This time I'll just leave it to the New York Times, which makes the right points. Note Sanders's strong support over Clinton among "independent" voters, who were allowed to participate in the Michigan primary. Rubio is toast, and stale toast at that! I guess it will come down to Trump v. Cruz, though hopefully Kasich will take Ohio away from Trump.
UPDATE: One nice thing about the Rubio disaster is it shows the limits of big money on the campaign: despite being preferred by many billionaires, Rubio is slowly going the way of Jeb Bush.
ANOTHER: The polling disaster in Michigan regarding the Democratic race. Polls have also been over-stating Trump's electoral support, but not by the order of magnitude by which they under-estimated Sanders's support in Michigan.
[W]orking-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump’s fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but “blue-collar” is one they persistently overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wanted to “engage” a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with this imaginary person’s responses to his questions....
Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years. But I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate issue, one that could even be called left-wing.
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy...
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those companies’ CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
Trump embellished this vision with another favorite left-wing idea: under his leadership, the government would “start competitive bidding in the drug industry.” (“We don’t competitively bid!” he marveled – another true fact, a legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists....
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class, which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic power brokers, what they call “free trade” is something so obviously good and noble it doesn’t require explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There’s a video going around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey, Mexico and that they’re all going to lose their jobs.
As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we’ve had in this country since the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.
Here, including ads and text. Some of the ads could be borrowed verbatim by the Democrats come the fall, but others just make clear that the likely nominee of the Republican Party has a long history of liberal positions, which might turn off the increasingly mythical "conservative" voters, but won't matter to many of those turning out to vote for him.
...from The Atlantic, commenting on a recent debate at Yale, which included philosopher Jason Stanley, whose intervention, alas, appears again not to have been helpful from the account given. Interestingly, the "there is no free speech problem on campus" position lost in a landslide with the audience after the debate!
College-educated elites, on behalf of corporations, carried out the savage neoliberal assault on the working poor. Now they are being made to pay. Their duplicity—embodied in politicians such as Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—succeeded for decades. These elites, many from East Coast Ivy League schools, spoke the language of values—civility, inclusivity, a condemnation of overt racism and bigotry, a concern for the middle class—while thrusting a knife into the back of the underclass for their corporate masters. This game has ended.
There are tens of millions of Americans, especially lower-class whites, rightfully enraged at what has been done to them, their families and their communities. They have risen up to reject the neoliberal policies and political correctness imposed on them by college-educated elites from both political parties: Lower-class whites are embracing an American fascism....
The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by anointing Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate. She epitomizes the double-dealing of the college-educated elites, those who speak the feel-your-pain language of ordinary men and women, who hold up the bible of political correctness, while selling out the poor and the working class to corporate power.
The Republicans, energized by America’s reality-star version of Il Duce, Donald Trump, have been pulling in voters, especially new voters, while the Democrats are well below the voter turnouts for 2008. In the voting Tuesday, 5.6 million votes were cast for the Democrats while 8.3 million went to the Republicans. Those numbers were virtually reversed in 2008—8.2 million for the Democrats and about 5 million for the Republicans....
Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, which we knew after her landslide victory in South Carolina and her respectable victory in Nevada. The problem facing Bernie Sanders is pretty simple: African-Americans are not voting for him in meaningful numbers. Clinton won by lopsided margins in all the Southern states (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, Virginia), and also squeaked out a victory in Massachussetts. Sanders carried his home state, Vermont, by a landslide, but much more interestingly won by sizeable margins in Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Colorado; neither Colorado nor Minnesota has a large African-American population, but Colorado has many Hispanics, who, as Nevada showed, are more receptive to Sanders (I don't know the demographic on Oklahoma, but I believe it is also a fairly white state). I expect him to carry on perhaps through the convention, thus pushing Clinton to the left.
