Morning Ed: Food {2016.10.19.W}

Will Truman

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

Related Post Roulette

124 Responses

  1. LeeEsq says:

    Kitkats: American junk food always seemed limited compared to the junk food of other countries when I traveled abroad or read about it. The Japanese and others seem to really experiment a lot with their snakes in a way that Americans don’t. You can’t imagine an American company trying to sell horseradish kitkats in the United States.

    Bitrix: This should be common sense.Report

    • Kim in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Of course I can. They sell hot pepper chocolate. Why not horseradish?Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Paprika Pringles, so damn good, unavailable in the states.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Flavored white chocolate isn’t really a thing in the US, but it’s a common component of a lot of candies in Japan. They’ll take white chocolate (or usually something based on cheaper fats like palm or palm kernel oil) and blend in various flavors. The most common is probably matcha, but I’ve seen strawberry, banana, orange, purple sweet potato, chestnut, mango, pizza, cherry, cheese, cola, lamune (a type of lemon soda), and probably a few others that escape my mind at the moment. These are either served in bar form or used as a coating for various bases (like wafers, in the case of Kit-Kats).

      By the way, the wasabi Kit-Kats are available on Amazon. At $20 for a 5-oz box.Report

  2. Mustard is King article:

    I agree with the normative argument. Mustard is king and ketchup shouldn’t be on any hotdog I’m going to eat. And moving to Big City has introduced me to the “hot dog with mustard and hot peppers.” I just never had had hot peppers on a hot dog before. All to the good.

    But I disagree with the descriptive argument, to wit:

    Coming into consciousness in the Midwest, one is raised knowing that to put ketchup on a hot dog is like wearing diapers to middle school—some people are going to do it, but you don’t want to be one of them unless absolutely, medically necessary.

    No. Chicago–or “Chicagoland”–is not the whole Midwest. My observation living here is that people from the part of the Midwest that is not Chicagoland love ketchup. Freakishly so. They put it on eggs, on spaghetti, and a whole bunch of other things ketchup should never go onto.Report

  3. Damon says:

    Kit Kat? Not only is the candy bad, the commercials are annoying as hell. Will…never….buy.

    Food Miles: Wait a few years, everything is always not what it at first seems. This isn’t surprising.

    Mountain Dew: It’s the devil! I used to drink this when I was a kid for the caffeine. Now I can’t stomach it.

    Taco Bell menu: why would you make this when you could make better?

    Condiments: I’d agree, generally mustard rocks.Report

    • Gabriel Conroy in reply to Damon says:

      Taco Bell menu: why would you make this when you could make better?

      I agree. It’s easy to make something a lot better. Even frying up some hamburger and mixing in taco seasoning is better. Hell, you can even heat up a can of refried beans and spread it on a tortilla–add cheese, onion, hot sauce–and you’d do better.

      Having said that, sometimes I’m just in the mood for Taco Bell. But part of the appeal is not having to make it.Report

      • Damon in reply to Gabriel Conroy says:

        “But part of the appeal is not having to make it.”

        I get that…that’s valid for some folks. Personally, I like to go out to eat at places where I can’t make the food myself. I can make tacos, etc. and have. Did so for the Superbowl. That’s why most of my take out is indian or thai or sushiReport

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Damon says:

      Taco Bell is the Bell Labs of Stoner food.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Damon says:

      Mountain Dew: It’s the devil! I used to drink this when I was a kid for the caffeine. Now I can’t stomach it

      Same here. Gives me horrible indigestionReport

    • Atomic Geography in reply to Damon says:

      Re: Mountain Dew

      The diagnosis phase of my brain injury required a spinal tap. Afterwards, the hole in your spinal canal might not seal properly leading to a truly massive headache. Which is what I experienced. There is a procedure to seal the hole, but before doing it the doc prescribed a six pack of Mountain Dew for me to drink overnight. The caffeine promotes the formation of spinal fluid, thus reliving the headache and hopefully allowing the hole to seal up on its own. Alas in my case I still needed the sealing procedure. But the Mountain Dew did help the headache somewhat.Report

  4. Saul Degraw says:

    This is super-OT but it needs to be discussed and I don’t know where else to put it:

    Can we talk about how remarkable Trump’s statements are and how unusual they are in American history and democracy where concession from the loser has been taken from granted in almost every election except 1860.* But the statement is so remarkable that the NY Times and WSJ made it a front-page headline.

