wonder if these were the same folks investigating Hillary?Report

  6. Jaybird says:

    How difficult would it be to make someone else’s house a Pokestop that is more likely to have rarish pokemans?

    Asking for a friend.Report

    • North in reply to Jaybird says:

      Et tu Jaybird? People keep roaming around the parking lot behind our condo bumping into each other and yelling out things like “Ratatata!” Or “Team Mystic!” I assumed they were drunks but they’re too well dressed. Even the local drunks think they’re weird.Report

    • Damon in reply to Jaybird says:

      I saw a video of this game.

      Shesh it looks stupid. I’d rather be casting spells, slaying monsters, and having hot sex with sorceresses, aka WitcherReport

    • Chris in reply to Jaybird says:

      Come to the Texas Capitol. I have seen dozens, I suspect into the hundreds, of people playing over the last few days. Apparently there are many Pokemon and a gem there. Just today I overheard a conversation about Charmander, whom I remember from when my son played Pokemon in elementary school.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

      Something I was skimming the other day said that Pokéstops are a subset of Ingress portals from Niantic’s previous game, and that Niantic isn’t accepting suggestions for new portals. So, a matter of hacking the database, I suppose…Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain says:

        You’d think that they’d want to monetize that. “We should make our ice cream parlor a pokestop.” That sort of thing.

        I mean, you’d get people walking through your front door. They’ve got a cell phone… it’s July… presumably they have money enough for the phone (or mom/dad does) and if they’re in the store anyway…Report