Meanwhile, in Mordor: despite being the frontrunner since forever now, Trump still can't get Republican primary voters to rally to him. Although he won seven states (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Massachussetts, Virginia, Vermont), in all but Alabama and Massachussetts (!), the next two highest vote getters got more votes than he did; indeed, Trump won three states by slender margins: Arkansas (Cruz was a close second), Virginia (Rubio), and Vermont (Kasich). In no state did he command a majority. Cruz won Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska, and Rubio won Minnesota. Kasich and Carson continue to siphon Republican votes away for no discernible purpose.
I think all Democratic and civilized voters should throw their support behind Ted Cruz at this point: unlike Trump, he has no prospect of appealing to so-called "moderate" or "independent" voters in a general election, and will be much easier for Clinton to defeat. And if he and Rubio stay in this, they may yet deprive Trump of a clear win in the delegate count come the convention, at which point the "Establishment" will block Trump (though doing so will also cost them the general election happily, as mad Trump voters either stay home or vote for him a third party candidate).
Comments are open for any thoughts from readers on this on-going circus.
ADDENDUM: This is a pretty useful analysis of how Trump under-performed expectations on Super Tuesday, and also why he will still be destroyed, if not in the nomination fight, then in the general election.
But what you don't hear much about is what German higher education is like. As the author notes, most faculty are not tenured; indeed, it is not uncommon for aspiring faculty not to find out if they will get a permanent position until they're in their 40s--and even then, many don't. Of course, for those who are Chair holders, the jobs are exceptionally attractive ones.
In light of Trump's surprisingly strong showing in a caucus state (Nevada), I think the prospect of his getting the Republican nomination is now very real. It is true I endorsed him early on for this "honor," but the fact that two-thirds of Republican voters overall have continued to prefer someone else (for more than six months now) seemed like it should cause a problem. Unfortunately, the Republican primary system is designed to produce a winner fairly quickly, even in a field where one candidate can't command a majority of the support. Here Trump has been greatly helped by the large field of competitors who have divided the vote. Rubio--whose substantive policy positions are basically the usual insane Republican fare--has failed to win a single contest to date; unless the "anyone but Trump" vote coalesces around him soon (i.e., by next Tuesday, when there are eight primaries!), one wonders how much longer the "big money" will back him. Cruz is simply too much of a narcissistic sociopath--on a par with Trump, though Trump is less of a sociopath--to drop out, especially since he's actually won a primary (Iowa). Of course, if Rubio and Cruz stay in the race to the end, they and others might well have enough delegates to stop Trump at the convention, if they can actually agree on who will get the nod (which seems doubtful).
This means the next exciting issue will be whom Trump chooses as a running mate. I'm guessing it will be one of his sons.
It's hard to know what to think of this piece: does Prof. Allen really think the Republican Presidential contenders are waiting for her advice? And how seriously should one take advice from someone who thinks it obvious that Rubio is preferable to Trump? Has she looked at Rubio's actual positions? Rhetorically, the piece is poorly done--one can't start with a Hitler comparison, and then disavow whether it is relevant!
Clinton beat Sanders by a solid margin in Nevada (about 5%), which means he's done. She will beat him in South Carolina by a larger margin next week. To be sure, I expect Sanders to hang on through the big primaries on March 1, but I think it's clear Clinton will be the nominee of the Democrats. Sanders has nonetheless accomplished something very important--millions of people in the United States have been exposed to and not quite as many have now embraced (what they think is) democratic socialism--and the prudent wing of the ruling class now knows they have to be careful going forward into the general election. Even their designated representative of prudent greed must be sure to cover her tracks as a representative of the ruling class. The generational implications of Sanders's unexpected success to date are clear.
Meanwhile in the asylum: it now seems clear that Rubio will be the nominee of the Repugs, unless he has another "Christie moment" The relevant fact is not that Trump won in South Carolina's primary--one which allowed independents to vote--it's that he failed to outperform the polls and failed, still, to capture more than a third of the Republican primary voters. Even though South Carolian is full of right-wing evangelical Christian voters, Rubio kept pace with, and maybe even beat, Cruz. The pressure on Bush and Kasich to drop out will be substantial now, so that the imprudent wing of the ruling class can coalesce behind a well-behaved water boy like Rubio.