    *I admit the Civil War was a very big exception.Report

    • Kolohe in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      It’s bad, and it means he shouldn’t get his hands on any real power…

      ..but yet it’s been overblown.

      The executive branch of the Federal government is currently controlled by people that are not Trump’s allies. So a Trump loss really doesn’t interfere with the commonly used phrase ‘peaceful transfer of power’ – because that’s trivially easy when it’s Obama handing over to Clinton.

      In 1860, the problem was not only the lack of recognition of Lincoln’s win in a considerable part of the nation – it was also people in Buchanan’s cabinet and Buchanan himself actively undermining the Federal government during the lame duck period. (even if the Buchanan government did just leave when the time came)

      and in 1876, the South was bought off by ending Reconstruction to end any complaints (& many valid complaints) about Tilden being robbed.

      (for JQA, Congress obstructed his administration to a degree that make modern republicans look like Era of Good Feelings. And Gore’s loss led to a federal government where both White House and Congress were in the same party’s hands, so there really wasn’t any mechanism to complain, until Jeffords switched. And then 9/11 happened, mooting it all)

      eta:(BTW, don’t you have posting privilege to put Off Topic stuff in an Off the Cuff post?)Report

      • Tod Kelly in reply to Kolohe says:


        It’s bad, and it means he shouldn’t get his hands on any real power…

        ..but yet it’s been overblown.

        No, it hasn’t. And not because of any ridiculous notion that Donald Trump somehow poses some kind of threat to the Republic. (Because, what, the Founders’ genius of a template could somehow survive slavery, civil war, Constitutional amendments that literally changed the nation and all kinds of outside enemies, but it somehow can’t survive a reality TV show host can with bad hair?)

        The coverage isn’t overblown because Trump had one goal and one goal only going into this debate: He needed to be disciplined enough to make independents, moderate conservatives, and women not wonder if he lacked the discipline and temperament to be President. As everyone on Fox was saying last night, he knew the question was coming, and he still stuck his foot in it, saying almost the exact opposite of what his campaign had been saying all week.

        No matter what positive ideas he might want to push forward in the next three weeks, this is going to be all anyone talks about — and every GOPer in public office is going to get asked to comment on it for the next week at least.

        It’s not a threat to Democracy, but the level of coverage is warranted.Report

        • LeeEsq in reply to Tod Kelly says:

          Republicans have also been raising the specter of voting fraud for years and are now aghast that their candidate took these fears to the most plausible level.Report

          • notme in reply to LeeEsq says:

            Voter fraud happens despite liberal denials of it. See below where Podesta is encouraging voter fraud.


            No wonder Dems want illegals to have licenses.Report

            • Mo in reply to notme says:

              Where does Podesta encourage voter fraud? That’s Gatewaypundit’s commentary. How is this different from saying Trump’s “2nd Amendment people” comment wasn’t encouraging the assassination of Clinton? If the most uncharitable interpretation of your political opponents applies to them, it applies to you.Report

              • notme in reply to Mo says:

                John Podesta: I think Teddy’s idea scratches the itch, is pretty safe and uncomplicated.
                On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.

                Is that simple enough for you?Report

              • Mo in reply to notme says:

                Where in those two sentences is the encouragement of voter fraud? Keeping in mind that attestations by the principals are part of Trump’s “extreme vetting”.Report

              • Kim in reply to notme says:

                showing up with a picture id is a DIFFERENT idea than “attesting you are a citizen”

                The second one, if done by someone who isn’t, is obviously illegal and ought to have consequences (you’re the lawyer — civil or criminal?).Report

              • J_A in reply to notme says:

                As a person who had a valid and legal Texas drivers license 18 years before I was a citizen, and 11 years before I was a green card holder permanent resident, no, it’s not simple enough to me.

                The drivers license says nothing about whether or not you are a citizen. It only proves you are you, and, by the way, that you know how to drive.

                That’s the reason why drivers licenses -on their own- are not valid documents to register as a voter, like a passport is.

                But you either knew this, and chose to ignore it because you wanted to push a different meme, or you didn’t, in which case you talk a lot about things you know little.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to J_A says:

                I have never once in my entire life not had to show proof of citizenship to get a driver’s license, and this has been in multiple states.

                So, um, no, maybe you need to not be snipping about “you talk a lot about things you know little”.

                Although if you want to keep arguing about how it’s actually easier to commit voter fraud than even pro-ID people are suggesting, go ahead, but you might not like where that ends up.Report

              • Mo in reply to DensityDuck says:

                I just looked at my state voter registration form and the info it asks for are name, DOB, address, drivers license #, etc. and an attestation of citizenship. So this is literally proposing the exact same system that is in place today. It’s suggesting last minute voter registration.Report

              • J_A in reply to Mo says:

                Your citizenship is not written in your DL but it’s registered in the Driver Licenses system. If you register by mail they check it in the background.Report

              • Gaelen in reply to DensityDuck says:

                Huh? Why would you need to show citizenship to get a drivers license? Legal permanent residents also need to driveReport

              • J_A in reply to DensityDuck says:


                To get a drivers license -at least in Texas- you have to show proof of identity, and proof of lawful presence in the country.

                Your original foreign passport provides the former. Today there is a system called SAVE managed by the DHS, but this is after my time. In my days your original Social Security Card, or a valid non imgrigant visa provided the latter.

                Been there, done that. Unless you claim I was driving illegally for 18 years

                Here are the requirements for CT, which seem to be the same as Texas


                Of course, a US passport, or a US birth certificate, does both in one sweep. The passport is what I use now.

                So again, no, a drivers license is not proof of citizenship, and has never been. The fact that you have never had to concern yourself with whether or not you a citizen doesn’t mean there aren’t documents that prove citizenship, and documents that don’t.

                BTW, even though it’s not written in the DL itself, at least in Texas, your citizenship is registered in the system. When you become a citizen, it is recommended you get yourself a new drivers license so your citizenship is updatedReport

              • Mo in reply to J_A says:

                This sorta breaks down if you move from out of state. I’ve been able to use my old state DL as proof of ID. If you combine that with a SS card then there is nothing that indicates proof of citizenship.Report

              • J_A in reply to Mo says:

                For someone without access to some Federal database (*), none.

                It is proof of identity, and of being legally in the country. That’s all. But there’s plenty of people legally in the country that are not citizens

                (*) People with authority can input your DL number in the system and it will spit what citizenship you areReport

              • Road Scholar in reply to DensityDuck says:


                Which states? Because I’ve lived in eight and held a DL in, if I recall correctly, four of them*, and I can’t recall ever once having to provide proof of citizenship. In fact, the only times I can recall ever having to provide such, by producing a birth certificate, was when I joined the Navy and when I applied for a passport. Similarly, I can only recall twice having to produce a marriage certificate. Again, when I enlisted, and five years ago when I started this job and needed to sign my dependents up for insurance. In all other instances previously both statuses, citizenship and marriage, were accepted on the honor system.