So within a few weeks, it will be clear that the fall contest for leadership of the most dangerous nation on earth will be between Clinton and Rubio. Clinton will choose an Hispanic running mate, and the Republicans will go down to massive defeat this fall. (Most Hispanic voters are not well-disposed to Cuban-Americans like Rubio, but to be safe Clinton will choose a Mexicaon-American running mate, which will insure her victory.) This will be good, all things considered, for vulnerable people in the U.S., and a matter of indifference to vulnerable people elsewhere.
FEB. 21 UPDATE: So Bush has officially dropped out of the race, and Rubio did beat Cruz by .2%--but to have done so in South Carolina, where two-thirds of the primary voters are evangelical Christians, is remarkable and bodes ill for Cruz. Of course, if Cruz drags this out, then Trump could continue to prevail just with his one-third of the vote. The Nevada caucus will be revealing--Rubio has campaigned hard there, and we know from Iowa, that caucuses do not favor Trump's, whose ground organization is thin and whose whim voters are less likely to caucus. If Rubio can win Nevada, that should shift the momentum on the Republican side his way--not that I'm hoping for that! It would be wonderful if Trump were the Republican nominee, as it would guarantee that women, Latinos, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and young people vote by landslide proportions for the Democrats.
ANOTHER: Robert Paul Wolff thinks that the winner-take-all nature of most (all?) of the Republican primaries gives Trump a clear path to the nomination.
HuffPo has a good summary of the latest dispute among the fake oracles, including the damning observation by James Galbraith that the critics didn't actually bother to examine the analysis they attacked! Astrologists behave better than these folks.
ADDEMDUM: It's a good time to revisit this piece by philosopher Alex Rosenberg (Duke).
Funny remarks by philosophy James Lenman (Sheffield) on Facebook that he kindly gave me permission to post here:
Universities are buinesses. Students are customers. So say people who think they are being hard-headed and unsentimental and living in the real world. In fact they are none of those things. You only need to look at seriously rich universities. The richest universities on the planet these days are the great American private universities. And why are they as rich as they are? In a nutshell: because endowments. People give them shedloads of money because people believe in and care about what they do. And people believe in and care about what they do because they are seen to serve educational, scholarly and scientific values rather than commercial values. No one ever died and left their life savings to Walmart.
With the APA Central coming up in March here in Chicago, this overview of Chicago dining options may be helpful to some readers--and, of course, I hope it is useful to non-philosophy readers as well. As with my opinions about philosophers, I pull no punches; unlike my opinions about philosophers, the subjectivity of these judgments is probably a lot greater!
I break the restaurants into two categories, those that will run you at least $50/person (depending on how much alcohol), and maybe higher; and those where it is realistic to get away for less, and yet still have a very enjoyable meal.
EXPENSIVE (easily $50/person or more, some closer to $100/person)
The Gage serves "rustic American fare," but check out the menu to see for yourself. It's an eclectic menu and fun, and the quality of the dishes is almost always very high. One can get away for less than $50/person here depending on one's choices. It is also the only restaurant noted here that is just a couple of blocks from the Palmer House Hilton, the usual locus of the meetings of the Central Division of the APA. Do make reservations, it is a popular place and can be quite noisy as well.
Katsu is not conveniently located to anything, except the far north side of Chicago! Longtimers say it is the best sushi in Chicago, and having now been there, I concur. The prices are a bit eye-popping, but the pieces of fish served are quite generous. The hot dishes are more of a mixed bag: shrimp tempura was mediocre, but the beef & asparagus appetizer was quite appealing. But basically you come here for the sushi or sashimi. The restaurant itself is comfortable, and street parking is easy. (Be aware that another Japanese restaurant sometimes turns up if you search "Katsu Chicago"! Katsu needs to get their lawyer on that one! The preceding link gives the actual address as well as a sample menu.)