                * I’ve resided in KS, CO, MO, IN, IL, VA, LA, and CT. I’ve held DLs in KS, MO, IL, and VA. A lot of those moves were while I was in the service and I only ever got a DL for that state if my old one happened to expire.Report

              • I’m getting old…

                From a Nebraska learners permit, to a Nebraska license, to a Texas license, to a NJ license, to a Colorado license, no one ever asked me to prove I was a citizen. No one ever asked me for citizenship documentation in order to register to vote in any of those states: they accepted the drivers license as proof of residency and took my word on the citizenship part.

                There was some problems getting my first passport because the US Navy and the State of California didn’t do documents of sufficient quality when I was born. These days, I keep my passport current because starting over if it expires is so likely to be an enormous hassle.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain says:

                My (first) (New York) driver’s license required a birth certificate.

                For what that’s worth.Report

              • dragonfrog in reply to Jaybird says:

                A birth certificate doesn’t really prove citizenship.

                If you were born abroad, a birth certificate doesn’t show whether you became a citizen, or were in the US on a visa or green card – none of which is relevant to whether you are properly allowed to drive a car in the US.

                If you were born in the US, a birth certificate doesn’t show whether you’ve renounced your citizenship (as unlikely as that is).Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

            And they’re still doing it.

            Kansas Secretary of State Warns Illegal Voters Could Tip Election

            Trump= Republicans=TrumpReport

        • Kolohe in reply to Tod Kelly says:

          Tod Kelly: It’s not a threat to Democracy, but the level of coverage is warranted.

          Then, would you accept the level of *analysis* is overblown? I’m fine with the lead headline from last night being about “I’ll keep you in suspense”. But there was a whole bunch of hot takes within the past 16 or so hours that what Trump did *was* a threat to Democracy. (and a unique and unprecedented threat to democracy at that.)Report

      • Kim in reply to notme says:

        Less astroturf this time?
        Fewer planned riots by the Bush people?Report

      • Don Zeko in reply to notme says:

        The difference is that Gore accepted the result after exhausting the normal legal means available to him, even though he (unlike Trump, who is about to lose in a landslide) could have* made a strong case that the result was rigged. This isn’t complicated, dude.

        *But shouldn’t have, for the record.Report

      • Mo in reply to notme says:

        The difference is that the recount was triggered, automatically by Florida law*. There’s a difference between “The system is rigged and I will not accept the results it spits out” and “I will not concede until the system finishes its process.” There was sufficient uncertainty where waiting until the recount was complete and the electoral college results were certified by the state was permissible, but also does not call into question our democratic system and norms.

        * I would also say this is the difference between Norm Coleman (who did not receive the same criticism as TrumpReport

        • notme in reply to Mo says:

          You seem to ignore the fact that Gore didn’t accept the recount process and went to court to get them to change the rules mid game.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to notme says:

            After the election, Gore looked at uncertain results and sought clarity through legal means.

            Before the election, Trump is saying any unfavorable results are illegitimate and won’t be accepted. He has not made clear what actions, if any, he may take.Report

            • dragonfrog in reply to Kazzy says:

              I would hesitate to attribute anything Trump does to a coherent plan, so i won’t suggest this is his strategy – but i worry that his actions are going to trigger wide scale violence when he loses (and small scale violence during the election, since he’s calling for people who are too dumb to maintain a pretence that “voter fraud” means anything but “black people voting” to act as self appointed election monitors).Report

              • Will Truman in reply to dragonfrog says:

                What I think is most likely to happen:

                Election night, he concedes. No riots. (As Vikram says, shortly thereafter he will say he is actually better off having lost.)

                Followed by years and years of saying that he would have won if he had contested the election. Either that or saying, to his grave, that the fraudulent result was the system being stacked against him but he did his patriotic duty by accepting the unfair result.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Will Truman says:

                I think both are possible.

                I also think the world is littered with faux tough guys and this might end up being much ado about nothing in the end.

                Groupthink is powerful. When you’re at a rally outnumbering your opponents 10000-to-1, one asshole can cause a real problem.

                But are people going to get off their couch and cause trouble? The assholes, yes, but the others probably not.Report

              • dhex in reply to Kazzy says:

                trumpista riots after the election? I’ll take that bet. no way it happens.

                where? in a cornfield? the rural/urban divide makes rioting very difficult.

                furthermore, it’s a fantasy, like “riots by white supremacists following obama’s election” was. (or “riots by urban obama supporters wink wink nudge nudge if he loses in 2008”).

                it’s all part of this “those who disagree with me are genuinely evil” thing americans like to do. why? i dunno. probably because they’re stupid. and evil.Report

              • dragonfrog in reply to dhex says:

                I very much hope you’re right and I’m wrong.Report

              • dhex in reply to dragonfrog says:

                i was kinda hoping you’d bet me money.

                also this is a fairly common fantasy. “not my president” hordes etc etc etc. notme has a similar version floating around his noggin, no doubt.

                i think it’s such a common fantasy because it fulfills a need for unambiguous emotional feelings. (evil is evil and thus everything you do is awesome because they’re bad! which means what we do is automatically good, and perhaps even great!)

                tl;dr election years yeeshReport

              • Kazzy in reply to dhex says:

                I don’t think the assholes will amount to much especially when they realize they’re alone.

                What’s that quote about knowing when it’s time to revolt? If you go to your front porch ready to revolt and look up and down the street and you’re the only one out there, it isn’t time to revolt. My hunch is that’s the feeling most of these assholes will have on Wednesday morning and they’ll go back to the interwebz to ferment.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Will Truman says:

                Most Trump supporters are comfortably middle class, the sort of people who have too much to lose by rioting.
                They’ll bitch and sulk but ultimately sack up and go to work on Wednesday.Report

              • notme in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Unlike Dem supports who will riot and loot for almost any reason?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to notme says:

                How do think I furnished my house?Report

              • Kim in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                My house is furnished with bribes and ill-gotten gains.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to dragonfrog says:


                The thing about sustained political violence is that it takes a dedicated and large number of young men to carry out. Political revolutions (left and right-wing) have always depended on the passions of young people.Report

              • Kim in reply to Saul Degraw says:

                Ah, it’s true what they say.
                Ignorance is in fact bliss.

                Young men may march as they will, without the Powers that Be giving a flying fuck. It’s when the young women march, that the Powers that Be intervene.Report

            • Damon in reply to Kazzy says:

              “Before the election, Trump is saying any unfavorable results are illegitimate and won’t be accepted.”

              Actually, according to the link Saul provided, Trump said ““I will look at it at the time,” Mr. Trump said.” Unless he said somewhere else/different time he wouldn’t accept a loss, blaming it on a rigged election, your statement is false.Report

          • Mo in reply to notme says:

            Gore questioned the recount process as executed by Katherine Harris and challenged her interpretation of the law. Going to the courts to get a determination is precisely what the system of checks and balances is for. If I challenge a parking ticket, does that mean I do not accept the existence of parking regulations?Report

          • PD Shaw in reply to notme says:

            I don’t think the comparison is apt because Trump appears to be prejudging future events, though I think its worth pointing out that Gore, according to Gallup, was always viewed favorably by the American people until the recount:

            11/4-5/2000 56% favorabile / 39% unfavorable
            11/7/2000 Election Day
            11/13-15/2000 53% favorable/ 44% unfavorable
            12/2-4/2000 46% favorable/ 52% unfavorable

            IOW, if you believe they are comparable, its not as if the public liked how Gore handled the post-election issues.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      It’s generally par for the course for Troo Bleebers to scream “THE ELECTION WAS RIGGED!” for however many years. It’s bad for the people at the top level to do so.

      Like really bad.

      Like bad to the point where it is in the Dems’ best interest to agree that Trump was an anomaly and doesn’t represent Republicans bad.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

        I don’t follow the logic.
        Trump is the natural outcome of the Republican party base. He isn’t an anomaly, he represents the actual beliefs of millions of the party faithful.