MK is one of those nouveau American places, or something like that; check out the menu. The food is always very good, often excellent. Its near northside location is reachable by a fairly short taxi ride from the Palmer House. But it ain't cheap, esp. if you order a bottle of wine. But if you do go, get an order of the fabulous pommes frites to share!
Naha is similar to MK, both in food and location (I think it's a bit closer to Palmer House actually, but still probably a cab ride). We've never had a bad meal here either.
NoMI Kitchen is probably the priciest one on this list, and it even offers sushi/sashimi, as well as many dishes you might have found at MK or Naha, but other more unusual offerings. Fabulous dining room overlooking Michigan Avenue and the old "water tower" landmark. Food is always outstanding.
MODERATE ($25-50/person, including some alcohol)
A10 is a recent addition to the generally dreadful dining scene here in Hyde Park/Kenwood, where the University of Chicago is. It is part of a university effort to increase the number of amenities in our part of town, and has been quite successful. The food is good, sometimes excellent; it is sort of Italian, though an eclectic Italian. The alcohol is overpriced, so one could exceed $50/person depending on one's choices! One probably wouldn't make a trip to the south side just to eat here, but if you're in this part of Chicago, this is the place to go. (Some oldtimers would say the same for La Petite Folie, a solid French restaurant [and more staid and quiet than A10], though I think there are plainly better French places in the city [one noted below].)
Cumin offers Indian and "modern Nepalese" cuisine, in a slightly off-the-beaten-track location, but the food is very good to excellent and the prices can't be beat. It's the best Indian we've had in Chicago (and compares favorably with the best Indian I've had in New York), but I should admit to not having been to the far North in the city where many good Indian restaurants are purported to be. (India House downtown is a fancier restaurant, in a pleasant setting, and the food is good, but not nearly as good as Cumin)
1. Justice Scalia was not, in my judgment, the most "conservative" member of the current U.S. Supreme Court. He was out-flanked on the right by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. (UPDATE: I'm amused to see that the NYT has published a chart based on an 'empirical' study that confirms what was admittedly my anecdotal impression based on reading cases.)
2. His most distinctive view--that the original public meaning (not intention of the framers) of the Constitution determines its application--has been adopted by almost no one in the judiciary, though he did succeed in making references to original meaning much more fashionable, even among liberals. (Citations to old dictionaries, as evidence of original public meaning, are now standard in court opinions, whereas they were infrequent at best thirty years ago.) He was more consistently committed to this view than most proponents of a "theory of interpretation," though he made exceptions when it suited his moral and political commitments. But his general commitment to the approach often belied his "conservative" reputation. So, for example, Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Crawford v. Washington (2004) (which I happened to teach just last week) was the single biggest windfall for criminal defendants since the 1960s. Justice Scalia held that the constitutional right of a criminal defendant to "confront" the witnesses against him demands the exclusion of many kinds of out-of-court statements that, in the past, easily came into evidence under various exceptions to the rule prohibiting hearsay. An extension of this ruling also now requires prosecutors to produce in court for cross-examination the forensic experts and lab technicians who conduct lab testing of all kinds related to a criminal case. Attempts to limit the impact of Crawford on the prosecution of criminal defendants have been led by the "liberal" Justice Sotomayor, herself a former prosecutor. (ADDENDUM: Another notable opinion, perhaps not what one would have expected, was his dissent in Hamdi.)
3. The U.S. Supreme Court, as all "insiders" know, is not a regular court, but more akin to a super-legislature, though one of limited jurisdiction. There are two limits on that jurisdiction: first, it can only make law on issues that are brought to the court; and second, existing law often restricts the range of possible new laws the Court can make. But because issues that come to the Court are usually ones where the law is quite indeterminate, and where moral and political judgment is required to resolve the case, the moral and political predilections of the super-legislators are of crucial importance in their selection. This, of course, is why the Republicans are already threatening not to approve a nominee (in the unrealistic hope that they will win back the Presidency), and the Democrats are keen to push forward: opportunities to add a super-legislator don't come up that often, after all, and their terms can extend for decades. On almost every major and controversial decision in recent years--on gay marriage, on campaign finance, on affirmative action, on the right to bear arms--the actual decisions were all legally optional, and a different mix of political and moral views on the Court would have changed the outcome.