        Even if he were to vanish in a puff of smoke tomorrow, there are millions of Republicans firmly convinced that ACORN is busing in swarthy Mexicans to vote.

        What benefit is there in ignoring this?Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          The benefit? We’ll forgive this transgression and try to move back to a trust/collaboration relationship with you where we can get Good Government back to work.

          If you want to say “I don’t trust those motherfathers and I will not collaborate with them” (something that you have every justification to say, let me point out), you find yourself in a situation where, were this a marriage, there’d be reason for the two of you to get a divorce.

          And there’s a point in any marriage where you have to say “okay, we’re going to forgive and pretend it didn’t happen” *OR* “get the eff out of my house, I never want to interact with you again”.

          If you want a happy marriage, you want the former.Report

          • Morat20 in reply to Jaybird says:

            I dunno, we seem to be wandering the line called “Hostage taking”.

            There was a bit of that back with the last government shutdown, but Trump’s moving onto dictator territory with the “I’ll accept no election results that don’t have me winning”.

            What does a couple do when one them keeps picking up a gun, waving it around, and saying “It’d be a shame if something….unfortunate….occurred”.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Morat20 says:

              At that point, you’re stuck either getting an amicable divorce or an acrimonious one.

              Or, I suppose, locking the other in the basement and giving speeches about how they need to put the gun down because they’d be nothing without you.Report

    • Looks like a fairly large number of Republicans are backing away from this already. Not surprising — if Clinton wins in some traditionally red states, a claim that those were rigged would be, in effect, accusing Republican state- and county-level officials of doing the rigging. Or tolerating it. Or being incompetent to the point of not finding it.

      Six or so years back one of the people running to be the Republican candidate for governor here ran on the voter fraud issue. The Republican-dominated county clerks association took the unusual step of actively opposing him.Report

      • Morat20 in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Large numbers of Republican leaders. Who, I might add, were pretty roundly repudiated by a big chunk of their own base.

        That’s kind of the problem. Trump’s running around as the GOP candidate because those leaders let the genie out of the bottle. (Well, to be honest, it’s more like they found the genie, coaxed it out of the bottle, fed it red meat, and kept it pointed at their enemies until the genie realized that the GOP was lying to it a lot).

        It’s not going to go back in. 2020 isn’t going to suddenly be a primary full of sober businessmen debating calmly, or at least not for very long.

        Because the same rabid base that supported Trump (roughly a third of the GOP base) isn’t going to quietly go back to it’s room now that it’s realized it can seize power. They’re going to have to pander to it, loudly and competitively, or get crushed by it.

        Those GOP leaders can’t win an election without the 2/3rds of their voters who love this stuff, and they certainly can’t win it with the 1/3 that’s appalled. (Those numbers are roughly the numbers of GOP voters who were “Support Trump” and “Ditch Trump” right after his Access Hollywood stuff came out).Report

        • Brandon Berg in reply to Morat20 says:

          Those numbers are roughly the numbers of GOP voters who were “Support Trump” and “Ditch Trump” right after his Access Hollywood stuff came out

          There are a certain percentage of voters who will support the Republican or Democratic nominee no matter what. It’s not clear how much of this support is genuine support for Trump, and how much is, “Well, at least he’s not a Democrat.”Report

          • Relatedly, everyone knows my feelings on Trump but if I’d been polled I would have said not to ditch him.

            That said, a little shy 2/3 of Republicans have a “favorable” opinion of him, so they’re not necessarily all that reluctant in terms of support. Though “favorable” and “don’t plan to vote” isn’t the same as “Want the next nominee to be like him” (especially after he loses). On the first hand, Republicans are going to be more ready for it next time around and that’s been shown to make a difference. One the second, Ted Cruz came in #2 and that doesn’t breed confidence.

            There are a lot of scenarios for what’s going to happen when this is all over. I’m not sure there are any I would bet a lot of money on.Report

          • Morat20 in reply to Brandon Berg says:

            Then there’s the breakdown of the three wings of the GOP — call it a third each. Business, evangelical, tea party* (it’s probably closer to 25/30/40 with the remnant being Ron Paul style libertarians).

            Trump won the primary on the backs of the tea party. Evangelicals came on board after, justifying to themselves that he’ll appoint the right judges. Business types, by and large, are the ones who fled. His policies are, bluntly, bad for business (not that they like Clinton’s all that much, but a sane policy you dislike you can plan for, and at least everyone else has to deal with it. She’s not nationalizing them or anything).

            So hyper-dense support from the Tea Party, tepid support from the evangelicals (who see the Supreme Court slipping away, and with it their primary goals — they’re probably right that this is do or die time on that), the business people staying out or working down-ballot exclusively.

            The Tea Party/alt-right/whatever crowd ain’t going back in the bottle. They’ve tasted blood AND the demon Clinton stole the election. The evangelicals are going to be even more frenzied in 2020, after one or more SCOTUS appointments. The business people will be sitting there saying “WE would have won” and appalled at the other two groups, trying to put them back into the bottle and vote the ‘right way’.

            The usual low turnout in 2018 is gonna see a raft of hard-right primary challenges and control of the Senate swapping back again, which will drive the “Not conservative enough!” narrative as usual (“Look! We ran ‘true conservatives’ and won!”)

            The 2020 primaries are gonna be a bloodbath, and I have no idea who on the GOP side can possibly unify all three. And demographics being what they are, they really need 90 to 95% unity to even have a long-shot at hitting 270 in the EC.

            That’s not even getting to the possibility of Trump having permanently driven some Republicans away.

            *That’s kind of unfair to the origins of the tea party, for the week it existed before it was coopted, but there’s not really a better term for the anti-immigration, angry, southern white male wing. The alt-right doesn’t cover them all. Probably need a better term. Trumpians? Might as well name something after him, since he’s going down in history anyways.Report

            • Brandon Berg in reply to Morat20 says:

              That’s also unfair to the South. In the primaries, Trump actually did worse there than in New England or the West Coast. He didn’t get a majority of the popular vote in any Southern state.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Brandon Berg says:

                He didn’t get a majority vote in many states at all, due to the fractured GOP primary. (But you’re right, that should read “blue collar white male wing” instead of Southern, although we’ve got a bit more than others, due to some lingering Civil War issues).

                He had about a third of the votes on lockdown from pretty early on, which trended up to about 40% deeper into the primary.

                His base is pretty firmly xenophobes, racists, the “alt-right”, the anti-establishment right, anti-immigrant right. That 30% kept him in the top-tier until others started dropping out.

                Cruz was the last man standing on the evangelical side, and Rubio and Jeb split the establishment vote.

                Southern Republicans are just as split as Republicans everywhere else.

                That’s why Clinton is polling just four points behind in Texas. A third of the GOP vote has decided it has to wash it’s hair on election day.Report

            • Saul Degraw in reply to Morat20 says:


              I would say this is a pretty good analysis. The other people who abandoned Trump were some neocons, the few Jewish conservatives, and some people smart enough to realize Trump would be a disaster.Report

      • It’s one advantage of being alt-right. You know exactly who to blame, and don;t have to explain the mechanism beyond “They’re sneaky.”Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Michael Cain says:


        Republican leaders are doing so but they are also getting punched again and again in the face by Trump. Trump is far more popular among large chunks of the GOP base than the rest of the leadership especially Ryan. Ryan is trying to fight the rigged election remarks but his popularity has collapsed from what I’ve read.Report

  5. dragonfrog says:

    When I feel too lazy to go out for food, though, I feel doubly too lazy to prepare something that requires effort.