So Sanders beat Clinton in New Hampshire, as expected, but he beat her by an unexpectedly large margin, garnering 60% of the vote, while she got less than 40%. Those margins bode ill for Clinton, happily, even though she remains likely to win South Carolina. South Carolina and Nevada will be crucial to Sanders's viability going forward. No doubt the latest Sanders victory will bring forth another round of brainless punditry from Krugman and others hoping for a Clinton Administration job.
On the Republican side, Trump out-performed the polls only slightly, garnering 35% of the vote. Oddly, this is being described as some great victory, even though the fact remains that despite name recognition and front-runner status for six months now, two-thirds of Republican voters, even in a state like New Hampshire (without a large conservative Christian vote), still want someone else. This is consistent with what we know about the extremely high "negatives" Trump has for most voters. The "moderate" conservative John Kasich, the Ohio Governor, did capture second place, as I surmised he might, with nearly 16% of the vote; the unknown is whether that will give him any momentum and increased recognition going forward. South Carolina, which is next up, is another primary (as distinct from caucus) state, and independents can vote in South Carolina, which helps Trump, but could also help Kasich. On the other hand, there is a large group of evangelical Christian voters, which will favor Cruz. While we have Governor Christie of New Jersey to thank for effectively destroying Senator Rubio (who came in 5th in New Hampshire, with about 10% of the vote)--and Christie himself will surely drop out of the race shortly--the bad news for Kasich is that "low energy" Bush got 11% of the vote in New Hampshire, effectively tying Cruz (though Cruz did come in slightly ahead of Bush, even in New Hampshire!). Bush has enormous resources, so I expect he will compete vigorously in South Carolina and Nevada, but he and Kasich are going to compete for the same set of voters--as will Rubio, assuming he remains afloat. I expect Trump will win South Carolina, and Cruz will finish a strong second. If Kasich does not come in third or better in South Carolina or Nevada, he may soon be a goner too, and Bush may be the last venal conservative who isn't an insane bomb-thrower standing! On the other hand, if Kasich can outperform Bush in South Carolina and Nevada, then he may earn that title. The huge March 1 primaries include many Southern states--where Trump and Cruz are favored as of now--but also many states (Vermont, Minnesota, Massachussetts, Colorado)--where Kasich could do well, if he's still in the race.
...taken by the North. It's indicative of the depth of ideological delusion in the United States that to this day no one in the mainstream public discussion refers to the U.S. invasion of South Vietnam, or refers to the war as an atrocity--instead, it was a "mistake" or "ill-advised."
The New Hampshire primary is tomorrow [ed.--day after tomorrow! Feb. 9], and unlike Iowa, it's a regular primary: no meeting in groups to caucus and schmooze with your fellow citizens before choosing a candidate. You just go and vote. This will favor Trump, whose ground-level organization has been fairly poor everywhere. Of course, Trump is favored in the polls, though it's worth emphasizing that despite leading in the polls here and elsewhere for many months now, he can barely crack the support of one-third of Republican voters; two-thirds still want someone else. So while Trump is expected to win New Hamphshire, the real action is who comes in second and third. New Hampshire, unlike Iowa, does not have a large bloc of evangelical Christian voters, which will be a problem for Senator Cruz from Texas; that, together with the Trump-generated perception of Cruz's dirty politics in Iowa and the doubts about his eligibility, will take the wind out of his sails, though I expect he will carry on through at least March 1.