    I find that going out to eat is almost always more work than cooking. Maybe not than cooking the particular thing I get when I go out, but more work than cooking one of the surrender day low effort fallbacks.Report

  6. Kim says:

    Jabr, Jabr, jibber-Jabr,
    How in the world does he write a story about potatoes and not include anything on Luther Burbank?Report

    • Will Truman in reply to notme says:

      Though he’s been at times passive aggressive about it since, Kerry did the right thing the day after the election.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to notme says:

      Where to begin…

      “I will share with you a very personal experience: When I ran for President of the United States, in 2004, against George Bush, in the end, on Election Day, we had problems in the state of Ohio on how the votes were taking place. I even went to court in America to keep polling places open to make sure my people could vote. I knew that even in my country, the United States, where we had hundreds of years of practicing democracy, we still had problems carrying out that election. The next afternoon, I had a meeting with my people, and I told them that I did not think it appropriate of me to take the country through three or four months of not knowing who the President was. So that afternoon in Boston I conceded to the President and talked about the need to bring the country together. . . . One of the main lessons from this is there is a future. There is a tomorrow.””

      Those are his actual words. Did he say rigged? No. He said there were problems with the election. There are problems with *every* election. What matters most is how you respond to them. Kerry, facing probably the greater disappointment of his life, responded admirably… putting country before self.

      You also don’t find this part of the gospel on the left. What laws have Democrats or liberals pursued in regards to these particular concerns about election fraud? Any? Compare that to the mainstream Republican belief about voter fraud. Well, maybe they don’t actually believe it but simply want to use it as a tool to win elections. Either way, that’s a shitty thing to do.

      So what, exactly, is your point? That John Kerry was bitter about 2004? Okay. So what? Did he do the right thing? Yes. What does that have to do with what Trump is doing now or Republicans have been doing for several election cycles now?Report

      • DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy says:

        “That John Kerry was bitter about 2004? Okay. So what? Did he do the right thing? Yes. What does that have to do with what Trump is doing now[?]”

        It’s relevant to what’s being said now because what’s also being said now is that this is some kind of Unprecedented Attack On The Fundamental Nature Of American Democracy, like we’re two weeks from a Neue Kristallnacht here.Report

        • Morat20 in reply to DensityDuck says:

          I guess if you don’t understand the problem at all, they sort of sound similar.

          Like if you have no sense of taste, wasabi coated cheetos and bland popcorn probably seem pretty close.Report

          • DensityDuck in reply to Morat20 says:

            Not a response to my post, please try again.Report

            • Morat20 in reply to DensityDuck says:

              No, I think my point was pretty clear.

              To add another example to Schilling’s list..clearly Nixon’s midnight massacre was business as normal, as those offices often change hands during an administration.

              By your logic, at least.

              But then, you seem to have some vested interest in them being the same. I have no idea why, honestly, and don’t care to speculate.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Morat20 says:

                I wrote a little scene once where Bork did the right thing and resigned rather than fire Cox. It ended:

                “I’m relying on you to follow orders. You’re our country’s last chance to avoid complete anarchy.”

                “Yes, of course Mr. President. I’ll do exactly as you say. But first I need to finish waxing the floors.”Report

          • Mike Schilling in reply to Morat20 says:

            Ir’s similar to the distinction between “I will vote agains this nominee” and “I will reject every possible nominee sign unseen”. And not too dissimilar from “So he replaced one US Attorney. Most presidents replace all of them!” Both of those seem to escape certain people.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck says:

          Being bitter = normal.
          Being a gracious loser = normal.
          Claiming an election that hasn’t even happened yet is rigged = not normal.

          It’s the difference between Seahawks fans feeling robbed after the “Fail Mary” and a team telling its fans to bring batteries and use the refs for target practice because YOU JUST KNOW they’re gonna cheat us.Report

    • Kim in reply to notme says:

      I’m sorry, but when people are literally sent to jail for what they did during an election… yeah, I’m just going to go out on a limb and say it was rigged.
      (No, this didn’t materially affect the election.)Report