New Hampshire has in recent cycles generally preferred so-called "moderate" Republicans, though there actually aren't any this time, unless you remember that given the freak show that is the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan would count as a moderate. The mindless journalists have taken to describing Senator Rubio as a "moderate," even though a simple comparison of his views with Senator Cruz shows how far to the right he is. Rubio is another Tea Party crazy, but unlike Cruz, he doesn't throw bombs and he doesn't grandstand quite as much: i.e., Rubio, when told by his masters not to shut down the government because it's bad for business, will listen. In a field of intellectual midgets, Rubio may stand out for being the biggest lightweight of them all, and his polish and poise may be wearing off. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if he pulls out a second place finish in New Hampshire. My bet is that the real action tomorrow will involve Governor Kasich of Ohio. Make no mistake: Kasich is extremely conservative, so much so that he'd look like a man from Mars in most other capitalist democracies. But in the current Republican field, he's easily the sanest: in Congress, he worked with Democrats on legislation; in Ohio, he took advantage of the Affordable Care Act to expand Medicaid coverage for the poor; he has criticized Trump's and other's anti-immigration hysteria. If he finishes second or third, a few things are likely to happen: Bush will probably drop out; so will Christie (who stands no chance in South Carolina or Nevada without a really strong showing in New Hampshire, which seems very unlikely); Fiorina is likely to fold too. A lot of the supporters of these candidates are more likely to migrate to Kasich than to Trump, though Rubio may pick up some as well. Carson may linger on, but expect him to be gone before the big March 1 contests. (If, in fact, Bush captures third place in New Hampshire, then all bets are off again!) While Rubio will certainly be trucking on through at least March 1, his situation is going to be compromised if he doesn't win in South Carolina or Nevada; his best bet is Nevada, especially if, by then, the field is less crowded. But until the field thins, Trump will be able to carry on with his 30% of the support. Of course, the longer Trump and Cruz last, the better for the Democrats. I predict, however, that either Rubio or Kasich will get the nomination, and that Cruz will leave the race before Trump.
You heard it here first (way back in December!): Ted Cruz, the far right religious conservative from Texas, has won Iowa with about 27% of the vote. Even more notable is Trump's weak 2nd place showing, barely defeating Senator Marco Rubio of Florida (about 24% to 22%--no polls had predicted such a strong showing for Rubio). 75% of Republican caucus goers in Iowa preferred someone other than Trump. I suspect this means Trump is finished, though he may hang on a bit longer, though his ego is going to have a tough time with this humiliating result. We can at least thank Trump for having destroyed Jeb Bush, who may get 2 or 3% of the Iowa vote when it's all over.
Meanwhile, in the actual contest between candidates who do not belong in an asylum, the 1970s Republican Hillary Clinton is neck and neck with the run-of-the-mill social democrat Bernie Sanders: with about 85% of the vote, she is ahead by only a half a percentage point and her lead has been shrinking all evening. I'd be delighted if Bernie pulls out a victory, but for it to be this close is already a victory for Sanders, and will secure his triumph in New Hampshire. The real action will then be South Carolina and Nevada on the Democratic side.
Being an early riser, I'll have to wait until morning to see the final result!
UPDATE 2/2 7:30 AM: So it's still a tie between Clinton and Sanders, with Clinton holding a very small lead of about a quarter of a percentage point. As even The New York Times, the house organ for the prudent wing of the ruling class, acknowledges, this is a victory for Sanders, and the Clintons are nervous. Meanwhile, here's Sanders's "victory" speech; open class war on behalf of the vast majority hasn't been waged like this in the U.S. since FDR. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Trump trailed Cruz by 3.5 percentage points, and only leads Rubio by about a point. Rubio, just to be clear, is as much a deranged reactionary as the other two (maybe even more so than Trump), but unlike Trump and Cruz, he's better at keeping it under wraps. So the longer Cruz and Trump continue in the campaign, the better for the Democrats, even if they nominate Clinton.
AND IN CASE YOU THOUGHT IT WASN'T A CIRCUS this story is amazing.
Continental Philosophy Farhang Erfani, a philosopher at American University, provides a useful set of links to news, events, interviews, reviews, videos, etc. related to "Continental philosophy" (broadly construed)